Her Father must be very proud

[_Some Schmo]

I dislike the word atheist for the exact reason that it leads to discussions like this. It's a dumb word, because it means different things to different people, and therefore is ineffective at accurately communicating what people mean when they say it. People using it might as well be dumb (i. e. mute).

I don't call myself an atheist. I just say that I've never heard of a god I could believe exists. You say there's a god, describe it in certain terms, and I respond with, I disagree - what you're saying sounds unlikely. That's all there is to it. That phenomenon doesn't need a label. We already have the verb "to disagree."

[_Kishkumen]

Words change their usage as the things they purport to describe change.

LOL!

Yeah, I of all people was unaware of that?

Hilarious.

[_Chap]

After all, the passive lack of belief in gods is a kind of niche definition pushed partly for ideological reasons

Not really. Words change their usage as the things they purport to describe change. Once it was very rare for children to be raised in a family context in which religious belief played no part. My wife was however raised that way, and so was one of my children, as are an increasing number of children in the culture where I am based. Theism of the Abrahamic kind is as alien and irrelevant to them as animism.

They are atheists in a different way from (say) the embattled atheists of 19th century England, who defined themselves by their rejection of belief. There just aren't any gods in their mental world at all, and never have been, though they are well aware through their education that some people think and have thought differently.

If they are not atheists, who is?

LOL!

Yeah, I of all people was unaware of that?

Hilarious.

Somehow that does not quite seem to meet the point I made. But, as they say, thanks for playing.

[_honorentheos]

I dislike the word atheist for the exact reason that it leads to discussions like this. It's a dumb word, because it means different things to different people, and therefore is ineffective at accurately communicating what people mean when they say it. People using it might as well be dumb (i. e. mute).

I don't call myself an atheist. I just say that I've never heard of a god I could believe exists. You say there's a god, describe it in certain terms, and I respond with, I disagree - what you're saying sounds unlikely. That's all there is to it. That phenomenon doesn't need a label. We already have the verb "to disagree."

I generally don't either, though there are circumstances where it is the only response that clearly says I'm not interested in whatever someone is selling.

I also wasn't clear before and should have said I viewed subbies use to be narrowly selective which is where the problem lies. Of course I would not reject that definition and it is the one that might be most accurate for describing my view if I had to choose between atheist, theist or soft agnostic. Agnostic is too open ended for me, where I prefer to use the term skeptic when asked. It works very well when dealing with Mormon family and acquaintances. It is a rational position to have in relation to the truth claims of the church when placed next to the history of the church. It leaves them to claim they prefer faith without needing to get too personal. It also works with Christianity and other faiths where I have enough familiarity to actually be skeptical rather than just that oblivious.

But when it comes to my daughter, she was not a believer by default. It wasn't skepticism or agnosticism towards god, it was non-belief. Believers who took it on themselves to make that into something just added their own behaviour to these weird fairy tales about people doing thing that in every other book are easily understood to be fiction. So, the spectrum is much broader than subbie allows.

[_Some Schmo]

So, the spectrum is much broader than subbie allows.

Well, if it were just an issue with sub, it could easily be dismissed. Unfortunately, he's only one of many propagating a caricature of what it means to not infect your brain with supernatural beliefs.

[_Amore]

One must be taught to be an atheist as well. One can not "reject" what one does not know. Furthermore, I dare to say that no one knows what an infant believes or does not believe when it is born - their communication skills are rather rudimentary.

Good point. Based on various development theories, babies look to their parents/caregivers as gods who provide and know all.

[_Amore]

I dislike the word atheist for the exact reason that it leads to discussions like this. It's a dumb word, because it means different things to different people, and therefore is ineffective at accurately communicating what people mean when they say it. People using it might as well be dumb (i. e. mute).

I don't call myself an atheist. I just say that I've never heard of a god I could believe exists. You say there's a god, describe it in certain terms, and I respond with, I disagree - what you're saying sounds unlikely. That's all there is to it. That phenomenon doesn't need a label. We already have the verb "to disagree."

I agree mostly. The word Atheist is an attempt to categorize a person’s thoughts - which implies herd mentality. And often herd mentality leans toward unintelligent & insane more than independent thought.

[_Amore]

If you have incompatible definitions of atheism, it’s doubtful that saying his definition is wrong will change his mind. After all, the passive lack of belief in gods is a kind of niche definition pushed partly for ideological reasons. Don’t get me wrong: it is clever and appealing in certain ways. But the historical roots of the word as indicating unconventional or disloyal views are very culturally powerful and not incorrect.

Yes, Atheism is ideological group thought, historically based on rejection of theism. There is no one word that can describe an independent thinker’s beliefs. And there are so many religions and so many interpretations of God that to claim to know them all thoroughly enough to deny them all would be pretending self-omniscience.

A lot of people who grew up with a life-consuming cult and then leave it struggle to fill the massive void - so some adopt Atheism, leftist ideologies etc, and call their own versions of “apostate” to anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. Just a new version of the old.

[_Chap]

Yes, Atheism is ideological group thought, historically based on rejection of theism. There is no one word that can describe an independent thinker’s beliefs. And there are so many religions and so many interpretations of God that to claim to know them all thoroughly enough to deny them all would be pretending self-omniscience.

As I have carefully explained already, I am acquainted with people in whose lives theism (or indeed any other system of belief and practice generally characterised as a religion) has never played any part. They don't devote any significant time to thinking about religion, and if anyone tries to get them interested they may listen politely, but they simply don't see the point of talking about that kind of thing. They are atheists under any reasonable usage of the term.

Obviously no single word can serve as a complete characterisation of anybody - but if religion is the topic, atheist is a reasonable word to use for the people I have described, just as (if politics is the topic) they might be called conservative, liberals, libertarians, socialists, ethnic nationalists, or whatever term or combination of terms suits them best. What's the problem here?

There may no doubt be other kinds of atheists, including ones (relatively few in fact) who spend a lot of time trying to persuade others to give up theism. But they are not by any means the only kind of atheist, and as the practice of religion comes to play a smaller and smaller part in many societies, the former kind is likely to predominate.

Speaking for myself, I don't rule out completely the possibility that someone, sometime may manage to describe some version of the Abrahamic deity in terms that make sense, and then convince me that such an entity actually exists. But I have heard and read a lot of attempts to do one or both of those things, and found all of them unconvincing. Given that life is short, energy is limited, and there are many more profitable and interesting things to do than keep on reading reams and reams of theist apologetics, I don't propose to devote much further attention to the topic, not because I think I think I am omniscient, but because I am frankly a bit bored with the whole business.

[_honorentheos]

Speaking for myself, I don't rule out completely the possibility that someone, sometime may manage to describe some version of the Abrahamic deity in terms that make sense, and then convince me that such an entity actually exists. But I have heard and read a lot of attempts to do one or both of those things, and found all of them unconvincing. Given that life is short, energy is limited, and there are many more profitable and interesting things to do than keep on reading reams and reams of theist apologetics, I don't propose to devote much further attention to the topic, not because I think I think I am omniscient, but because I am frankly a bit bored with the whole business.

You can speak for me on this, too. Very well said.