Send in the atheists

So would you consider a new born infant an atheist or not?If not then we agree. I was not talking about those who have "decided to become part of the debate by staking out a term to describe their position".I was talking about my discomfort with calling those who have not decided anything atheists.I detest Christians calling those too immature to know any better Christians and I would not want atheism to fall foul of the same misdemenour.

No more than I would consider a cat an atheist. I don't see that it's necessary to call them anything, at this point. If they're not staking out a position in the debate, they don't have a position to describe.

If you don't consider a definition of atheist that includes lamposts and Mount Everest, as absurd then I am frankly lost for words.Whilst the implicit and explicit distinctions are there in your definition it seems disingenuous and unnecessarily inflamatoy to lump all together under the term atheist.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am still not sure if you would or would not call a cat (or a baby) an atheist or not?Whether we like it or not the fact is that our historical and cultural heritage is theistic. In addition there seems to be reasonable evidence to suggest that our culture is not alone in this respect and that there is something innate in humans that leads to cultures with theistic tendancies.In that respect atheism of the conscious decision variety is quite radical.Whilst I understand the point that I would not naturally go out of my way to describe myself as ateapotist regarding celestial teapots I would counter this with the fact that disbelief in celestial teapots is not a radical view that needs further consideration or explanation.Belief in God/gods is so historically and culturally prevalent and has had such a strong influence on the way we live today that the difference between considered disbelief and blissful ignorance of the issue is a distinction that needs to be made. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So as not to repeat myself I will refer you to my post (64) above regarding the need to distinguish between indifferent/unknowing "atheists" and considered atheists.

No! lol.... Well, sure.1) Children believe what their parents tell them.
2) Humans (most animals, actually) instinctively look for connections between events that occur in close time proximity. I agree. It's radical in the same way that the scientific method is radical; it's a conscious decision to ignore the "automatic" decision-making that our minds do in favor of an explicit, auditable method. If no-one is ignorant of the issue, I don't see the need to bend perfectly good words to describing the position of those who, by definition, have no position. We might simply call them "disinterested parties."What I oppose is the facile argument of "agnostics", who point fingers at atheists for believing the exact same thing as agnostics, only "too strongly." It's a mug's game designed to keep us at each other's throats. Christians aren't expected to sort themselves into two categories of strength of belief; you're either a member of that religion, or you're not.There are atheists who are afraid to speak up, and atheists who are not. They're both unconvinced that the intellectual case for God (or any gods or whatever) is sufficient. Agnostics are just people who are unwilling to say so very loudly. It's the same with the "weak/strong" atheist false dichotomy.There are people who see that the intellectual case for gods is objectively insufficient, and there are people who refuse to see this or just don't care. The first are atheists, the second are theists.

Phew! The thought of myself and my cat giving each other knowing looks regarding our mutual atheism over a bowl of warm milk was too much for me to cope with. Try telling that to some of the dispirate Christian elements here at EvC...........Well on the whole I agree with what you say.I mght conceivably call someone actively in the process of researching the quetion of God/gods but as yet undecided an "agnostic" but to all practical intents and purposes I would agree the term is a copout.

Why on earth is it inflammatory to call a lamppost atheistic? It certainly isn't theistic. Nor is it moral: indeed lampposts are amoral (hopefully that isn't too inflammatory).

It's nonsensical, like "a pink idea" or "a brunette dumptruck." It's the category error of the inappropriate descriptor.

Applying the term atheist as some sort of natural state of all things is going to understandably provoke the theists.It is contentious enough pointing out to theists the irrationality of their position without declaring that their TV sets, chairs and pet rabbits are all atheists as well.Calling a cat or a lamppost atheistic just seems not only silly but unnecessarily antagonistic in a way that is not very constructive or conducive to sensible debate on the subject of theism Vs atheism.Edited by Straggler, : add quote

Since the theists position is often that we are special and apart from nature, I don't see that as being the case. Almost every entity in this universe has nothing to do with belief in god. I don't see it as antagonistic to talk about the lack of belief of a lamppost or its lack of a moral framework. Humans are the only entity that we can say with any surety is theistic in any sense. Humans are atypical and asymmetric, we are bipedal and tetrapodal, but we are all born ateapotist and a-FSMists. I don't see how the fact that we are born atheistic should be of any interest. It lasts until we are taught about theism, which isn't a long at all.Still - it is a fairly irrelevant aside to the topic at hand since we are only talking about atheistic humans and their distribution.

At the end of the day words mean whatever they are used to mean so your rather broad definition of the word atheist is only as accurate as it is used.
There are evidently people here who would subscribe to your view but I think that you would have trouble convincing the vast majority of people that a tree, electron or chicken nugget should be described as atheist given the common usage of the word. I also don't think it does the atheist cause much good to insist on doing so. The implicit suggestion that we are so unspecial as to all be atheistically united with lampposts etc. and that this somehow makes considered atheism more "natural" than theism in some way is both disingenuous and antagonistic.
In fact as considered atheists we share infinitely more in common with our theistic opposites than we do our fellow "atheist" lampposts. Consciousness, humanity and a conclusion on the question of theism to name but a few obvious examples. Fair enough. Although by your definition a baby boom in any particular geographical location would cause a whole lot of extra "atheists" to suddenly appear on the scene.......I'll restrict posts here to comments on the distribution of considered atheists from now on.

The electron problem probably could be solved by looking at dictionary definitions of "atheist" which usually say something like "someone who does not believe in God, Gods or deities", thus leaving us with the baby, but not the electron.However, in a way I agree with your definition. The baby will at some point qualify as having the potential for a belief in Gods, at which point it will still be an atheist unless exposed to the concept of a God or Gods that it accepts as true.If the parents aren't theists, and the exposure to God "X" is coming from a more remote source, then I think that the child is unlikely to become an active believer in God "X".Free associating back in the direction of the O.P., the non-religious faction is definitely gaining ground, and may overtake Hinduism and move into third place behind Christianity and Islam in the next decade or two.I, for one will be celebrating, and I predict that "no religion" will be the largest belief/non-belief sector by the end of this century. Edited by bluegenes, : missing word!Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That is like asking all of the people whose favorite color is blue to organize. Why is there a need for a lobby?

---

This is part of why: Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What would atheists advocate?

---

The separation of Church and State.

quote:

---

The only thing that the vast majority atheists would probably tend to agree with is the maintenance of a secular state, and, heck, EVERYONE who is not (in the U.S.) an evangelical Christian conservative (and that includes most religious people) is going to support that as well.

---

Then why aren't mainstream religious people speaking up about the erosion of the separation of Church and State that started in earnest under Reagan and continues to this day? Edited by nator, : No reason given.