I love it when people with glasses agree with me. Makes me feel more smarter. 

I'm in thread-hijack mode right now, so I'll do it here, too.  I have a friend who is an atheist.  You ask him, point blank, "Do you believe in any god or gods?" and he'll give you an unqualified "No, I don't."

Thing is, he will not call himself an atheist.  He thinks if he does that, he's saying that there isn't a possibility of something that could be called a god.

No matter how much I explain to him that this has nothing to do with atheism, he can't see it because his definition of atheism is so ingrained culturally.

This cultural steretype is being promoted by atheists, too!  We're going along with what the theists say about us, precisely because of the segregation you're talking about.

An atheist is an atheist is an atheist, whether they have the most logical atheist position or not.  You can be a very irrational person and still not believe in god.

I know people like this too.  The way I figure is that I'm an atheist until I believe in a god.  It's not written in stone. 

Also, I think some people don't like to consider a person who isn't of high intelligence a real atheist.  I honestly don't think it takes a doctorate to realize that there is no god overseeing us. It just takes a little logical thinking. 

Ok, sorry, I seem to be perpetuating hijacking links today.

Well that does it. I'm getting a pair tonight whether I need them or not.

I feel obligated to post a response in this topic since I did use the term "intentional atheism" recently, and I'm sure the posting of this topic had something to do with that.

First of all, I agree that a mere lack of belief is all you really need to be an atheist. To prove I'm not just changing my story, you can refer to my introduction post. Feelings of superiority or believing that true atheists must be intellectuals had nothing to do with my use of the word.

I used it in the topic where we were asked for opinions on why allegedly former atheists might have converted or why certain theists sometimes make that claim.

As was touched on above, I was making a distinction between people who have never been indoctrinated and people who have deconverted. My use of the term depended very much on context though. I didn't mean to imply that one type was necessarily better or more justified than the other.

I was offering an opinion on why I think Kirk Cameron might claim that he was once an atheist who converted. I proposed that he probably holds the common stereotype that atheists are some kind of immoral creatures. And it was here that I drew the distinction, because I believe that there are theists (like Cameron) who perceive a distinction whether or not there truly is one. For them, there is a difference between someone who has simply never considered God and someone who has slammed the door in his face, so to speak. (I will be the first to admit that this is pure speculation).

I think when Cameron says that he used to be an atheist, he is going for the more extreme position because he wants his conversion to be admirable. Dramatic. Sparkly.

So when I claim that he doesn't understand "intentional atheism", I'm mostly accusing him of stereotyping. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but opinions were asked for.

I agree that simply not having a belief is good enough to be called an atheist, and I wouldn't dream of trying to divide atheism into layers or of telling anyone they're "not a real atheist" because they don't know certain things. If I were to do that, I'd be one of the first people to get my ass kicked out of this place, because there are a lot of people here who know a hell of a lot more than I do, and I'll be the first to admit it. If I said that some were better or more intelligent than others, I'd basically be calling myself a really shitty atheist.

So I agree that all atheists are the same in that they share a lack of belief (or a doubt) in god, and I agree that it's really only the vehicle that differs.

But I think that to a fundamentalist, that vehicle would make a difference, and that's where my usage came from. I'm sorry if anyone thought I was claiming some kind of superiority. I don't want to give a bad impression of myself when I haven't even been here a week yet.

I am one of those who claimed a distinction between 'intentional' atheists and other atheists so I suppost I shoudl defend my position.

I would acually rather use a term like 'conscious' atheist since taken quite literally I myself would be in the unintentional category even though I believe I think in the same way as the 'intentional' atheists. I was born an atheist and by the time the concept of religion was intorduced I had lived long enough as an atheist that I didn't fall for it. I never chose to leave religion, just decided not to join it.

I'd say I'm a 'conscious' atheist because I'm aware of my atheism. I think about it, question it and debate it. I have firm logical reasons for my atheism. This is an entirely different state of mind to my atheism as a child. I was an atheist but I didn't think about it, sure I was aware that I didn't believe in god (I'd ofcourse heard other talk about god but fortunately never someone I considered to be a source to reliable information, like my parents, so I was aware that I didn't believe what some others believed) but I didn't have reasons for it. I hadn't tested that lack of belief.

Yes both of these states are athiesm, one isn't true atheism and the other false atheism. one isn't good atheism and the other bad atheism. However there is a difference in the state of mind and I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Not to say one is better than the other or to distance myself from the other type of atheist but to facillitate discussion. If there isn't a linguistic way to distinguish between two different things there is no way to discuss them.

For the purposes of that other topic I felt that the distinction was important to the discussion because while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism.

WARNING: Hijacking in progress

I wear prescription reading glasses. Does that count?

If not, I have a hat with glasses on it.

You know, I do kind of feel that way, now that you mention it. Like I've overcome a stumbling block. When I first started going atheist, there was a sort of resentment since I felt like I had been deceived by so many people, and a sort of annoyance at myself for not being able to see the absurdity of it. There is a sort of pride when you find you're able to risk disappointing your family in order to choose the truth. You've overcome the internal battle of convincing yourself to accept the reality. And finally, you're able to find it in yourself to not hold it against anyone for indoctrinating you.

The deconversion process is a long road to travel, and so I suppose I do find it a little insulting that someone would claim to have done the same simply to score political points with their fan base, especially when I feel sure that they actually didn't.

I do have a sort of pride in my atheism just because I feel like I've overcome something big. It comes with all the usual dangers of pride, but it's hard not to be boastful sometimes. I could definitely understand why some deconverted atheists would seem proud/arrogant. 

Well put, Vessel.  I agree.  I view atheism in a very simple context.  I've simply never believed.  I didn't have to go through what theists had to go through. 

I don't think 'wrong' necessarily applies. There is nothing wrong with having logical reasons for non-belief. It seems to demonstrate a difference in the way two people might consider their lack of belief, however.

Yes, these are all logical reasons for disbelief in the proposition "God exists" or "The Christian god exists" or "Tom Cruise is sane", but they have nothing to do with lacking a belief in any god or gods. "I have no belief in anything that could reasonably be said to be a god or gods," is not a position that one needs to, or really can, argue for. One can argue "Your god belief is incorrect, Mr. Theist" or "My disbelief in your god is correct" but one can't argue "My lack of god belief is correct". 

It seems to me as if we almost validate the theistic side as an actual position backed by solid points when we say that we need reasons, or have reasons, for not having a god belief. That we may have arguments that show certain god concepts incompatible with logic or reality seems to be arguing against god X not arguing for ~god. I never feel the need to defend atheism as it isn't something one can defend. When one argues their position it isn't in defense of atheism but in an attack of theism.

I would truly think this had more to do with the individual persons character than with their knowledge of Scientology. I am sure many Scientologists have read about the history of Scientology and yet they seem to still be Scientologists.

 An attack on theism is a defence of atheism. If a theistsic position is presented then you either defend non-belief or accept belief. I don't consider this a false dichotomy as running away with your fingers in your ears singing "la la la I can't hear you" is a theist tactic.

In an ideal world god would be rejected without a thought like fairies and unicorns but this is not an ideal world. People are insisting we share their ridiculous beliefs and when they fail they insist we atleast live by the rules of their religion. If we can't defend the position of non-belief then how do we stop them?

 However all this is irrelivant because this discussion was about the existence of different states of atheism not the validity of them. The fact remains that the state of atheism that we are born with is different to the state of one who has considered religion and rejected it. Discussion of whether it is even worthwhile considering the possiblility of god or whether that gives religion more credibility than it deserves are not part of this argument although I will ask why are you a member of this site? Doesn't the existence of this site, by your argument, validate the theist position?

I'm not certain of the official position of the church of scientology on the life of hubbard but I doubt they are open about his drug use (especially since ther are against drugs) and probably not his lies either. I do know that scientology is very quick to persue legal action or seriously harrass anyone who publicly points out their nonsense. Scientology is very secretive, the totally ridiculous nature of their beliefs are not presented until the individual is already too deep into the cult to reject them.

So back to the comparison 

I'm aware of the faults of hubbard and the laughable beliefs that are saved until initial indoctrination is complete.

Compare that to someone who has never heard of hubbard or scientology. They get presented with this wonderful system of self-help and the stories of the great man who developed it. 

Do you really think that I am just as likely to fall for the bullshit as the second person?

No, as I have stated it is not. An attack on theism is simply an attack on theism. It is impossible to defend a lack of belief. 

We are talking about atheism and theism in general, not a specific theistic position. Atheism is not the lack of belief in a specific theistic position.

By attacking the position of holding beliefs that are unwarranted, unevidenced, illogical, irrational, incoherent, what have you.

I think you are misunderstanding the distinction I am drawing. Perhaps it is even a distinction that lacks any difference, though I think it does have a difference in the way the individual views their atheism and therefor the way they view theism.

I think this has something to do with the fundamental difference, not between atheism au natural and intentional atheism, but between active disbelief and lack of belief. Active disbelief seems to give the opposing position a higher status than a simple lack of belief. It says that one has an actual coherent position I can either believe or disbelieve in. Lack of belief does not grant theism this status.

Yes, but that seems settled. Lack of belief is lack of belief. There is no fundamental difference between the intentional atheists lack of belief and the atheist au naturals lack of belief. If there is some difference then no one has pointed it out. The only differences seems to be in how they arrived at it or how they support it or justify it if they, like you seem to do, feel the need to.

And of course there is also a difference between lack of a belief and an active disbelief in some position, but it seems as if it is very hard to have an active disbelief in theism as this requires that you know what it is you are disbelieving in, which requires theism is based in a coherent concept and that you actively disbelieve in all possible variants of theism.

I have not seen anyone show this. The reasoning behind it may be different, the support may be different, the foundation may be different, but I have not seen anyone show an actual difference in the state of the lack of belief (which is the actual atheism if you accept the often trumpeted definition as I do) itself. This was my point with this thread.

Being as that there is no difference between the actual state of a lack of belief, when atheism is defined as simply a lack of belief in any god or gods, then it is inappropriate to attempt to distance one's self from others who lack a belief by classifying them as something other than real atheists simply because they may have become a theist, be an idiot, or perhaps never even considered a god. 

Because theism is a fundamentally dangerous mindset which should be discouraged. Anytime people believe their eternal fate lies in the hands of the ruler of existence and the maker of all things moral then any action can be justified. This mindset is more dangerous than any other I could possibly imagine any individual entity holding and should be discouraged at every opportunity. 

Not if you unbderstand what it is I am saying.

Well, I think it is somewhat far fetched to think that, if you know the history of Scientology, that there aren't plenty of people who become Scientologists that know it as well unless you have access to some information that is not available to others.

As far as who is more susceptible to the bullshit, I would say that depends on several factors both emotional and intellectual. I don't think we can simply assume that knowledge of Hubbard leads to non-acceptance of Scientology or that non-knowledge of Hubbard lends itself to acceptance.

I for one have spent my entire life as an athiest and most of it knowing nothing of the arguments against any particular god 'concept'. This however did not at all make the god concepts I was presented with throughout my first thirty years in small town Texas, or the last several years in several other places, any more reasonable. I guess I was born immune to the proverbial bullshit. The fact that I need an actual concept to believe in before I even have the capability of considering the proposition may have much to do with this. But I'm straying...

The point is that lack of a belief is simply lack of a belief. Anything more than this is, as Hamby said, something more than atheism. For this reason it would be incorrect to state that one who lacks a belief in a god or gods is not an atheist simply because one does not approve of their intellectual prowess or any other tacked on criteria.

Never having considered the existence of a god is not a justification for a disbelief in any god, this is true and it would be silly to deny that. But it is a reason to lack a god belief. This lack of a god belief is no different than anyone elses lack of a god belief. I think we agree on this. It probably seems like an inconsequentrial statement to you, which may be why you think I am attempting to claim more than what I am, but I have tried to state why I think it is not an inconsequential statement.

Yes, those are two different paths. Both end up lacking a belief, at the least.

Yes. 

Possibly. Many objections against theistic arguments are fairly self evident and should be easy enough to realize on one's own when considering the theists statements. 

Yes, one who has pre-considered a particular position already knows why they reject said position. There of course had to be a point at which they first considered the position, however, and if they weren't swayed into theism then what reason do they have to think the atheist au natural is more likely to be. Logic is always accessible to everybody with a normally functioning brain.

And of course I disagree with your use of the word defenses as defenses are only needed by those who have something to defend. Atheism is nothing and therefor not defensible.  

I wouldn't say they are inexperienced with the thought process as they may use the same thought processin aspects of their lives but I know what it is you are trying to say. The theist who has encountered theiststic concepts has a ready arsenal of objections.  

Exactly what my point was. That their lack of belief is not what is changed.

Of course, the lack of belief in any god or gods is always logical so the logic-default distinction seems like inapproipriate wording but I know what you are saying. The intentional or natural as I have been terming them. And yes, I believe that it is relevant to why some may become theists although I don't think that either side is immune from becoming a theist.

Yes. I am sure it plays a large role being as that all are born atheist and most become theists.

They are atheists if they lack a belief whether they think the god term to be incoherent or not. In order to hold an active disbelief, however, it seems as if one would have to consider the concept coherent.

And what you term a reason for atheism I would term a reason why one cannot reasonably hold any theistic belief with which I am familiar.

But the thread you are discussing in was started on this topic. 

I didn't say you were. And even if you were, if their intelligence was deserving of insult, I would say go for it. 

But others have and that is from whence this thread be born. 

It probably is, though I feel those who reach adulthood, where their brains are fully formed, and have never accepted theism are unlikely to become theists whether they are familiar with objections or not. I might even question whether or not there was any significant difference between the percentage of those familiar with the arguments against theism who convert and those who aren't familiar that convert, in adulthood.

I'm not sure by what criteria superiority could even be decided.

Yes. Labels are useful.

I think the places where we disagree may be much smaller than you think. I may start a thread about defending atheism as opposed to attacking theism now though as I find this an interesting subject where there again seems to be a subtle difference in thinking that may prove interesting. Well, interesting to me which is often not the same as what may be interesting for any other human being. 

I acknowledge that it is different to de-convert from a religion to atheism than to always have been an atheist.  But somewhere along the line, I still had to make a conscious decision to be atheist.  There was certainly a time when I questioned my lack of belief.  I know others have posted similar situations on this forum. While I did not perhaps study or research as much as an ex-theist did, I still had to look into it. 

I can't understand what it is like to lose your belief.  I can only relate so far.  I'll openly admit that I didn't need a ton of evidence to confirm my disbelief, whereas I imagine many of you did.  It just strikes me that some de-converts feel they have 'earned' their atheism, while those of us who always were atheist have not.

I sort of agree with that. It is a feeling of accomplishment for me. But even though I consider it an accomplishment, I don't necessarily consider myself "a better atheist" in any sense. Having deconverted and knowing that you, on the other hand, never had to deconvert, I wouldn't say to you, "Well, I'm more atheist than you."  That's just kind of silly. I mean... essentially... that's like holding an empty glass next to an empty glass and saying one is more empty than the other. They're both just empty.

I am willing to go out on a limb and wager that recent deconverts probably have the "I'm more atheist" attitude moreso than atheists who deconverted a long time ago. It's sort of a thrill, I think, to see the world in a new way. I can't say that for sure though.

At best, I think that among those who actually see a distinction, some see it as more black and white than others. (Does that make sense to anyone but me?)

Hmm... could we refer to such a person as a "holier-than-thou-art" atheist?

I am an atheist, as I was born and how I hope to die. 

Is this thread an example of tribalism rearing its head?  While I'm reading many assertions that one type of atheism is not better than another, one is not superior to the other, I'm also reading statements like:

"If you are au-natural, you may have never thought about the nature of existence. This might make you more susceptible to religious indoctrination than someone who has examined religion from the inside and seen first hand how absurd it is."

"Au natural and deconverted atheists both exist in the same state of non-god-belief. The difference is in the potential for conversion or reconversion in the future."

"One is necessarily a more informed position, so you could say that the deconverted atheist has more information supporting his position." 

"while I don't think it is impossible for a conscious atheist to give up their rationality I think it is much easier for someone with a more childlike atheism."

What exactly are these assertions based on?  If they're simply suspicions based on internal musings, please know that some of us may find them rather insulting and baseless.

Sorry, I couldn't get the quote function to cooperate.

In preface my comments here are regarding how non-believers are treated in America.

Wrong. Anyone who has thought about the man-made concepts of god and decided to reject them has 'earned' their atheism.

People who were non-believers their whole life have had to deal with the stigma of being a godless heathen their whole life.

People who were theistic and now reject god have had to deal with the loss of that part of their life.

Neither is more worthy, you are kind of being an asshole with your statements regarding 'earning' it.

...and like I already said, those who have spent their whole life not believing have had to deal with basically being an outcast. At least you had a period of time in your life where you sat at the table with the group, a lifetime atheist has been excluded and misrepresented their whole life.

Neither is better than the other, and both are justified in their atheism.

Not funny. 

I thought I was fairly clear in making the point that no, it doesn't make sense since the claims have so far not been shown to have any basis in fact.  Furthermore, it's counter productive in that the particular assertions are insulting to some of us.  Apparently I need to get more of what's in my brain into my posts.  My apologies for being unclear.

I speak only for myself, of course when I say the following: 

The fact that I was never indoctrinated personally does not mean my "au natural" atheism is born of ignorance, lack of exposure or lack of thought.  That's an assumption, and it's an incorrect one.  I am simply asking people to recognize and examine their assumptions.

I'm wrong when I say that I feel that I've earned my atheism?  Ok, then you tell me how I feel.  I do feel like I earned it.  If I'm being an asshole for feeling like I've earned my atheism then I guess I'm just an asshole. 

I never said that au-atheists haven't earned their atheism.  They have earned it by not falling into a religion.  I never said otherwise.

Would you agree that children of atheists usually stay atheist?  Would you also agree that children of religious believers usually stay religious?  If you think its bad being an 'outcast' to society in general, think about being an 'outcast' to your parents, siblings, cousins, etc.  I don't know of a single atheist relative I have except for my children.  I had to grow my own.

I think I touched a nerve here.

I can't speak for BGH, but I did not get the impression a nerve was touched.  Your post came across as arrogant by assuming that life-long atheists are the same as life-long theists.  It implies that they haven't considered other possibilites when, in fact, nearly all have.  You haven't earned your atheism any more than you have earned your skin color.   

I never said you didn't earn it, I said you didn't earn it more than anyone else. I said neither is more worthy of wearing the atheism badge. Grow up and quit crying like you are the only one who has experienced hardship.

By the way, I am an ex theist and know what it is like but I can also empathize with the life long atheists who had to deal with being 'shunned' by their friends parents because they didn't go to church.

No, you just said you earned yours a 'little' bit more.

I also know what this is like, but it does not make my atheism anymore 'earned' than anyone else.

I think you just don't like being told your atheism is no more special than anyone else's.

Because he is too young to post this himself (he is 12) I will share with you a story regarding my son. His uncle is pretty set on making sure he gets confirmed. This is something neither my ex nor I want, but my ex-brother-in-law is his 'godparent' and now feels it is his right to do this. My son is extremely upset about this since he has gotten the impression that his own family will not like him anymore if he doesn't get confirmed. I sincerely doubt that they came right out and said this to him, but at 12 he has a pretty good grasp of undercurrents in conversations. All in all, it has make him uncomfortable to be around the family. HE IS 12 FOR FUCKS SAKE!

We chose to get him baptized when he was born because neither of us had spent much time exploring religion and it's effects. Over the years each of us has learned and although I am a bit more outspoken than my ex on the subject, both of us have agreed not to indoctrinate our children. We both came from theistic families who have remained theistic. This is a problem for my children who would be considered au-athiests. I do not want to force him to reject religion or embrace it but to think about it and research it before making a decision. Unfortunately, my ex's family is forcing my son to take a stance either way. I have instructed him to explain to them that he is not ready but will consider the information when he is older.

What do you think Watcher? You think he will 'earn' his atheism? Even if he does the research and comes to the conclusion that he does not believe, he would only be confirming what he already knows. Why would he make an issue of it then? It doesn't make for as great of a story does it? Perhaps that is why au-atheists don't often share their experiences. I am an ex-theist and my story isn't all that earth-shattering - have I not earned my atheism? (Shoot! I just got the t-shirt - do I have to give it back? LOL)