Every child is born an atheist, they are taught religion and the concept of god. Better yet, every child born is more of an agnostic because they know nothing about anything and need knowledge of the god concept in order make a choice about the subject.
Nice accent. Don't worry; I'm not sarcasm "Incawnet."
The word "children" covers those who think about life and those who don't. So, there are Christian children and there are babies in Christian families, but a baby can't be Christian.
Your son is seemingly awesome :) and yes, technically, he is an atheist because he does not yet have a set of g-d beliefs. That said, I do not believe it is appropriate to label a child Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. because those children do not yet have an understanding of religious systems or beliefs either; they have simply been indoctrinated (or labeled) with the beliefs of their parents. Good on you for not indoctrinating yours! May he grow up happy and enlightened.
This entire question you raise the question: is Marius an athiest?
I have to reply (being a believer in karma myself) that I don't know. You seem to raise the question moreover as a question to the Christian right, but you keep asking the same question.
Philosophically your son is too young to decide whether or not there is a god so he can't be an atheist.. You forget, an atheist is someone who renounces all faith all together which IMO is ignorant because you cannot prove things either way
this doesn't mean I don't <3 you, Tylzen, it's mearly something to think about.. If you want your kid to be atheist then so be it, it doesn't mean he's evil. He's a cute kid growing to be a strong young man. Your gene pool is obviously good, have another
As jamaq said, just because you cannot dispprove the flying spaghetti monster, ceiling cat or the flying teapot, it does not make them more real than all other religions. Or even karma. It's not ignorant to not believe in something that is not proveable. And explainable by psychology. (confirmation bias and simulacron, etc.)
@scammel2 Renouncing all religions that have existed or will exist is not ignorant because all religions, at the core, are based on stories and realities no different than fairy tales. Just as we don't call people ignorant because they reject t santa clause or fairies, it is misguided to call atheism, or atheists ignorant.
I must disagree. Atheist simply means without belief in a g-d or g-ds, not a renunciation of anything. For instance, I do not believe in Zeus. Does this mean I have renounced all Greek mythology? Of course not; it only means I do not put faith in the existence of the g-ds in those delightful stories.
Given the fact that I used to think I was christian, that was partly what they would say at chirch. Atheists are devil worshipers, evil people, don't be an atheist or you'll go to hell. But now that I've realized I'm atheist, I realize how stupid that all was. Marius is awesome indeed =P Looks alot like you. Take Care Tylz and Mars
Imo he is neither theist or atheist. Nor agnostic. He has not committed to a belief yeah or nay or committed to the belief a positive statement either way is impossible. Your little Cherub is blissfully ignorant of the issue.
The kid obviously does not believe in a god, therefore he is an atheist, but this is a trivial statement about him, it says nothing about whether he will accept or reject god claims when eventually presented to him. Which of course is why it doesn't make sense to use the label atheist.
I don't think it's trivial, I think it's ridiculous to call a toddler an atheist. It does highlight what an attempt at corruption of the def. of "atheist" it is to say it means "simply a lack of belief".
Whilst it might need being stated positively at some point i'd say on the whole tylzen has it right. Atheism is simply not having a belief, which i'm going to make the assumption of mini-tylzen not having a belief. However tylzen didn't say that his son was an atheist, he indicated that such labelling of a child was silly, hence labelling his child as being mearly awesome.
At which point you would have me & a large chuck of self-proclaimed atheists, including guys like Richard Dawkins not fitting the description. Furthermore, given the definitional vagueness of 'god/s', your definition makes intellectually honest atheism a faith-based position.
Not at all. Absolute certainty isn't a criteria for believing in the existence or non-existence of something. People understand that, it's a given. "given the definitional vagueness of 'god/s', your definition makes intellectually honest atheism a faith-based position." Maybe at the extremes, like philosophical discussions or "theist vs atheist" debates. But not colloquially.
It seems to me your problem with regards to babies being atheists is just this type of philosophical extreme. Colloquially of course it makes not sense to talk about babies being atheists. As I said, it is a trivial pedantic point
All objects which belong to sets where there is an impossibility of theism or sexual orientation are not atheists or asexuals either. Or if they are, the term still would when applied to them be so mute it doesn't merit anything to make this label on them.
I think you've all misunderstood the concept of "atheist". An atheist has made a concious choice, or maybe given the question thought is a better way to put it, not to believe in anything. Therefore it's lack of belief in any deity.
A baby, on the other hand, hasn't given any thought to God's existance or nonexistance, and is therefore neither theist, agnostic nor atheist.
What if you had a group of people that was raised in an enviroment, where they hadn't been influenced by any religion or religion based culture.
But their culture was solely based on scientific methods and knowledge.
They would never think of (a) God(s) . What would you label such a people as? Atheists, because the majority would be grown up, even though they haven't made a choice? :D So what is the term for people that doesn't believe in a deity but hasn't made a conciouss thought about it.
There is no such thing as "implicit atheist". It's just a fact that our terms doesn't fit with babies. So they can't be atheist. Or theist, for that matter.
When it comes to your example, Tylzen, this is where the discussion starts to get farfetched. Because there is no such society as the one you described, and why would we make up a term for something that doesn't exist (and don't say "God" now)?
So this discussion is actually based on a lack of terms in the English (or Danish) language!
There is nothing to convince people of. This is simple language and logic.
Unless a person believes that infants are born with human knowledge and capacity for thought we know they don't have. And that belief would fly in the face of logic and knowledge.
Saying they have the ability to have such knowledge would be as silly as saying infants are born with the knowledge to rebuild a car engine.
Some say you have to think "Does God exist" is a question that is valid to even ask, in order to be an atheist or a theist or an agnostic. In other words, that you have to understand the question, unlike rocks, who is not atheists. I for one label an atheist as someone sceptical of all claims of divine beings.
These children are not in the scale which Richard Dawkins use from 1 to 7 either.
May I suggest atheists are those lacking belief, who are in a set where some are theists?
Saying that atheism is a lack of belief in god kinda implies there is a god but atheists chose not to believe in god. Whilst i do have no faith in the existance in god it is not a faith based thing. My position is that there is nothing naturap, or super natural, that indicates to me the presence of a god. In fact the supernatural is also in the same category as god. There is no evidence to support or deny the existance of either, so as far as i'm conserned the chances of either (cont)
@AngryWomble I'd say that if atheism is a lack of belief in god it only applies that god is a concept and that this concept is believed by some. If god isn't a concept, then atheism would be a meaningless concept.
Ignostics say God is not a concept but rather many individual and so theism and atheism is meaningless concepts to a large extent.
God is the idea that theres some magical creator being that watches, or otherwise, our daily actions and judges them and has other supernatural powers. It's a bit like the whole Santa thing, big fat jolly fellow that can give you stuff will watch to see if your naughty or nice, and dole out pressents or coal accordingly.
Neither exist, although if i had to make a choice of the two to believe in then i'd go for Santa. If i've been bad and i get coal at least its useful.
Is it what? I'm trying to work out what the point is of your question but lacking any additional content in your reply i'm coming up short. So maybe if you filled out your thoughts a little bit then i could answer your question.
I was picking at the problem of defining god(s) in the first place. I am trying to work out the answer as well. When stymied I like to go back to simple questions like, "Is it?".Please forgive me.
Yeah, i do that sort of thing all the time, it works for a 'live'/real time discussion but not so well on this sort of thing. I think the trouble with trying to define what is meant by god(s) is that it means different things to different people/cultures/religions. Those things will depend on what the history of said unit of people.
Well, would you label democracy as an asexual atheist, since democracy has no belief in deities, neither does it have sexual orientation? Would you say it is bald too?
Words are in better use when they only apply in sets where its contrast is present as well. As no babies are theists, no meaning comes in the opposite label either.
Whether or not childeren should be labeled is a different question and doesn't take away the fact that young childeren apply to the definition of atheism.
But sure if you want the definition 'a person that lacks the belief in a god' would be more complete and solves your comparison with immaterial concepts like democracy.
Ideally I would love to live in a world where labelling yourself as an atheist is meaningless. But as long as there's such a big minority that automatically assumes you believe in a god unless stated otherwise this can't be the case. Quite a shame really.
Well, I call myself atheist, because I am unconvinced of all claims of devine beings. I call myself this when people ask what religion I believe in. If no one in my age believed in devine beings, I would not be an atheist. So I think I was an atheist as a newborn as much as I was being scientificly ignorant, illiterate and asexual as a newborn. Such terms however, get their descriptive meaning from when people my age can have other labels than those I have.
I wonder what else I am for not believing in, which no one even rendered a concept of to even have the chance to consider the existence of. Not that I need to call myself that but just curious. The word for it is there to be discovered I guess... or maybe words aren't anything but for the purpose of communication, and don't exist in and of themselves... that could be the case too.
Perhaps, though my motive is different. I think atheism is a virtue to follow, the atheism that rejects all claims of divine beings that is. Almost all adult atheists are aware of the beliefs of others, yet they want to hide that they are sceptical of these claims by watering this term down to mean nothing at all.
Every child is born an atheist, they are taught religion and the concept of god. Better yet, every child born is more of an agnostic because they know nothing about anything and need knowledge of the god concept in order make a choice about the subject.
AtheistCanada 8 months ago
AWW!!! Your son reminds me of mine when he was little...they grow up!!! WAAAA!!
But thank you for this video. I wish there were more videos of Atheists doing family activities so people could see were just ordinary people!
PlatypuSPawn 11 months ago
@PlatypuSPawn No problem, you could check out my atheist parent series, also there are other videos of me and my son :)
Tylzen 11 months ago
@Tylzen Thank you I will.
PlatypuSPawn 11 months ago
@PlatypuSPawn I agree with you
Suspiria10 1 month ago
Nice accent. Don't worry; I'm not sarcasm "Incawnet."
The word "children" covers those who think about life and those who don't. So, there are Christian children and there are babies in Christian families, but a baby can't be Christian.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
He's Awesome Your Son, & Your A Awesome Dad 10-Stars**********Tylzen
777TIZZable 1 year ago
He's adorable!
aeroldoth 1 year ago
This is so damn cute. :D
hinakuu 2 years ago
"Does he look like evil incarnate?"
No, he looks like Tylzen incarnate!
7410n0 2 years ago 2
That is true.
Tylzen 2 years ago
Comment removed
kmcl11 1 year ago
Your son is seemingly awesome :) and yes, technically, he is an atheist because he does not yet have a set of g-d beliefs. That said, I do not believe it is appropriate to label a child Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. because those children do not yet have an understanding of religious systems or beliefs either; they have simply been indoctrinated (or labeled) with the beliefs of their parents. Good on you for not indoctrinating yours! May he grow up happy and enlightened.
idea1013 2 years ago
This entire question you raise the question: is Marius an athiest?
I have to reply (being a believer in karma myself) that I don't know. You seem to raise the question moreover as a question to the Christian right, but you keep asking the same question.
Philosophically your son is too young to decide whether or not there is a god so he can't be an atheist.. You forget, an atheist is someone who renounces all faith all together which IMO is ignorant because you cannot prove things either way
scammel2 2 years ago
this doesn't mean I don't <3 you, Tylzen, it's mearly something to think about.. If you want your kid to be atheist then so be it, it doesn't mean he's evil. He's a cute kid growing to be a strong young man. Your gene pool is obviously good, have another
scammel2 2 years ago
As jamaq said, just because you cannot dispprove the flying spaghetti monster, ceiling cat or the flying teapot, it does not make them more real than all other religions. Or even karma. It's not ignorant to not believe in something that is not proveable. And explainable by psychology. (confirmation bias and simulacron, etc.)
Tylzen 2 years ago
@scammel2 Renouncing all religions that have existed or will exist is not ignorant because all religions, at the core, are based on stories and realities no different than fairy tales. Just as we don't call people ignorant because they reject t santa clause or fairies, it is misguided to call atheism, or atheists ignorant.
jamaq 2 years ago
I must disagree. Atheist simply means without belief in a g-d or g-ds, not a renunciation of anything. For instance, I do not believe in Zeus. Does this mean I have renounced all Greek mythology? Of course not; it only means I do not put faith in the existence of the g-ds in those delightful stories.
idea1013 2 years ago
He is awesome. So cute.
ANorthwestLifeSeatte 2 years ago
Tylzen, your son is awesome.
The Cat thinks so as well.
He just offered to babysit if you ever have a need for "The Cat's" child monitoring services!
Why does this offer frighten me so? Hmmm...
TheTruePooka 2 years ago
My son would love to play with a cat. Tails are awesome to pull.
Tylzen 2 years ago
Given the fact that I used to think I was christian, that was partly what they would say at chirch. Atheists are devil worshipers, evil people, don't be an atheist or you'll go to hell. But now that I've realized I'm atheist, I realize how stupid that all was. Marius is awesome indeed =P Looks alot like you. Take Care Tylz and Mars
xInfectedRosex 2 years ago
He looks nothing like me.
Tylzen 2 years ago
Keep telling yourself that <3
xInfectedRosex 2 years ago
Yes I agree. I would label him as awesome.
Great video Tylzen, diggin the new intro man.
ogjimkenobi 2 years ago
:-) I am also really satisfied with the new intro :D
Tylzen 2 years ago
Brilliant video!
Royc3d 2 years ago
Thanks :)
Tylzen 2 years ago
His rule is simple - do not worship God!
NapoleonTotalWarFG 2 years ago
You're implying that there is a God to worship. ;-)
Tylzen 2 years ago
Has he indicated to you that he believes god(s) does not exist? Made a positive statement to that effect? No? Well than your son is not an atheist.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Well he has never stated that he believed in god(s) either. :)
Tylzen 2 years ago
Imo he is neither theist or atheist. Nor agnostic. He has not committed to a belief yeah or nay or committed to the belief a positive statement either way is impossible. Your little Cherub is blissfully ignorant of the issue.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
The kid obviously does not believe in a god, therefore he is an atheist, but this is a trivial statement about him, it says nothing about whether he will accept or reject god claims when eventually presented to him. Which of course is why it doesn't make sense to use the label atheist.
I agree with 'awesome'!
Cafeeine 2 years ago 2
I don't think it's trivial, I think it's ridiculous to call a toddler an atheist. It does highlight what an attempt at corruption of the def. of "atheist" it is to say it means "simply a lack of belief".
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Well, as I see it as ridiculous precisely because its trivial. I don't see how that constitutes a corruption.
Cafeeine 2 years ago
The corruption is defining "atheist" simply as "a lack of belief" in god(s). Which would include babies. Which I find ridiculous.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
How would you define it?
aunicornist 2 years ago
Someone who makes the positive statement that god(s) do not exist.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
I would rather say that atheism is not having any belief or faith in any kind of deity or deities.
Tylzen 2 years ago
So you would argue that your child is an atheist?
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Read what the Womble says :). My child is just awesome.
Tylzen 2 years ago
Whilst it might need being stated positively at some point i'd say on the whole tylzen has it right. Atheism is simply not having a belief, which i'm going to make the assumption of mini-tylzen not having a belief. However tylzen didn't say that his son was an atheist, he indicated that such labelling of a child was silly, hence labelling his child as being mearly awesome.
A fairly straight forward concept if you ask me.
AngryWomble 2 years ago 2
At which point you would have me & a large chuck of self-proclaimed atheists, including guys like Richard Dawkins not fitting the description. Furthermore, given the definitional vagueness of 'god/s', your definition makes intellectually honest atheism a faith-based position.
Cafeeine 2 years ago
Not at all. Absolute certainty isn't a criteria for believing in the existence or non-existence of something. People understand that, it's a given. "given the definitional vagueness of 'god/s', your definition makes intellectually honest atheism a faith-based position." Maybe at the extremes, like philosophical discussions or "theist vs atheist" debates. But not colloquially.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
It seems to me your problem with regards to babies being atheists is just this type of philosophical extreme. Colloquially of course it makes not sense to talk about babies being atheists. As I said, it is a trivial pedantic point
Cafeeine 2 years ago
I don't have a problem w/babies being atheists, Imo they are not.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
All objects which belong to sets where there is an impossibility of theism or sexual orientation are not atheists or asexuals either. Or if they are, the term still would when applied to them be so mute it doesn't merit anything to make this label on them.
Censeo 2 years ago
Which is why labeling someone as an atheist really doesn't say much about her/him, amirite?
also, +1 for "awesome!"
stealthbadger 2 years ago
Which equals "lacking a belief in a deity or deities."
Hence, the kid is an atheist.
stealthbadger 2 years ago
I don't agree but at least your position is consistent with your preferred definition.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
I think you've all misunderstood the concept of "atheist". An atheist has made a concious choice, or maybe given the question thought is a better way to put it, not to believe in anything. Therefore it's lack of belief in any deity.
A baby, on the other hand, hasn't given any thought to God's existance or nonexistance, and is therefore neither theist, agnostic nor atheist.
evajenta 2 years ago
What if you had a group of people that was raised in an enviroment, where they hadn't been influenced by any religion or religion based culture.
But their culture was solely based on scientific methods and knowledge.
They would never think of (a) God(s) . What would you label such a people as? Atheists, because the majority would be grown up, even though they haven't made a choice? :D So what is the term for people that doesn't believe in a deity but hasn't made a conciouss thought about it.
Tylzen 2 years ago
There is no such thing as "implicit atheist". It's just a fact that our terms doesn't fit with babies. So they can't be atheist. Or theist, for that matter.
When it comes to your example, Tylzen, this is where the discussion starts to get farfetched. Because there is no such society as the one you described, and why would we make up a term for something that doesn't exist (and don't say "God" now)?
So this discussion is actually based on a lack of terms in the English (or Danish) language!
evajenta 2 years ago
@evajenta atheism=lack of belief in a deity, nothing else.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
Actually, yes.
He is an "implicit atheist". Everyone is born an implicit atheist. The choice to believe or not believe comes later in life.
TheTruePooka 2 years ago
Wonderful, now convince the rest of the world of that.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
(shrug)
There is nothing to convince people of. This is simple language and logic.
Unless a person believes that infants are born with human knowledge and capacity for thought we know they don't have. And that belief would fly in the face of logic and knowledge.
Saying they have the ability to have such knowledge would be as silly as saying infants are born with the knowledge to rebuild a car engine.
TheTruePooka 2 years ago
He is actually able to rebuild a car engine. :) Being blindfolded and only using his feet.
Tylzen 2 years ago
He keeps looking at me funny. I'm scared.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago
That's because he can sense your fear. :D
Tylzen 2 years ago
see, evil incarnate!
AngryWomble 2 years ago
Yes, your child is evil incarnate.....but then he is your child and you stress that he's a clone of you so......
He's also cute too ;)
AngryWomble 2 years ago
I'd say he is an ignostic, like every young baby is. None is christian, muslim, hindu, marxist, or even atheist IMO.
Censeo 2 years ago
and not agnostic even :)
Cute kid!!
Censeo 2 years ago
But he is awesome none the less ;)
Tylzen 2 years ago
If a baby isn't an atheist then the baby believes in god.
It's a rather binary position actually.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
I don't think he thinks about it, if I may be honest. I don't think he understands either concepts :D
Tylzen 2 years ago
We can all agree on that he's awesome ofc :D
But atheism only means 'lack of the belief in a god'.
Does your son lacks the belief in a god? I think so, after all, you said he doesn't think about it yourself :)
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
Some say you have to think "Does God exist" is a question that is valid to even ask, in order to be an atheist or a theist or an agnostic. In other words, that you have to understand the question, unlike rocks, who is not atheists. I for one label an atheist as someone sceptical of all claims of divine beings.
These children are not in the scale which Richard Dawkins use from 1 to 7 either.
May I suggest atheists are those lacking belief, who are in a set where some are theists?
Censeo 2 years ago
The problem lies in that religion is the majority amongst adults. Therefore anyone who lacks it needs to label himself as those persons stand out.
But no, atheist is always the lack of a belief in god. A child (or anyone really) that has never considered the option fits that definition perfectly.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
Well I don't agree, and neither does the wikipedia article on ignosticism.
Censeo 2 years ago
"The problem lies in that religion is the majority amongst adults. Therefore anyone who lacks it needs to label himself as those persons stand out."
With that logic this child is asexual, since most adults are sexual.
Censeo 2 years ago
Saying that atheism is a lack of belief in god kinda implies there is a god but atheists chose not to believe in god. Whilst i do have no faith in the existance in god it is not a faith based thing. My position is that there is nothing naturap, or super natural, that indicates to me the presence of a god. In fact the supernatural is also in the same category as god. There is no evidence to support or deny the existance of either, so as far as i'm conserned the chances of either (cont)
AngryWomble 2 years ago
existing are that small as to not actually factor into anything.
AngryWomble 2 years ago
@AngryWomble I'd say that if atheism is a lack of belief in god it only applies that god is a concept and that this concept is believed by some. If god isn't a concept, then atheism would be a meaningless concept.
Ignostics say God is not a concept but rather many individual and so theism and atheism is meaningless concepts to a large extent.
Censeo 2 years ago
....??
God is the idea that theres some magical creator being that watches, or otherwise, our daily actions and judges them and has other supernatural powers. It's a bit like the whole Santa thing, big fat jolly fellow that can give you stuff will watch to see if your naughty or nice, and dole out pressents or coal accordingly.
Neither exist, although if i had to make a choice of the two to believe in then i'd go for Santa. If i've been bad and i get coal at least its useful.
AngryWomble 2 years ago
Is it?
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Is it what? I'm trying to work out what the point is of your question but lacking any additional content in your reply i'm coming up short. So maybe if you filled out your thoughts a little bit then i could answer your question.
AngryWomble 2 years ago
Thank you Womble:
I was picking at the problem of defining god(s) in the first place. I am trying to work out the answer as well. When stymied I like to go back to simple questions like, "Is it?".Please forgive me.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Yeah, i do that sort of thing all the time, it works for a 'live'/real time discussion but not so well on this sort of thing. I think the trouble with trying to define what is meant by god(s) is that it means different things to different people/cultures/religions. Those things will depend on what the history of said unit of people.
AngryWomble 2 years ago
Yeah well, once you've got it figured it out, don't hesitate to let me know.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Well my present working definition is something that isn't there. For anything else it's dependant on what the given group are expecting a god to be.
AngryWomble 2 years ago
Fair enough.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
It helps if you say; "Atheism is the lack of belief in the idea or concept of a God or Gods."
This removes the implied existence from the original statement that bothers so many atheists.
It makes no implied suggestion that a God or Gods exist.
*ahem*...
WIBBLE!!!
TheTruePooka 2 years ago
Your grinding the wheat very fine Censeo. I like the way you think.
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Well, would you label democracy as an asexual atheist, since democracy has no belief in deities, neither does it have sexual orientation? Would you say it is bald too?
Words are in better use when they only apply in sets where its contrast is present as well. As no babies are theists, no meaning comes in the opposite label either.
Censeo 2 years ago
You label a child an ignosticist
Whether or not childeren should be labeled is a different question and doesn't take away the fact that young childeren apply to the definition of atheism.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
But sure if you want the definition 'a person that lacks the belief in a god' would be more complete and solves your comparison with immaterial concepts like democracy.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
You may be right that I was wrong to label the child ignosticist. It is not applicable to children since it isn't descriptive in the set.
I made a mistake. No kid is ignosticist either. Only older kids and adults etc, who haven't learned the concept of god are ignosticists.
Censeo 2 years ago
Ideally I would love to live in a world where labelling yourself as an atheist is meaningless. But as long as there's such a big minority that automatically assumes you believe in a god unless stated otherwise this can't be the case. Quite a shame really.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
Well, I call myself atheist, because I am unconvinced of all claims of devine beings. I call myself this when people ask what religion I believe in. If no one in my age believed in devine beings, I would not be an atheist. So I think I was an atheist as a newborn as much as I was being scientificly ignorant, illiterate and asexual as a newborn. Such terms however, get their descriptive meaning from when people my age can have other labels than those I have.
Censeo 2 years ago
yes you WOULD be an atheist even if everybody else didn't believe in a god as well.
The only difference is that you wouldn't need to call yourself one anymore.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
I wonder what else I am for not believing in, which no one even rendered a concept of to even have the chance to consider the existence of. Not that I need to call myself that but just curious. The word for it is there to be discovered I guess... or maybe words aren't anything but for the purpose of communication, and don't exist in and of themselves... that could be the case too.
Censeo 2 years ago
Your comments remind me of Sam Harris's criticism of the label "atheism".
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Perhaps, though my motive is different. I think atheism is a virtue to follow, the atheism that rejects all claims of divine beings that is. Almost all adult atheists are aware of the beliefs of others, yet they want to hide that they are sceptical of these claims by watering this term down to mean nothing at all.
Censeo 2 years ago
It's a very dynamic topic!
owheydusoapsk 2 years ago
Whatever it it is you have no concept of, you're not believing in it.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
wat.....
stealthbadger 2 years ago