Of course you can, as an atheist is a disbelief in god(s) not someone who isn't religious.
You can be an atheist and also religious.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Italy proposal to jail vegans who impose diet on children
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
Of course you can, as an atheist is a disbelief in god(s) not someone who isn't religious.
You can be an atheist and also religious.
Dusk Soldier
Member
It doesn't bother you that the people you live with are not vegans? And that they cook and eat meat in front of you on a daily basis? You don't have to post a response to the question in this thread. Just be honest with yourself.
I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you. Your sister gave up on telling you what to do a long time ago. Nowadays she picks her battles.
Yes it bothers me that people eat meat and contribute to the suffering of animals. This is obviously inherent to the vegan principle.
Again: this is a process, not a binary absolute. I lead by example, and when questioned I reason my approach.
I hope to instigate change through positive example, and part of that means coexisting with those who share different ideals with me without hating them.
I wasn't always vegan.
Again, semantics, you know what I mean in context. We all know the standard definition of Atheism, it's a google away.
I'll be clearer in future to avoid this.
Edit - -
I'll add to this:
A person who has never heard of religion, or has no concept of a deity, cannot be atheist.
Atheist only exists because belief in a deity exists. it is defined entirely by its opposition to and absence of belief in a deity.
Therefore a person who exists in a place where belief in a deity doesn't exist is not atheist as the belief itself never existed to be opposed in the ways that are required for atheism to be considered.
Moff
Member
I don't think that's true, because you are not actively doing it. there is a difference. If I simply never mention religion, unless being asked of course, I am not "bringen them up to be atheists".
It's not the same as religious parents who drag their children to church every week and talk about god every day, make them pray every day. there is much more active involvement.
yes, it is a guarantee for me, and many people here are talking about me, as an atheist. Maybe I am just trying to find my place in this but I judge all the statements in this thread coming from my perspective.
but what would you call them? I am genuinely curious and I feel it's of some relevance to this thread.
Personally, I would definitely say I was an atheist. Of course I did not know the expression and definition. I realized I was one when I first thought about god and religion, which was around the age of 5, but at the same time I realized I have always been an atheist.
Or she's not some sort of crazy strawman Vegan who tells everyone what to do
Her kids aren't even Vegan, they're vegetarian in practice because she doesn't prep meat (well, one of them claims he's vegan but forgets that occasionally)
Prodigal Son
Member
Scientific misinformation and ignorant stigmatization of veganism.
It isn't radical to not support industries whose very existence contribute to the suffering and torture of more animals than you can fathom the existence of.
It is very, very easy to eat a vegan diet that covers all nutritional bases.
This is barring the overwhelming scientific evidence that red meats in-particular, beyond serving as an easily-replaceable source of protein, certainly isn't great for human health in the long term. The idea that a vegan diet is the health risk here is actually comical if you're going by anything other than your stupid modern dietary norms.
It isn't radical to not support industries whose very existence contribute to the suffering and torture of more animals than you can fathom the existence of.
It is very, very easy to eat a vegan diet that covers all nutritional bases.
This is barring the overwhelming scientific evidence that red meats in-particular, beyond serving as an easily-replaceable source of protein, certainly isn't great for human health in the long term. The idea that a vegan diet is the health risk here is actually comical if you're going by anything other than your stupid modern dietary norms.
Haunted
Member
Go on...
The definition of atheism that at least the people here subscribe to doesn't allow for any middle ground between atheism and theism. They're complementary so you have to be one or the other by definition.
You could define atheism differently but then all the atheists would have to reclassify themselves. You can't change the beliefs and non-beliefs of people just by changing the definition of atheism.
You could define atheism differently but then all the atheists would have to reclassify themselves. You can't change the beliefs and non-beliefs of people just by changing the definition of atheism.
Berlinski has ceased to be part of that debate for quite a while. Besides, he isn't even a scientist.
My argument is that parents who will (and do) bring their children up with an atheist mindset are doing the same thing as those "enforcing" their religion on their children.
It's absolutely cool to explain your beliefs and leave your children to make up their own minds, you do that and I commend you.
That's not how anecdotal evidence works though. It's an example with no basis in objective fact.
Unless there's a term for it already, I suppose I'd simply call them ignorant or unaware of this aspect of philosophical thought.
I very much doubt you understood the concept fully from the age of 5, especially as you seem to be struggling now.
crazygambit
Member
That has actually been proposed for extreme cases, since it's a form of abuse. I can't say I disagree either. Like that 10 year old that weights 192 kg (423 pounds). Unless there's some underlying medical condition, you've failed as a parent.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
As i said, i mentioned him as a philosopher of science, not as a scientist. When you speak about the relation between atheism and science, you're not making empirical statement but philosophy of science or epistemology.
Moff
Member
I very much doubt you understood the concept fully from the age of 5, especially as you seem to be struggling now.
but that's exactly my point.
first of all I was agreeing with you and the other user who said you can't know you are an atheist before you have been confronted with the concept of god. I was just adding my own experience that made me realize I have been an atheist all my life, I just didn't know it.
and second, we are talking about atheists in this thread who haven't "fully understood the concept", right? because we are talking about the lack of belief. and that includes the lack of deep understanding of belief or the concept of gods.
Again, from a personal, anecdotal experience, I really don't need to know more about god and religions to know that I lack this belief, this is what makes me an atheist. not the rejection of religion, it's the lack of belief, I don't need to know more about it, I don't even need to know that it exists.
You're still missing the point.
Atheism cannot exist without belief in a deity also existing. It is a rejection of and/or absence of a thing, and if that thing doesn't exist then it can't be absent in the first place or rejected.
Therefore until you are able to understand what atheism is, until you can understand the concept of belief in a deity and assign meaning to it, you cannot be atheist.
So no, you were not atheist at 5. You were atheist at the point you could rationalise your lack of belief in a deity and put a name to it. If the concept of deities didn't exist, neither would atheism.
Anyway, this really is super-off topic... if you'd like to continue this discussion, perhaps you could make a new thread and we could take it there?
You're the one assigning labels. Absence of belief in something is not defining in any way. You're saying anti-theism is the same as simply absence of faith which is an arbitrary decision on your part.
Theism cannot exist unless you actively invent it. And atheism as a word wouldn't exist, but nothing about my phylosophy would be different about me in a world without religions, so i'd still be atheist by current world logic.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
When it goes against the standard of what the population believes this isn't true. Or if you're trying to deny a scientifically proven fact.
Examples include things like Holocaust deniers, people who don't believe that Global Warming is real, and people who think that the Moon Landing didn't actually happen.
Walk into a room of religious Americans, claim you don't believe in a God, talk to some of those people, and then try to walk out without claiming that not believing in God didn't define you to at least some of those people.
No I'm not. My wording may have been loose, but I was meaning:
Atheism is literally the absence of belief in a deity/deities, or more loosely the rejection of these beliefs.
We need labels to define things, to state our beliefs (or lack of) in a concise way. This is something humans require, mostly.
Teaching your children to reject belief in deity would be the same as imposing any kind of system - be it belief, ethical, or philosophical - on their impressionable minds.
And the side argument being:
You can bring a child up open to the idea of everything, and they might not have a belief in a deity, but until they assign that belief a meaning they're not atheist.
Anyway, as I said, we should really make a separate thread for this.
Moff
Member
I understand what you are trying to say, I am just not agreeing with you and trying to explain other points of view. what you are saying is not fact, others have pointed out different definitions to you, which you dismissed because they were based on one philisophy. the same can be said about yours, not fact. again, I was trying to educate you, not the other way around. but I agree again that this is too off topic by now.
Except your view, imo, is incorrect so I'm not going to accept it, not until you present me with a compelling argument that doesn't rely on anecdotes.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
You live in a very strange society if you think that our population is largely religiousless. At least if you live in America. If you live in another country I can't speak either way, but saying that Religion doesn't play into how American society is shaped is just ignorant.
You're in the same spot as a Holocaust denier because in both of those situations it's a person who is defined by the absence of belief in something that happened. It doesn't mean you're as illogical or bad as a Holocaust denier (In fact, you're probably not illogical or bad at all, because there is nothing wrong with Atheism), but you're both defined by the lack of belief in something, which you claimed wasn't possible. If you would go so far as to designate yourself as an Atheist when you're asked, then you're by definition, defining yourself by using the lack of belief in something as a label.
GoldenCrow
Member
Extremely fortunate.
CornBurrito
Member
"more carnivorous"
That's a funny way of putting it.
Cats are obligate carnivores. Dogs are omnivores.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked