It requires courage to be an Atheist.

Originally posted by sonship
Being born with the sin nature does not make one a Christian.
So I don't think that is a parallel or wanting it both ways.

The future Christian has a sin nature.
The future theist, deist, or pantheist has the sin nature.
The future athiest has a sin nature.
The future agnostic or future Buddhist or whatever was born with a sin nature. ...[text shortened]... uture[/i] adult, should he or she mature, was born with that sin nature. That's what we believe.

I hear what you are saying sonship, but this is the important question, is the sin nature due to DNA or does it come with the soul? As you can guess the implications are very significant, I eagerly await your reply!

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Why not start a thread on that?

Don't know how to word it BDG🙁

Originally posted by wolfgang59
A whole Mars bar? Deep fried? That takes real courage!

Never deny robbie's intestinal fortitude. 😵

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Such binary thinking is not helpful in this case. Yes, we could use the term atheist to describe an infant with no conception of god, but why would we want to do so? (Other than killing time debating theists and/or frustrating them with minutiae.)

IMO one must be aware of the concept of a god before one can be properly labelled 'athei ...[text shortened]... gods. It means that someone has considered the 'gods' question and lacks belief in them.

Whether it's helpful or not is again not relevant.

I don't get why people get their knickers in a twist over this.

A theist is a person who believes that there is a god or that there are gods.

EVERYONE else is NOT a theist and is thus an atheist.

It's that simple.

Originally posted by OdBod
Don't know how to word it BDG🙁

I highly doubt that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Whether it's helpful or not is again not relevant.

I don't get why people get their knickers in a twist over this.

A theist is a person who believes that there is a god or that there are gods.

EVERYONE else is NOT a theist and is thus an [b]atheist.

It's that simple.[/b]

Of course it's relevant if language is helpful. We use it to try and communicate. We're not just typing and speaking to pass the time.

Then again, maybe I should speak only for myself. 😞

Originally posted by Suzianne
Stacking the deck a bit, isn't that?

No answer is not the same as answering "no".

You are correct.
But an answer of "no" is not required.

A theist is someone who believes. An answer of "yes" is required.

An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Get it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
By including "No Answer" as a "No" answer, he is, indeed, "stacking the deck", or skewing the results.

In the context of a poll there is obviously a difference between
not answering and saying "No". However my post to which you
replied was concerned with definitions of atheist and theist.

Originally posted by sonship
No.
If they say "That's personal" you don't know that they are an atheist.
If they say "That's none of your business" you don't know that they are an atheist.
If they say " Well, it DEPENDS on what we mean by 'God' or 'gods' " you don't know yet where they stand.

.

... and they could tell you the price of a loaf of bread or just tell you to F*** Off.

I didn't really want to go through infinite irrelevant replies.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Whether it's helpful or not is again not relevant.

I don't get why people get their knickers in a twist over this.

A theist is a person who believes that there is a god or that there are gods.

EVERYONE else is NOT a theist and is thus an [b]atheist.

It's that simple.[/b]

In some ways it is a pity the word "atheist" exists. Since
without it the phrase "not a theist" would have to be used.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Of course it's relevant if language is helpful. We use it to try and communicate. We're not just typing and speaking to pass the time.

Then again, maybe I should speak only for myself. 😞

The word "atheist" is a label that points to the set of all people who are not theists.

The word "theist" is a label that points to the set of all people who believe in the
existence of a god or gods.

As there are Buddhists who lack a belief in the existence of gods, then they are
included in the set of all people who do not believe in gods and are thus atheists.

This is not generally speaking a label that is helpful when talking about Buddhists,
and if a Buddhist were ever to ask me I would advise that they introduce themselves
as a Buddhist and not an atheist to avoid confusion if nothing else.

However the fact that the label is not generally helpful in these instances doesn't mean
it's not applicable or accurate. The Buddhist who lacks belief in gods is still an atheist.


The label would become almost completely pointless in an unlikely but hopefully possible
future in which everyone [or at least nearly everyone] stops believing in gods.
However it would still have the same meaning, and it would be just as accurate to
describe those people as atheists. It would just be as useful as calling them human.


The fact that it's not generally helpful [although I contend it sometimes is] to correctly
identify babies as being atheists, doesn't mean we should change the definition or calve
out some weird special pleading caveat for babies to avoid calling them atheists.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
... and they could tell you the price of a loaf of bread or just tell you to F*** Off.

I didn't really want to go through infinite irrelevant replies.

It requires courage to be an Atheist.

How could you have been so full of courage of steel - to be born?

Originally posted by sonship

[b]It requires courage to be an Atheist.

How could you have been so full of courage of steel - to be born?[/b]

I am not saying that I agree with the OP, however to me it reads more as,
"It takes courage to remain an atheist" rather than to BE one.

That faced with a choice between 'comforting' [for some] beliefs, that there
is an afterlife and that you will see loved ones again after they die, ect ect
And belief that there is no god/afterlife/ect and that there is nothing after
death and that you will never see your loved ones again after they die...
That it takes courage to hold true to the evidence and stick to the beliefs
that are true but not comforting [to some] rather to the false but comforting ones.


I can't be sure that that is what he intended to mean, but that's how it read to me.


I would also add that there are atheists who do believe in afterlives, just not gods.

So I probably don't agree with the op.


It CAN require courage depending on the person and circumstance.

But the same thing can be said of theism.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The word "atheist" is a label that points to the set of all people who are not theists.

The word "theist" is a label that points to the set of all people who believe in the
existence of a god or gods.

As there are Buddhists who lack a belief in the existence of gods, then they are
included in the set of all people who do not believe in gods and ...[text shortened]... ion or calve
out some weird special pleading caveat for babies to avoid calling them atheists.

Googlefudge, you malodorous, pestilential cretin...everyone knows that babies are atheists. Furthermore, it is a wholly justifiable use of the term.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]It requires courage to be an Atheist.

How could you have been so full of courage of steel - to be born?[/b]

I denied it took courage to be an atheist.
(Page1 5th post)