Question:
Why, do you think, the attribute "atheist" exists?
?
2009-10-03 14:38:31 UTC
While I accept that attribute on me, I often think that it is funny to have an attribute for "do not believe in". After all, there is no term for people who do not believe in karma, Socrates, or democracy. No term for not being a fan of fishing either.

So, why, do you think, the attribute "atheist" exists?
Is it just a way to distinguish/segregate people on belief/non-belief system?

Any thoughts?
Six answers:
A Modest Proposal
2009-10-03 14:43:54 UTC
Well, there also aren't words for those who believe in karma, Socrates, or democracy (the last one being debatable). "Atheist" exists because "theist" does - it's merely a way to distinguish a positive from a negative. If there was such thing as a "karma-ist" I would presume that there'd also be an "akarma-ist."



PaulCyp, I think that the closest thing that could come to that is agnostic, not atheist. Many atheists know about religions; in fact, some are atheists because of this knowledge.
Christian .
2009-10-03 22:11:29 UTC
yup.



here's my Christian thought though...no such thing as an atheist according to the scriptures. And many atheists believe there is no God. Not just that they don't believe in God. That's an outward acting belief in something that seemingly no one can prove. Making such "Believers" hypocrites as well as faithful as these last base their belief on others not being able to prove God existence.



No such thing as agnostic either (according to the Christian bible), but at least there isn't the element of hypocritical belief involved. A little more honest I think.



Come right down to it....none of us can prove anything to anyone else. On the premise that there is a Christian God (this is not a premise for me...it's true) evidence of him to the individual comes in the form of faith. And it's intended by God this way as revealed in the scriptures. On the premise that there isn't a Christian God, then the proof of this would necessarily be absent by definition as well.



Atheist is a much abused label, I would prefer "Atheist, believing wrongly", "Atheist, in denial of their belief in God" and "Agnostic, wrong but awaiting any proof".



too long by far, so it's Atheist, Agnostic, Believer (in God), Believer (in the Christ). And of course Republican, but that's another story.





as far as Socrates, democracy and the like...I prefer to say agree or disagree with, rather than believe or no. Karma is a faith as is Buddhism (don't know why people call this a philosophy only system. Definitely believes in supernatural stuff that is unprovable). Tho many faiths are not deity based so the term Atheist would have to be used even more haphazardly to apply to non-adherents.



It's all a mess for sure and according to the bible (read romans ch 1 i think) atheists are not just wrong, they are nonexistent. Just another example of human "intelligence".
Friendly Neighbourhood Atheist
2009-10-03 21:46:59 UTC
Because our retarded ancestors needed to make up answers to important questions, religions were born, and as time went by, people, the smart people realised it was all crap, and to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff, the term atheist was born.
Andromache
2009-10-03 21:45:59 UTC
There would be no reason for the term without theism, it is necessary to distinguish ourselves from them because of their predominance. Likewise, there would be no reason for vegetarianism without the predominance of meat-eaters.
PaulCyp
2009-10-03 21:43:05 UTC
The term that covers all such situations is "ignorance". "Atheist" simply refers to ignorance of a particular body of knowledge.
sara palins daughter
2009-10-03 21:44:17 UTC
atheist are sinners


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...