JWeinCom said:
If you're not interested, don't participate. Simple.
Then that brings me back to the question I started with. We have two definitions we can potentially use for atheist. I believe that the way I've defined it is better because it excludes things we both agree we don't care about when we are talking about atheists. Wouldn't that make this a better definition? |
Let's see...
we got 2 people who have no contact with the concept of god. So, they both don't believe in it. According to your definition they would be called "not a theist".
One of them will be shown the concept of god and he rejects the claims with whatever reason he has. His believe hasn't changed, cause he is still not believing in it. But now, you would call him an atheist and the other still "not a theist" while both are lacking the believe. They would still do whatever they did before in life. What if the other forgets about the concept of god? Would he turn back to being "not a theist"?
In the end you have two labels for the same end result which is : lack of believe. But one is based on the ignorance of the concept of a god and the other of rejecting of it.
Atheist in itself means "without god". The word itself would apply to both.
I can't really say if that is the better definition. Sorry.
Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3







