Church of the Athiest

[PavlovianModel146]

Dear Everyone,

I am here today to suggest that all Athiests congregate and create a formal church of the Athiest and make Athiesm a formal Religion. There are those that vehemently oppose the thought of Athiesm being declared an actual Religion and in support of this nonsensical opposition, they cite that Athiests do not actually believe in anything. I would first like to declare that the statement is wrong, any negative statement can be turned into a positive, so we can say that Athiests believe there is not a God.

Thiests also suggest that Athiests do not have faith in anything. This can be opposed by stating that Athiests have faith that there is not a God, otherwise Pascal's Wager would look far more attractive to them.

It is very important to note, that unlike other Religions, Athiesm does not necessarily need to actively, "Win," converts. Consider this, many people that were of other Religions may wake up one day and question their own faith in whatever God or Gods they have. Athiests did not cause them to do this. Unlike other Religions where the concept of God, or at least certain definitions of God are created by man, the Athiests did not create lack of God. This is obvious when it is considered that for something not to exist, it cannot be created because if it was created, then it would exist. However, for someone to convert to Christianity, one must read, hear, see or touch Christ in some way to know of Christ even conceptually, this empirical data is not required to not believe in a God.

It is very important, however, that Athiesm become a Religion that way certain benefits such as tax-exemption from State and Local Sales taxes become attainable for Athiest functions. As it stands, people who are on official Athiest business or making official Athiest purchases are unfairly paying sales taxes that other Religions do not have to pay and are therefore costing themselves money. Furthermore, official Athiest property is also being subject to unfair taxes.

The question has often been asked, if they are a Religion or Church, why do they not gather? The simple answer is, yes, Religious Persecution. If you think certain Religions have it badly in Western Society now, just try erecting a Church of Athiesm, I guarantee you some half-whacked Jehovah's Witness burns that bad boy down in less than a day. In addition to that, cops would unfairly Judge based on Religious Beliefs and be sitting outside of the place pulling people over completely at random just assuming they did something. It would be like 2a.m. at the bar that sits in the middle of nowhere but is just within city limits!

Thanks to the expanding of this mass communication network known as the Internet, however, it is possible for Athiests to congregate on Message Boards to spread the Non-Word. There are other ways Athiests can get the word out there as well, and for this cues must be taken from Christian Religions, because if nothing else, they are good sales people.

Athiests, for example, could behave such as the Jehovah Witness or the Mormon and simply go door-to-door:

"Good afternoon, sir, my name is David Andrews from the Second Reformed Babylonian Church of Athiesm and I wanted to see if you could spare a moment to talk. I understand that like everyone else you lead a very busy life, but have you ever had the opportunity to sit down with someone and talk to them, as a friend, about the complete absence of a God? You see, sir, you don't need to have a God to accept into your life provided you simply accept your life. Now, in seven half-hour sessions I can have you ready to pay a visit to the Church of the Athiest whereupon the secrets to getting your head out of your ass will be shown to you."

There are also other ways to go about it, for instance, you could pay thousands of dollars as the Christians do to place pamphlets that get stuck unnoticed in the windshield wipers of cars and result in $500 littering tickets when they fly out in the middle of the highway.

Or, you could recruit an Army such as The Gideons to disseminate your Religious materials in hotels, motels and inns across the entire world! Of course, your book will probably not be quite as long as the Bible, but it will still serve to get someone through a particularly nasty session on the toilet.

The most important way you can give, though, is from the heart. And, by the heart, I mean, wallet. You can only learn to make people do this through careful observation, though. Go to a Catholic Church, notice how on a slow day they move all the people toward the front and close together prior to the offering. Have to get that peer pressure going on, oh shit, is the guy sitting next to me pulling out a ten!? Do I even have a ten!? Two fives!? Damn, my suit has to be at least $200 more than this guy's, I need to pull out at least a twenty, here. GODDAMNIT!!! I only have a fifty, why didn't I stop at the gas station?

Of course, those are only the obvious ways to earn Athiest converts and money for the Chruch of the Athiest, but there are other ways that you, YE$ YOU, can further the cause of this Church. For 4 easy payments of just $69.99 plus Shipping and Handling and State Tax (We're working on that) where applicable, you can get, "How to Win Converts and Cash," on VHS or DVD.

But wait, that's not all...

If you call within the next twenty minutes, we'll throw the new book by the Non-Prophet, Matt Anthony, titled, "Athiesm, It's Just as Marketable," this book will share inside secrets of Athiesm, Christian Religions and will also demonstrate how Scientology created its vast financial empire.

But, "You have to call in the next twenty minutes, because we can't do this all day folks!"*

By creating your own Athiest Church, you can rake in the dough and this is your chance to get in on the ground floor, so make sure to take advantage of this tremendous offer.

We accept MasterCard, Visa, Discover, American Express and Diner's Club. We also accept Money Orders, sorry, no Checks or C.O.D.'s.

*This quote is actually taken directly from the ShamWow commercials starring Vince, the ShamWow guy. He's hilarious. You should also look out for his infomercial about the SlapChop, in it he takes an old school cheese-grater and throws it into a sink behind him, behind-the-back, no-look and over the shoulder. One take.

(Everything above is a complete joke and is meant to be taken as such)

[Oughtist]

Hey Pav,

Athiests did not create lack of God.

Just for argument's sake, I'll argue against that. But first I gotta go do the reply rounds. Then I'll finish reading the OP.

[xzc]

Doesn't being religious require more than simply believing one thing granting for sake of argument that it can be said atheists believe one thing.

[PavlovianModel146]

Doesn't being religious require more than simply believing one thing granting for sake of argument that it can be said atheists believe one thing.

Nope, sure doesn't. I know that you are going to fire back with codified morals and manners of behaviour from other Religions, but that all leads back to satisfying the God or Gods, which is essentially just that one belief. The difference between the Religion of Athiesm and other Religions, is that you can have your one Religious belief without all sorts of other bullshit having to follow the possession of this belief as a result.

How can you say that Athiests do not believe in something? They believe there is not a God, unless you want to say that they know, but I don't see how they can know when it is impossible to prove a metaphysical negative.

[xzc]

In my atheist capacity I only lack a belief in God. That's all anyone can validly infer from me being an atheist. Empirically, you can infer with some good probability of being right that I also believe God doesn't exist, but the term atheism itself doesn't definitionally imply that I do have this belief. The belief that God doesn't exist is, basically, unnecessary for me to be an atheist. It is why imo it'd be a good idea to separate the two states. Maybe use the term antitheist or something like that to refer to someone's belief that God doesn't exist. Or you could just say that, instead of using a label to refer to it.


It's like infering that communists lack capital. If you meet a communist, chances are they don't have any, but this doesn't meant you should tack on poverty to the idea of communism.

[Oughtist]

Ok, so I haven't quite finished reading the OP, but I've got some ideas, so I'll just go with it, in the spirit of things, so to speak, if you will, in other words, and all that.

We'll need to focus in on the Liturgy of Atheismianity.

First, pace my position that Atheists actually did create the absense of God, we need to find some way of giving humble thanks to theists for creating God(s), such that we might provide a calming and respectful transition through the advent of H(is/er/its) death. From hereonin, I propose we make reference to Hiserits, or H, for short.

Atheismianity wrote:

We thank you, H, for Being there. Truly we do.

[Oughtist]

We may also note that when H lies on its side, it becomes I.

[PavlovianModel146]

In my atheist capacity I only lack a belief in God. That's all anyone can validly infer from me being an atheist. Empirically, you can infer with some good probability of being right that I also believe God doesn't exist, but the term atheism itself doesn't definitionally imply that I do have this belief. The belief that God doesn't exist is, basically, unnecessary for me to be an atheist. It is why imo it'd be a good idea to separate the two states. Maybe use the term antitheist or something like that to refer to someone's belief that God doesn't exist. Or you could just say that, instead of using a label to refer to it.

You're absolutely correct and I was hoping that you would bring it up. That's exactly why there must be separate Denominations of Athiesm so that no particular form of Athiest or Anti-Thiest be excluded. Look at the Apostolics, on the Christian side of things, for example. Those guys are hard-core, they are practically just like the Amish, except they can have electricty. Women can't cut their hair, wear skirts or pants, have make-up or wear any jewelry aside from a wedding ring, but they want their electricity.

Small differences, in that case, but you're talking about a big difference. That requires some differentiation. Just make sure not to differentiate too much, otherwise you'll create a market so niche that you'll never make any money out of this.

It's like infering that communists lack capital. If you meet a communist, chances are they don't have any, but this doesn't meant you should tack on poverty to the idea of communism.

That's true, also. We're not really going to talk about Communism in this thread, though. One, because the U.S.S.R. did everything except kill people that had a Religious belief, but also because Religion is supposed to be a tool of Capitalism anyway. You can ask the TV Evangelist if he does it out of a love of God, and if he is on TV, it will seem believable. Ask when he is in his Maserati on his way to the airport to take a private jet (that he owns) out to Vegas to consort with some of the most expensive showgirls and lose hundreds of thousands at blackjack, lighting cigars off of C-Notes. Big Pimpin', ask him then, and it won't seem so believable.

Just remember if you want to make money for yourself, erm, I mean, your Athiest Denomination, stay credible, man, stay credible.

[Oughtist]

In my atheist capacity I only lack a belief in God.

I'm raising a son outside of the church, and I pray that your contention is valid.

That said, I would claim that an Atheist's claim that there is only a benign negation going on here is either deceptive or self-deceiving. Let me share my raisin about Atheism creating the lack of H:

1) There is no hunger without food.

2) There is not Atheism without Theism.

3) Spirit is a many-splendored thing.

4) H is not the only source of nutrition.

5) Competition kills absolutes.

6) Hiserits (aka God) is dead.

7) This could not have occured without the evolution of appreciation for the true broader source of nutrients.

There is no name for that source, as nouns are not appropriate.

9) Atheism points to that lack, indeed created it (as a panorama for consciousness) despite the odds.

[PavlovianModel146]

2) There is not Atheism without Theism.

If God did not even exist conceptually, then nobody would believe in God. A lack of belief in God is Athiesm. Because nobody would believe in any God, everybody would be an Athiest. Not believing in God would simply be the natural (and only) state of affairs.

I agree that without Theism, we would not coin such a term as, "Atheism," but it does not mean that without the potential for a belief in God it would be impossible not to believe in a God/God (s). In fact, without that potential, it would only follow that we would not believe in a God.

1) There is no hunger without food.

Take food away, all of it, right now, gone. Will I not still starve to death?

[Oughtist]

1) There is no hunger without food.

Take food away, all of it, right now, gone. Will I not still starve to death?

Oh ya, for sure. And you'll know it. You know food.

2) There is not Atheism without Theism.

If God did not even exist conceptually, then nobody would believe in God. A lack of belief in God is Athiesm. Because nobody would believe in any God, everybody would be an Athiest. Not believing in God would simply be the natural (and only) state of affairs.

I agree that without Theism, we would not coin such a term as, "Atheism," but it does not mean that without the potential for a belief in God it would be impossible not to believe in a God/God (s). In fact, without that potential, it would only follow that we would not believe in a God.

A lack of belief in Plubadoo is Aplubadooism. Except for that South American tribe which, allegedly, has no conception of Theity, the rest of us are stuck with the fact that God is a formative concept in our belief pool. As I mentioned to xzc, I personally desire to believe that, absent parental communicability, a new generation of humanity might rightfully claim not to be infected by exposure to the historical theo. But I would guess that's a few generations away, at minimum. I think that fact explains alot of the atheist plight... wanting to know what it would be like to live in such a world, and "knowing" that one never will... and being reminded of the fact whenever a theist opens their mouth. [No offense intended, Theists, just trying to get a handle on myself, if you will]...

[PavlovianModel146]

A lack of belief in Plubadoo is Aplubadooism. Except for that South American tribe which, allegedly, has no conception of Theity, the rest of us are stuck with the fact that God is a formative concept in our belief pool. As I mentioned to xzc, I personally desire to believe that, absent parental communicability, a new generation of humanity might rightfully claim not to be infected by exposure to the historical theo. But I would guess that's a few generations away, at minimum. I think that fact explains alot of the atheist plight... wanting to know what it would be like to live in such a world, and "knowing" that one never will... and being reminded of the fact whenever a theist opens their mouth. [No offense intended, Theists, just trying to get a handle on myself, if you will]...

I suppose I am an Aplubadooist, then. Let me ask you this, though, before I was ever aware of Plubadoo (about forty seconds ago) I didn't believe in Plubadoo then, so was I not still an Aplubadooist? I mean, sure, I couldn't go up to someone and say that I was an Aplubadooist, but does that in any way change the fact that I did not believe in Plubadoo?

By the way, you could very easily raise an individual (in semi-isolation) and prevent any exposure to anything Theistic whatsoever. So, again, the real question here is would such an individual develop any sort of belief in any kind of God?

[Oughtist]

Ok, one more before bed...

A lack of belief in Plubadoo is Aplubadooism. Except for that South American tribe which, allegedly, has no conception of Theity, the rest of us are stuck with the fact that God is a formative concept in our belief pool. As I mentioned to xzc, I personally desire to believe that, absent parental communicability, a new generation of humanity might rightfully claim not to be infected by exposure to the historical theo. But I would guess that's a few generations away, at minimum. I think that fact explains alot of the atheist plight... wanting to know what it would be like to live in such a world, and "knowing" that one never will... and being reminded of the fact whenever a theist opens their mouth. [No offense intended, Theists, just trying to get a handle on myself, if you will]...

I suppose I am an Aplubadooist, then. Let me ask you this, though, before I was ever aware of Plubadoo (about forty seconds ago) I didn't believe in Plubadoo then, so was I not still an Aplubadooist? I mean, sure, I couldn't go up to someone and say that I was an Aplubadooist, but does that in any way change the fact that I did not believe in Plubadoo?

Yes. You did not, in such a scenario, dis-believe in Plubadoo. Athiests disbelieve.

By the way, you could very easily raise an individual (in semi-isolation) and prevent any exposure to anything Theistic whatsoever. So, again, the real question here is would such an individual develop any sort of belief in any kind of God?

Easily??? Come on Pav!! ... g'nite!

[PavlovianModel146]

Yes. You did not, in such a scenario, dis-believe in Plubadoo. Athiests disbelieve.

Fine. Disbelieving still means, not believing, though, and I still not believed. In order to disbelieve, one must not believe, so the net result is the same. The only difference is that disbelieving will actually lead someone to possibly make a case against something, but the point with the previous example is without that thing no case needs to be made for not believing it.

Easily??? Come on Pav!! ... g'nite!

Easy enough. Us mountain men could do it if we had to. I'm sort of glad we don't have to, but I could.

[Oughtist]

So I guess the main issue sofar is whether Atheists must self-identify to be atheist... at least they'd have to to be considered upstanding members of the Church (or should that be Achurch?).

[PavlovianModel146]

So I guess the main issue sofar is whether Atheists must self-identify to be atheist... at least they'd have to to be considered upstanding members of the Church (or should that be Achurch?).

Achurch, nice work!

Let's talk about that self-identification. Before I understood any language when I was just a baby, did I have to self-identify to be human, or was I just human? I think that the main argument here that we have to hash out with one another is (provided that we were not taught anything) belief in a God the natural state of affairs, or is not believing in a God the natural state of affairs?

[Coatless]

I am here today to suggest that all Athiests congregate and create a formal church of the Athiest and make Athiesm a formal Religion.

I’m still trying to work out what Athiesm is.

I suppose Athiesm is something to do with the state of being or belonging to Athi, and Athiest therefore means, literally, most Athi. The proposed Church and religion of Athiesm is presumably therefore the establishment of Ath, from which I speculate its members must suffer lisps and talk out of their Atheth.

[Yesh]

I am here today to suggest that all Athiests congregate and create a formal church of the Athiest and make Athiesm a formal Religion.

I’m still trying to work out what Athiesm is.

I suppose Athiesm is something to do with the state of being or belonging to Athi, and Athiest therefore means, literally, most Athi. The proposed Church and religion of Athiesm is presumably therefore the establishment of Ath, from which I speculate its members must suffer lisps and talk out of their Atheth.

Verily, Coatleshsh, you raishe a valid obshervashion. Who ish thish Athi, indeed? I musht shit and think about that for a bit, for I do not recall meeting thish Athi. Or ish Athi not a pershon?

[Oughtist]

So I guess the main issue sofar is whether Atheists must self-identify to be atheist... at least they'd have to to be considered upstanding members of the Church (or should that be Achurch?).

Achurch, nice work!

Let's talk about that self-identification. Before I understood any language when I was just a baby, did I have to self-identify to be human, or was I just human? I think that the main argument here that we have to hash out with one another is (provided that we were not taught anything) belief in a God the natural state of affairs, or is not believing in a God the natural state of affairs?

I'm, of course, taking the position that, even assuming the latter is technically the case (where "not believing" = there is no matter for "belief" as such), babies aren't atheists. That to be an atheist is a developmental achievement, not a preformative state. Being human is a preformative state, awaiting the capacity for self-identity as such.

In connection to your position in your thread on Language, it is the thought that the above "Athiesm" joke wouldn't make any sense in a world where Theism wasn't already pretty much de rigueur already.

So, back to my original objection, there was no lack of God prior to Theism. "God" came into being, conceptually, as per the antropoligical development. Atheism eventually ensued, whereby humans had therewith "created" the lack of God. Only in hindsight was there such a lack previous to the human invention. Australopithecus was no more an atheist than is a postmodern infant.

Thus, as part of our Achurch Ritual, we must divise a counter-baptism to wash away the iniquity of previous Human belief, no?

And, of course, we must hunt down Coatless and condemn him for antiblasphemy!!

[omar]

Hello Pavlov:

--- ...so we can say that Athiests believe there is not a God.
O- Fair enough, but as such as as suceptible to a rational critique as most theists. The only advantage that I can see is that there is no liturgy to keep up with, but that is also it's downfall. There is something to be said about the popularity of theism and it is not just because of the belief in God. Like psychotheraphy, it's effects may have little to do with "unlocking" stashed away memories that affect conscious life, blah, blah, blah, and more to do with the biological need to be heard and understood without conditions.

---...have faith that there is not a God...
O- Two things:
1- Why do they believe this?
2- What would be the basis for a Church? Let me explain. If I believe that there is a glass cup before me then I may take further leaps of faith to achieve an end. It all starts with the belief that there "is". But if I believe that before me there is nothing, then what subsequent steps could be inspired? There is nothing and so there is nothing for me. So I lose interest. A Church would seem to require something in which one believes, that is affected by the existence of a Church. If you believe there is no God then what would be the use of a Church?

---...Consider this, many people that were of other Religions may wake up one day and question their own faith in whatever God or Gods they have.
O- If they question thir faith then they cannot be atheist, for atheism requires faith, as you stated previously. It is not faith that is question and often not even God, but the correctness of our faith. What is question is not our faith but the concepts in which we believe. And I do not believe that doubt just comes with the morning. You do not go to bed a theist and wake up an atheist.

--- Athiests did not cause them to do this.
O- No. Life did.

--- However, for someone to convert to Christianity, one must read, hear, see or touch Christ in some way to know of Christ even conceptually, this empirical data is not required to not believe in a God.
O- It is. You do not believe in...what? You must know, read or in some way know of at least the concept of "God", otherwise atheism is non-sensical in all levels and thus a meanigless pursuit that should not receive any serious protection from the powers that be.

--- The question has often been asked, if they are a Religion or Church, why do they not gather? The simple answer is, yes, Religious Persecution.
O- For a time the Church of Satan was en vogue...I have read about burning crosses in black people's lawn, but not in the gardens of white atheists for some odd reason. Again...it is not about God.

--- ...but have you ever had the opportunity to sit down with someone and talk to them, as a friend, about the complete absence of a God?
O- Let's imagine this conversation happening with a skeptic:
"God? Son what in the world is that? Why are you wasting my time to talk to me about some unknown that is absolutely absent?

[PavlovianModel146]

I am here today to suggest that all Athiests congregate and create a formal church of the Athiest and make Athiesm a formal Religion.

I’m still trying to work out what Athiesm is.

I suppose Athiesm is something to do with the state of being or belonging to Athi, and Athiest therefore means, literally, most Athi. The proposed Church and religion of Athiesm is presumably therefore the establishment of Ath, from which I speculate its members must suffer lisps and talk out of their Atheth.

Excellent work!


I laughed my ass off!

[PavlovianModel146]

I'm, of course, taking the position that, even assuming the latter is technically the case (where "not believing" = there is no matter for "belief" as such), babies aren't atheists. That to be an atheist is a developmental achievement, not a preformative state. Being human is a preformative state, awaiting the capacity for self-identity as such.

That's fine, but if you are not a Thiest, you are either an Athiest or an Agnostic. Now, if there is no such thing as, Thiesm, then you can also not be an Agnostic because there is no consideration to be given and are therefore an Athiest.

In connection to your position in your thread on Language, it is the thought that the above "Athiesm" joke wouldn't make any sense in a world where Theism wasn't already pretty much de rigueur already.

That's true, I'm just happy someone finally realizes it is a joke! Unless you were planning on buying, then it is most certainly not a joke. I can slap together a package for you.

As threads change, though, so do positions. I just kind of argue whatever I feel like arguing at the moment.

Should anyone ever ask me for my personal position on something, though, I would be forthcoming.

So, back to my original objection, there was no lack of God prior to Theism. "God" came into being, conceptually, as per the antropoligical development. Atheism eventually ensued, whereby humans had therewith "created" the lack of God. Only in hindsight was there such a lack previous to the human invention. Australopithecus was no more an atheist than is a postmodern infant.

It is true that the lack previous to the human invention exists only in hindsight. Regardless of what sight it exists in, though, the point is it exists.

Thus, as part of our Achurch Ritual, we must divise a counter-baptism to wash away the iniquity of previous Human belief, no?

I think that is a fantastic idea.

Nice joke about antiblasphemy. How dare you blaspheme my lack!!!

[PavlovianModel146]

Hello, Newman.

Just kidding. Hello, Omar.

O- Fair enough, but as such as as suceptible to a rational critique as most theists. The only advantage that I can see is that there is no liturgy to keep up with, but that is also it's downfall. There is something to be said about the popularity of theism and it is not just because of the belief in God. Like psychotheraphy, it's effects may have little to do with "unlocking" stashed away memories that affect conscious life, blah, blah, blah, and more to do with the biological need to be heard and understood without conditions.

I don't know so much about that. If an Athiest were to walk into a Christian Church, go up to the podium and start speaking I doubt if they would be heard for very long, and there would certainly be conditions.

By the way, you could have a liturgy if you want to. Sure, it wouldn't technically be worship, unless you want to worship life itself.

KEGSTAND!!!!

O- Two things:
1- Why do they believe this?
2- What would be the basis for a Church? Let me explain. If I believe that there is a glass cup before me then I may take further leaps of faith to achieve an end. It all starts with the belief that there "is". But if I believe that before me there is nothing, then what subsequent steps could be inspired? There is nothing and so there is nothing for me. So I lose interest. A Church would seem to require something in which one believes, that is affected by the existence of a Church. If you believe there is no God then what would be the use of a Church?

1.) There are a variety of reasons. Not least of which is the complete lack of Empirical-Evidence. I'm not saying there is any Empirical-Evidence necessarily suggestive of an alternative. However, if you think about other things in life, an unprovable negative is more readily acceptable than an unprovable positive.

2.) The use of a Church would be for Athiests to congregate and discuss different viewpoints existing in support of Athiesm. Much like Bible Study, it would lead to a stronger and more well-read belief.

O- If they question thir faith then they cannot be atheist, for atheism requires faith, as you stated previously. It is not faith that is question and often not even God, but the correctness of our faith. What is question is not our faith but the concepts in which we believe. And I do not believe that doubt just comes with the morning. You do not go to bed a theist and wake up an atheist.

They're not necessarily Athiests at that point, they are Agnostics. From Agnostics, they may become Athiests. Those are the people most susceptible to conversion to the Athiest Church, by the way. They will be most open to our thoughts, not to mention our subliminal messages in our videos. (Sssshhh, that's our little secret)

You can go to bed a Thiest and wake up an Agnostic, it's called an A-piphany.

--- Athiests did not cause them to do this.
O- No. Life did.

That's right.

O- It is. You do not believe in...what? You must know, read or in some way know of at least the concept of "God", otherwise atheism is non-sensical in all levels and thus a meanigless pursuit that should not receive any serious protection from the powers that be.

Athiesm would be natural on all levels. The point is that the concept of God is out there, regardless, so the Athiests must unite to help people live their lives without a pre-historic false believe.

O- For a time the Church of Satan was en vogue...I have read about burning crosses in black people's lawn, but not in the gardens of white atheists for some odd reason. Again...it is not about God.

No, they're cool with the Athiests. We basically have a non-competition contract signed with them.

I don't really want to talk about burning crosses on black peoples' lawns in this thread, that's appalling. I'll discuss it elsewhere, but this thread is meant to be a little more light-hearted than that.

O- Let's imagine this conversation happening with a skeptic:
"God? Son what in the world is that? Why are you wasting my time to talk to me about some unknown that is absolutely absent?

That goes back to the indoctrination of children thread. I think that an Athiest parent should listen with an open ear and give their kids freedom of choice.

[Oughtist]

That's fine, but if you are not a Thiest, you are either an Athiest or an Agnostic. Now, if there is no such thing as, Thiesm, then you can also not be an Agnostic because there is no consideration to be given and are therefore an Athiest.

I guess that's where the conceptual difference is: For me, if there is yet no such thing as X, then there is no perspective pursuant to it; an atheist is, I would claim, conscious of their position, and it is pursuant to theism; simply to have no cognitive awareness of the concept "God" is insufficient, imo, to classify one as atheist. Are dogs athiest?

I just kind of argue whatever I feel like arguing at the moment.

Ya, it's nice not to have to re-reference oneself to a Text first!

It is true that the lack previous to the human invention exists only in hindsight. Regardless of what sight it exists in, though, the point is it exists.

Would it still be fair, though, then, to say that Neanderthals lacked atheism, and as such, did not observe it? Our calling them atheists would seem to be a misapplication. In any event, if a caveman comes a-knockin' on our Achurch doors, I suggest we redirect him to the Presbyterians first.

[PavlovianModel146]

I guess that's where the conceptual difference is: For me, if there is yet no such thing as X, then there is no perspective pursuant to it; an atheist is, I would claim, conscious of their position, and it is pursuant to theism; simply to have no cognitive awareness of the concept "God" is insufficient, imo, to classify one as atheist. Are dogs athiest?

I'm kind of in XZC's corner on this one as it relates to the difference between Athiest and Anti-Thiest. Strictly speaking, are you not without God if there is no God? Certainly if there were no, "God," concept it would not ever be put in such terms, but does that change the actual state of being?

The difference between dogs and humans is that with humans, even if they did not have a God concept, they could have a God concept. Dogs aren't built with that ability.

Ya, it's nice not to have to re-reference oneself to a Text first!

LOL

The reason I do it is to actually figure out what my positions are. I find arguing two opposing positions to the best of my ability helpful in doing so, it also keeps me open-minded.

I think you are open-minded without doing that, but it helps with me because I used to have a tendency to be dogmatic.

Would it still be fair, though, then, to say that Neanderthals lacked atheism, and as such, did not observe it? Our calling them atheists would seem to be a misapplication. In any event, if a caveman comes a-knockin' on our Achurch doors, I suggest we redirect him to the Presbyterians first.

LOL

Fair enough.

Of course, he'd be fine at the Achurch. In order for the Achurch to dispute the existence of God, they would still have to explain what the existence of God is. Now, that does not mean that people who know of no God are not Athiests, but to actually be able to discuss there not being a God one must know of God conceptually.