Even the concept "atheist" is annoying

[Mollie]

I absolutely cringe and hate it when people talk about Christian children, Muslim children etc. When children are born they do not have a religion (and just leave them alone I say). Anyway I have heard new born babies being labelled atheists. I am not quite comfortable with this. You need be aware of the concept not to believe in it. This leads on to what I really want to ask. Is there an expression, a word for anyone who is totally unaware of the very concept of gods and religion? I just kind of resent the very notion of atheist in the first place. Some folk just come up, without an iota of evidence, that a creator produced the multiverse and if you don't believe them a word is made up to describe you. I just find that ridiculous. Just take this further. For everything that someone just dreams up there has to be a word for not believing it. For example, someone asserts that Mars has two moons because a rabbit drank too much water on a Scottish island 157 years ago. If you don't believe that to be true then a word is made up to categorize you?! (I'm sure a pun lurks somewhere...)

[peky]

Do animals sense the presence of G-d? Do babies sense the presence of G-d? What do we really sense? Can G-d existence or non-existence be proved? What would constitute a prove that G-d exists?

Extremist of the atheistic persuasion like all self-righteous extremist are dangerous, and must be contained by any means

Having said that I affirm that it is a unalienable human right to believe in that ever you want to believe as long as you do not try to forcefully impose your conviction to other folks...lets agree to disagree

[Mollie]

^"Extremist of the atheistic persuasion like all self-righteous extremist are dangerous, and must be contained by any means"

That was rather extreme. Contain yourself. (Just kidding )

[Ltl89]

Why does it really matter?  I mean did we choose the label trangender or was it applied to us?  I don't know the origin of it, but it wasn't invented by me even though it's a word that can be used to define me.  Same thing with gender.  Somebody defined what men and women are and the label was automatically applied to everyone as a result.  Labels are simply ways to convey beliefs, orientations or views so people will understand where you are coming from or find a way to categorize you.  It's unfortunate that labels have lots of baggage that comes along with it, but what can you do besides try to distinguish yourself from others within your in group.  Christians and Muslims face the same thing.  How many of them are lumped in with extremists who share nothing in common with them?  Still, it makes sense for them to identify with their religion of choice.  Labels suck but they have their uses.  How would you desire to convey your lack of religious beliefs if you were to avoid using the term atheist?  Like it or not we live in a very religious world, so having a term like atheist is important to help identify where you stand on the existence of God because it is such a prevalent topic.  In the example you gave on the rabbit, that theory wouldn't have enough of a following to create the need for a new label to enter the lexicon. 

Having said all that, I hate labels myself and I struggle to find appropriate ones that don't misconstrue my actual beliefs and positions.  One word can't describe your overall positions and feelings.  Still, I recognize that labels have their uses and are important tools to help convey our beliefs or identities. 

[Shantel]

On a similar note a local radio talk show host was interviewing a woman following a statement made by a Washington state congressman that the FBI's 25 most wanted terrorist list comprised only of bearded, Mid-Easterners with head cloths was racist. The talk show host cited FBI statistics that 75% of all terrorist acts in the world are perpetrated by radical Islamists. The woman refused to acknowledge the FBI's facts and figures as evidence and agreed with the liberal congressman that the most wanted terrorist list was indeed racist and that there should be some white male faces on it.

People can disagree about everything under the sun, but what I find annoying are those that disagree when the information is blatantly supported by overwhelming historical, factual and empirical evidence. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind living in a vegetative state to not believe what is clearly evident to everyone else. Though I am not given to argument with someone over their disbelief in anything as it would clearly be a waste of my time and life's energy. Better to enjoy a conversation with a pet rock!

[Shantel]

This reminded me of "The Emporer's New Clothes"...sometimes it's not the empirical evidence that matters, sometimes it's political or social considerations that override a person's normal reasoning powers.

Or something concerning logic missing from their DNA!   

[Ltl89]

People can disagree about everything under the sun, but what I find annoying are those that disagree when the information is blatantly supported by overwhelming historical, factual and empirical evidence. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind living in a vegetative state to not believe what is clearly evident to everyone else. Though I am not given to argument with someone over their disbelief in anything as it would clearly be a waste of my time and life's energy. Better to enjoy a conversation with a pet rock!

Perhaps I'm misreading you, which I hope is the case, but the second paragraph seems that you are insinuating that atheists are deaf, dumb and blind for not acknowledging the existence of a God.  I don't think the evidence is nearly as overwhelming as one might believe.  This is a very subjective view and there is no hard facts that can be used in an academic sense to prove the existence of a deity.  It remains to be something that one takes on faith with evidence which is fairly subjective.  I don't care when people choose to believe in something, but I don't think it's fair to say another is blind for not believing in the same things.  Denying established facts or proof is foolish, but having different interpretations on things which don't have a definitive answer or remain scientifically inconclusive is a matter of having a different opinion.  Either way, I respect where people fall as long as they don't use their views for hatred and bigotry.  Unfortunately, both atheists and theists have people in their camps that can't play nicely with others. 

[Shantel]

In some cases, sure. But I have some experience trying to persuade people of ideas that are supported by numerous sources (and all counter-sources are shown as emotion-based "reasoning"), but to no avail. Yet, these people are often successful and rational in other areas of thought. But certain topics--religion, race, gender, to name but a few--and some people's frontal lobes go dormant, mostly in fear of "but what will the neighbors think?"

It's just interesting seeing how people will believe how fabulous the Emperor is dressed...

As an aside to what you have just said, the idea of "what will others think of me" is at the very heart of what motivates everyone here who shrinks back from being all of who they want to be and even why some remain closeted and living in misery. This is yet another form of disbelief in one's own self fitting in as a part of the world around them. Forgive me, I don't want to stray too far off the OP's subject.

[Mollie]

Learningtolive, I'm glad you said that. I read it a few (dozen) times and didn't quite know what to make of it.

Anyway, let me try again. I feel I failed to get my point over. Imagine there is an island where a few thousand people live and have done so for generations and there is absolutely no concept of god or religion (or fairies, astrology.......). Anyway, one day a guy arrives on the island, on a boat; he didn't walk, and after a few days he starts to talk about his particular god, and of course, with no evidence, and a few of the requirements demanded of this religion (Woman have to balance fruit on their head and men have to say "boing boing boing" when it rains). So this guy arrives with his story, nobody believes it and suddenly they are all to be labelled atheist......or some other new word? That can't be right.

[Ltl89]

Learningtolive, I'm glad you said that. I read it a few (dozen) times and didn't quite know what to make of it.

Anyway, let me try again. I feel I failed to get my point over. Imagine there is an island where a few thousand people live and have done so for generations and there is absolutely no concept of god or religion (or fairies, astrology.......). Anyway, one day a guy arrives on the island, on a boat; he didn't walk, and after a few days he starts to talk about his particular god, and of course, with no evidence, and a few of the requirements demanded of this religion (Woman have to balance fruit on their head and men have to say "boing boing boing" when it rains). So this guy arrives with his story, nobody believes it and suddenly they are all to be labelled atheist......or some other new word? That can't be right.

It depends.  If the story is widely believed, then it would make sense to create a word between believers and non believers.  That way people could understand your position on something that is seen as socially relevant.  If the guy is considered crazy, no one would see the need to create a new word.  We are a very religious society, so I don't think that you can compare religion to the guy with a crazy story which no one believes.  The fact is many believe in a god, so it makes sense to create a label to describe your position on something that is seen as a major philosophical topic.  So I think it is entirely reasonable for the existence of the label for atheism. 

[Shantel]

Perhaps I'm misreading you, which I hope is the case, but the second paragraph seems that you are insinuating that atheists are deaf, dumb and blind for not acknowledging the existence of a God.  I don't think the evidence is nearly as overwhelming as one might believe.  This is a very subjective view and there is no hard facts that can be used in an academic sense to prove the existence of a deity.  It remains to be something that one takes on faith with evidence which is fairly subjective.  I don't care when people choose to believe in something, but I don't think it's fair to say another is blind for not believing in the same things.  Denying established facts or proof is foolish, but having different interpretations on things which don't have a definitive answer or remain scientifically inconclusive is a matter of having a different opinion.  Either way, I respect where people fall as long as they don't use their views for hatred and bigotry.  Unfortunately, both atheists and theists have people in their camps that can't play nicely with others.

This is why I try and avoid religious and political stuff. For me there is plenty of evidence, because I even exist and awaken each day and there is still an adequate supply of oxygen and I am a breathing miracle. All of nature as I observe it clearly speaks of intelligent design. My plants and trees speak of a cycle of life, blooming gloriously, aging, withering and then dying away, and then new life springing up from what has previously died and gone into the ground. I don't need a scientific explanation to prove to me what I know innately any more than did those people who lived in Mesopotamia twenty five thousand years ago. I don't have to try and convince others who are devoid of the gift of faith, because the evidence is there before them and if they refuse to process it then that's their business.

[Mollie]

"Devoid of the GIFT of faith". God has favourites? That's not fair. Heaven forbid I ever favoured one of my children over another.

[Ltl89]

This is why I try and avoid religious and political stuff. For me there is plenty of evidence, because I even exist and awaken each day and there is still an adequate supply of oxygen and I am a breathing miracle. All of nature as I observe it clearly speaks of intelligent design. My plants and trees speak of a cycle of life, blooming gloriously, aging, withering and then dying away, and then new life springing up from what has previously died and gone into the ground. I don't need a scientific explanation to prove to me what I know innately any more than did those people who lived in Mesopotamia twenty five thousand years ago. I don't have to try and convince others who are devoid of the gift of faith, because the evidence is there before them and if they refuse to process it then that's their business.

Absolutely.  It's your right to believe what you want and you shouldn't have to defend it to anyone.  My point is that it's unfair to call other dumb and blind for experiencing the same things you do and have a different interpretation on it.  One can say those who refuse the evidence for evolution and abiogensis simply are blind, take it all on faith and that's their business. The point is that it's easy to cast off the belief of other's as wrong or dumb, but that does a disservice to your position as well as your opponents.  Even if evolution or abiogenesis were true, that doesn't disprove a creator.  Nor would the fallacy of evolution prove the existence of a creator.  Belief in God is something that is subjective and I believe it's best to respect people's beliefs.  To say other's are blind for their position isn't really fair.  I can hold my own beliefs and positions without needing to invalidate the views of others.  I point this out because I respect you Shantel, and I don't think that particular view is reflective of the compassionate and understanding person you are.  It wasn't to target your beliefs, but rather to open up a discussion on how people of opposing sides often misunderstand one another without realizing that they aren't being fair.  I have done this (and continue to do this) myself, and I often try to watch out whenever I make that error because it does a great disservice to everyone on both sides. 

[peky]

"Devoid of the GIFT of faith". God has favourites? That's not fair. Heaven forbid I ever favoured one of my children over another.

Each child is favored in a different way...each according to his/her personality

[Mollie]

^Even the ones that twitch then die moments after birth as scarcely differentiated blobs of cells? My midwife spouse saw many "miracles" in here time that ended up in the fridge and had her distraught beyond the sanctuary of sleep. But I know, "mysterious ways".

[Anatta]

Kia Ora,

For us born in the West (and I might add a good potion of non Westerners too) are born into a "God-Centric" environment, where the term "God" "G-d" "Allah" appears in everyday speech , even atheists are known to used words such as "Oh My God !" "Good God!"  "For God's Sake !" "Jesus Christ ! WTF are you doing?"  etc etc...

A day doesn't go by when we are not in ear shot of a religious verbal outburst from a member of the general public be they a theist or atheist (Mind you some atheists are 'mindful' not to use a religious iconic term when expressing themselves) ...

A-theist just means without [a] god...In other words Atheist don't need a god or gods in their life for it to be meaningful in some way...

"I'm an atheist in that I don't recognise an absolute personal deity...But I'm not philosophically atheistic because I don't deny Ultimate Reality !"

Do I find the concept of atheist annoying ? No I find it a convenient way to let others know that in my life there's no need for there to be a god or gods for me to do the 'right' thing...

And the bottom line is...It's just a descriptive word/term (that some put a spin on for their own benefit-be it a wholesome or unwholesome spin)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

@ sentience

"This leads on to what I really want to ask. Is there an expression, a word for anyone who is totally unaware of the very concept of gods and religion?"


Simple answer..."IGNORANT" 

Metta Zenda

   

[vegie271]

Rational Scientist. You only believe what the evidence presents can be stated and proven. you don't take anything on "faith" and you set yourself outside of "spirits"

as an aside I don't mind atheist - my description is gnostic ateist but really i am outside and I am anti-theist. 

[Mollie]

Ignorant ........Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy"

So as you see the area of ignorance has to be defined; specified. So it's a rather circular assertion at best.

[peky]

I believe in G-d because I have seen, talked to, and touched and be touched by her...what more prove can I demand?

[Anatta]

Kia Ora Sentience,

If one is 'totally' unaware of some thing, then they are ignorant of the 'fact' nothing comes to mind when the terms "God or Religion" are used...

But in saying this, you could if you so chose always make up a word/term..This is happening all the time. So make up a term and go down in history 

No doubt there are still some isolated tribes somewhere in the sticks who have had no contact with other humans (Or shy away from contact, and hence (with any luck) no concept of a god or religion,  and if by chance the poor sods are brought into the Western world "To be civilised" and we find out what they call themselves, then we could use this name as a general description for what you ask....

BTW  I think there was a tribe found in the islands of Papua New Guinea-or somewhere in that region who had no concept of a god or religion...If I could remember that tribe's name you would have your word/term...

Metta Zenda