If the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god, are rocks members of atheism?

Posted by: Mathgeekjoe

  • Rocks are not members of atheism.

  • Rocks are members of atheism.

67% 20 votes
33% 10 votes
  • Atheism is not a category.

  • Rocks aren't alive, so they lack the conscious ability to determine what they believe.

  • If rocks don't believe in God, then they would be atheist, which isn defined by the dictionary as "a PERSON who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods". And obviously rocks are not people, are not living, and lack all conscious ability to choose a religion. Proving that they are not atheist.

  • U hav to b alive

  • Rocks are not alive, they obviously cannot have an opinion.

    Posted by: benhos
  • "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" - one must have a capacity and/or in a category to be able to reject and/or believe something first.

  • No, because all of creation declares His glory even if we do not. Even the rocks. "Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, 38 saying: “ ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’[a] Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” 39 And some of the Pharisees called to Him from the crowd, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” 40 But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.” Luke 19:37-40

  • Definition of "lack": the state of being without or not having enough of something. Since rocks are without belief, they're members of atheism.

  • Rocks don't need to be able to comprehend something to be able to lack it. That's like saying a sandwich can't lack mayonnaise because it isn't consciously able to comprehend the existence of mayonnaise. Rocks don't believe in God, therefore rocks are atheists.

  • If it is not theistic, it is an atheistic. 1. Rocks are not capable of thought. (that we know of) 2. Therefore, rocks are not capable of possessing beliefs. 3. Therefore, rocks are not capable of possessing a belief in God. 4. Therefore, rocks are absent of a belief in God. Being an athe*ist* specifically requires it to be a person.

  • Pretty sure to have a belief or lack of, you have to be conscious.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2015-05-05T23:43:46.1808757-05:00
No because rocks are not sentient.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:45:26.1021466-05:00
But they lack a belief right?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:46:15.4435893-05:00
I don't remember the definition of atheism requiring things to be able to believe and having a lack. Atheism is merely a lack of belief.
PetersSmith says2015-05-05T23:47:20.6112863-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: They don't "lack" belief because the concept of belief doesn't apply to them. It's similar to calling a rock stupid.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:48:52.5376033-05:00
If I say the rock doesn't talk, is that false? Just because rocks doesn't have the ability to talk, doesn't mean it is incorrect to say that a certain rock doesn't talk.
PetersSmith says2015-05-05T23:49:18.1999323-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: You have to be able to understand things and understand the concept of a deity in order to have any position on it. "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." Rocks can't have a position on anything because they have no conscious.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:50:27.0904155-05:00
Well I am not going into the narrower sense. I am going into the general sense that most atheist claim the word means.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:51:25.5579695-05:00
"They don't "lack" belief because the concept of belief doesn't apply to them." What is the definition of lack?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:52:13.5773807-05:00
Does a rock not meet the definition of having a lack of belief?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-05T23:53:20.3150363-05:00
@death, does a rock not lack a belief in a god?
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-06T02:21:35.7674791-05:00
Rocks, and all other phenomena that do not have the capacity to believe (essentially, reason), do not qualify as 'athiests' simply because they 'lack'. Anyone/thing can lack anything, to include belief, among other things like eyes, a spirit, or critical thinking skills (...), but that lack of that thing does not automatically classify them as something, such as atheism, or stupid (;) ). A rock cannot be anymore athiest than it can be stupid.. In order to qualify, it must have the capacity TO qualify for something. If one has the capacity to believe, THEN one has the potential to be categorized as atheist or not. @AbbytheRitter presents a flawed and incomplete reasoning for their baloney answer (pun intended) . A sandwich not only has the capacity, but also the expectation that it can have or not have mayonnaise on it. Yes, you could put rocks on a sandwich, and you could say the sandwich is 'rockless', because it ultimately has a capacity to have or not have rocks on it. However, the sandwich does NOT have the capacity to believe, let alone reason like intelligent beings such as humans (well, some of us). Simply 'lacking' something doesn't mean one can/should classify it into whatever subsequent categories it is lacking. Rocks also lack the belief to commit sin, does that make them a saint, higher than Jesus (because rocks can't forsake their God when they are crucified; Psalm 22:1)
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-06T02:30:57.5150809-05:00
"A rock cannot be anymore athiest than it can be stupid" A rock can be considered stupid.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-06T02:33:09.6799753-05:00
"In order to qualify, it must have the capacity TO qualify for something" This statement is untrue. Consider this, I can call oxygen a non-metal. Yet it does not have the capacity to qualify as a metal.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-06T02:36:16.8633611-05:00
"Rocks also lack the belief to commit sin, does that make them a saint," Definition of saint is not a lack of sin or lack of belief to commit sin.
AbbytheRitter says2015-05-06T04:20:16.7968150-05:00
You don't need to be able to comprehend something in order to lack it. My sandwich isn't incapable of lacking mayonnaise just because it can't consciously understand what mayonnaise is.
Furyan5 says2015-05-06T08:03:59.7017666-05:00
If someone asks such a question is that person smarter than a rock?
TBR says2015-05-06T08:54:26.3416133-05:00
A atheists is a person who...
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-06T22:21:36.4905463-05:00
Ugg,, ok... 1st Mathgeekjoe: 1) You can consider a rock is stupid all you want,, but I wouldn't tell anyone about that. 2) Sadly, let me explain: oxygen (an element) is not universally a gas Although it is exists in the phase of gas on here on earth. It can (and does) exist in other phases in other universal locations/situations. We can even achieve liquid oxygen at -183C. Therefor, if we were able to observe a condition where outside forces (gravity, env pressure, etc) in conjunction with extremely low temps, it is not impossible to consider a solid oxygen is possible, if only in a black hole. Now, if it is metal or not is only relative to our own characteristics of what we (humans) consider a metal; hard, shiny, conductive, etc. Im sure someone has/could determine if oxygen could fit these parameters of being a metal IF it achieve a solid state given the above hypothetical conditions, but what really matters, is that we are talking about the capacity, however completely unlikely it could be here on earth, for oxygen to be a metal, we CAN say that it is not a metal, rather than dismiss the question (like if a rock thinks its atheist), because there in-lies the capacity (extremely unlikely) for oxygen to be metal. 3) I don't really care or get into much of what is/should be considered a saint; if it has religiously derived definition, I usually dismiss such, sorry.
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-06T22:32:20.1178358-05:00
Now AbbytheRitter: My argument is NOT that one "needs to be able to comprehend something in order to lack it". I totally understand that. Example of proof (from me): A rock on earth lacks the ability to take the form of it's container, so, I would say that it is not a liquid, hereby, saying that a rock LACKs being a fluid. See, I understand that a rock doesn't have conscious thought, but I am still able to rationalize that is is LACKING the qualities of being a liquid (although It CAN be a fluid (lava),,, but then we wouldn't call it a rock) MY argument, rather, is that something should posses the capacity (conscious thought) to actually lack something (atheism) in that something's category (religious affiliation), before we can say that it does lack that 'thing'. Again, a sandwich CAN lack mayonnaise, because it can or cannot have mayo on it, or rocks, or oxygen..., however,,, we cannot say that a sandwich lacks good grades,, because it has no capacity nor potential to do school work.
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-06T22:43:03.7267685-05:00
Again, like a 'metal oxygen', this is an extremely unlikely condition that would barley (if at all) be considered a capacity. However, when we talk about the element oxygen, it is withing the category of elements, and as such, elements have the capacity to exists in different phases, forms, etc. When something rightly shares a category (elements), we can characterize them by features, even though one feature of one element may NEVER is exist in the other. Now, here is a little trickier one; what about a metal sandwich.. Well.,, they don't share any categories other than a sandwich is mostly a solid, and a metal is solid, and there COULD be a metal sandwich somewhere (artists), however, would it really be considered a sandwich, or a piece of metal SHAPED like a sandwich? Essentially, if you could still consider it a sandwich (edible) and it is metal, then apparently there exists the capacity for a 'sandwich' to be metal. It ultimately comes down to what one can/can't consider something with extenuating attributes. A rock with conscious rational though COULD be atheists, but,, would it still be a rock? Also, the condition warrants definition; can 'atheist' apply to anything does doesn't recognize a god, let alone recognize (consciously) anything at all,, like a rock or a sandwich?
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-06T22:44:54.2471040-05:00
Note: I should have said 'fluid' rather than 'liquid' in regards to a rocks phase state.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-07T09:18:59.7705015-05:00
" if only in a black hole" There isn't any atoms in a black hole, the force of gravity literally crushes neutrons. Thus there isn't any solids in a black hole. Also oxygen becomes solid at 54.36 K. And solid oxygen can develop metallic features when pressurized. But you fail to understand that the definitions of a metal is based on what it does at the temperature 293 Kelvin and at normal atmospheric pressures. Oxygen is impossible to be able to meet the official definition of metal yet it is still called a non-metal.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-07T09:19:17.8945658-05:00
"2) Sadly, let me explain: oxygen (an element) is not universally a gas" Never said that, learn to read comments.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-07T09:27:18.2890911-05:00
"Again, a sandwich CAN lack mayonnaise, because it can or cannot have mayo on it, or rocks, or oxygen..., however,,, we cannot say that a sandwich lacks good grades,, because it has no capacity nor potential to do school work." If you were to enroll the sandwich in a class, it would lack good grades. I can definately say a sandwich lacks good grades.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-07T09:28:49.9260675-05:00
"A rock with conscious rational though COULD be atheists, but,, would it still be a rock?" Definition of rock does not require it to not have a conscious.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-07T09:41:10.6859643-05:00
"atheist, which isn defined by the dictionary as "a PERSON who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"" Hence the reason why I didn't use the word atheist but the term member of atheism.
Chaosism says2015-05-07T09:46:16.6994875-05:00
"Theism" is a label that describes the presence/possession of belief. To meet the requirements of this label, one must have the ability to believe. "Atheism" is a label that describes the lack of that belief, not having that belief, being absent of that belief. This label does not require the ability to belief. Rocks are atheistic purely because they do not possess this belief. They are not Atheists, because the "-ist" suffix, by definition, implies that the subject is a person. This may seem as absurd as calling a smashed TV "off" (Oxford "off ": (of an electrical appliance or power supply) not functioning or so as to cease to function), but it technically meets the definition, so it is correct. It is only silly because the other option, "on", is clearly impossible, so the label is redundant. The same applies to atheism and rocks.
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-13T00:41:27.4657462-05:00
I am simply trying to propose hypothetical in order to shape an alternative perspective against what was presented in your arguments. 1)The 'blackhole' example was simply an attempt to show that there are infinite hypothetical situations whereupon matter and phenomena can exists in forms not fathomable on earth. The defense of using a blackhole to suggest this is a straw-man defense; I am less concerned with knowing what does/not happen in a blackhole (completely theoretical btw), and more concerned with the premise of the argument at hand, hence, the "if only.." I'm not sure what you are referring to 'failing to understand' what metal does at 293 at nap,, however, I assume you mean room temp for all metals? Which, as I stated, is purely 'relative to our (human's) ascribed characteristics. 2) explain ≠ correct; ironically, I did not say that you said oxygen was universally a gas,, I was starting off an explanation, irrespective of your premise on the matter. If I start out a story with to answer a question with "There once was a man named Joe" one shouldn't immediate respond with "I NEVER SAID THERE WAS A JOE".. I am simply leading into the story/explanation,,, but I'll take your advice albeit and 'learn to read comments'. The part where I start to address your argument begins that the following "Therefore". However, your point on Oxygen not being a metal is outside of my own understanding and research, so if you have done so and know it would not fit the model of a metal, I concede to your foreknowledge. 3) To enroll a sandwich in a class, if even to prove your point, would be just as idiotic (respectfully) as it is to defend the premise of this entire argument. We don't qualify something without consciousness in the realm of something requiring consciousness, anymore than we ask oxygen why it smells so good. The REASON we can (and do) call oxygen a non-metal goes back to the criteria required for comparing phenomena; it either must have the capacity of such, or is relative to a category (elements) whereupon other items could/do have the capacity of such criteria (metals). Example: a monkey has a brain, and thus a mind, and likely a conscious (however limited/defined), one could comfortably say that a money is atheist... A fish has a brain, a mind, and thus a potential for consciousness (however limited). Thus one 'could' say that it is atheist MUCH more than we could say a rock, however, doing so is a stretch (and frankly, a cheat) of how we define/categorize 'atheism'. Going further, we could compare a germ, which has no brain, but only genetic code that allows it to react to it's environment,, therefor, to say that a germ is atheist would be too far outside the possibility of calling (moreover categorizing) it as atheists. And thus, we reach rocks,, which is why you can see I/others can/would not consider it classifiable to atheism. 4) The definition of rock doesn't mention consciousness because it is (or at least, was assumed until now) that it cannot have a consciousness, and thus implied. It also doesn't say in the definition of a rock that it doesn't talk, as it doesn't', or that rocks don't walk on earth only, as they don't,, AND we can assume that they don't anywhere else, because we can (hopefully) assume that our understanding of what we consider to be a rock, neither has the capacity, or is part of a category of other phenomena, that can walk nor talk. 5) Ironically (specifically because you use definitions to defend your position, yet suspend/personally adjust to fit your frame), if your definition and use of 'atheism' is simply ANYone OR thing that doesn't believe, whether it can/does believe at all, in a deity.. Then yes, you are correct given your confusing choice of semantics. Should one consider a crucifix in the group of atheism because it does not believe in a god, let alone believe? To me, it depends on how one defines & applies atheism. I tend to roll with, as does Wiki (to collaborative 'others') that "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists." : my interpretation of this (& my) definition, something either needs to be able to 'believe' or have a 'position' in order to be identified or self identify as a member on atheism. However, if you want to group anything into that group, I guess that's your prerogative.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-13T08:10:25.4956837-05:00
"I was starting off an explanation, irrespective of your premise on the matter." If you were merely starting off with an explanation, why did you start with the word "Sadly"?
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-13T22:34:37.8030337-05:00
Sort of the way someone starts out the beginning of anything,, "Well, let me tell you a story", or "This reminds me of a time when" or "You would be surprised but..Once I... " . I started of with "sadly" because I believe that a person so bright (you), have this argument misconstrued, which is why I then began a lengthy explanation. Perhaps it was uncalled for, I admit, as it primarily interpreted as either insulting or misleading. My bad.
Vere_Mendacium says2015-05-15T02:11:33.5311406-05:00
I highly suggest viewing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQdvqUbFt8w . It doesn't answer THIS question, but it begins to frame things correctly, namely around 18:30
Chaosism says2015-06-01T09:50:58.0836738-05:00
Lots of the "not" votes are interjecting their own definition of Atheism despite the given definition in the title. Also, many assumptions that a "lack of belief" is a belief in of itself; does a "lack" of people in a room imply that there's something else in the room? No - it just means that there are no people in the room.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.