outhouse
Atheistically
Not really
I said "EVER possess"
And you dont possess atheism.
Your still ignoring "implicit" atheism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are people born inherently atheist?
- Thread starter eggyolk
- Start date
Not really
I said "EVER possess"
And you dont possess atheism.
Your still ignoring "implicit" atheism.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, there will not ever be a newborn which possesses beliefs.
Again, you seem to be missing the point that newborns, like rocks and squirrels, cannot possess beliefs, therefore it is meaningless to describe their absence of a specific belief.
No, I'm saying that newborns, like rocks and squirrels, can be described as implicitly atheist. However, being that they have no capacity for any beliefs, it is meaningless to add such an extraneous label. Again, personally, I prefer meaningful categorization. It is others' prerogative to do otherwise.
outhouse
Atheistically
Lets see if this helps
What is Implicit Atheism?
Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of theism or the absence of belief in gods without the conscious rejection of it.
What is Implicit Atheism?
Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of theism or the absence of belief in gods without the conscious rejection of it.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yes, so rocks are implicitly atheist. If you find this a meaningful or useful categorization, that's your prerogative.
outhouse
Atheistically
Thats a value statement
Not a definition
This only states a newborn will not be a theist
While that certainly is true, it doesnt chage the definition of implicit atheism.
Sorry faulty arguement. They do not qualify for any definition of atheism as they can never possess theism.
Heres why your personal definition by value fails.
One day babies and children grow up, and if they never accept theism, they were atheist their whole lives.
Saying rocks cannot accept theism is only going to tick the pantheist off
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Indeed, there are useful definitions, and pointless ones - such as defining newborns, rocks, or squirrels as atheists.
Indeed, they cannot be theists as they have no capacity for holding beliefs. To label one specific non-belief of something that cannot hold beliefs is extraneous and meaningless.
Any definition that includes the categorization of rocks as atheists is rather useless. Another value judgment. Others may find calling rocks "atheists" to be meaningful.
No, here's where your argument fails. It depends on newborns no longer being newborns. It relies on a change in the state of their capacity - going from no ability to hold beliefs to the ability to hold beliefs. At that point, we're no longer talking about newborns, and are now defining something else.
Saying rocks cannot accept theism is only going to tick the pantheist off
It's okay, the rock is god too.
What reason does the implicit atheist have for not believing in gods (i.e. strong or explicit atheism)? Unlike the strong atheist, it is no reason or reasoning of theirs that brings them to the designation "atheist." There is no opportunity to come to the designation by themselves, and hence no opportunity to consciously reject a belief. The reason and reasoning belongs to others, and so the designation "atheist" happens at the behest of others.
Atheism (i.e. strong, i.e. normal, atheism) is implicit of the weak atheist because others see in them not believing in gods.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
It was pretty clear
"without the conscious rejection of it".
which means ignorance applies
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
No different than newborn as atheist. You can start trying to meaningfully explain the difference.
How is that clear? Please explain to me how ignorance makes one an atheist.
As an atheist, I would really like to know.
outhouse
Atheistically
Stop, its a straw man with a side of Red herrings
As you have admitted babies are atheist.
outhouse
Atheistically
That is the definition of implicit atheism.
LACK of theism, makes you an __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I admitted that newborns are atheists in the way that rocks are atheists. An admittedly meaningless and vapid categorization. However, I see that you failed to address the fundamental problem with your argument I pointed out which is that your differentiation relies on defining newborns no longer as newborns.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
This is what your guilty of
Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.[3] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.[1]
Red herring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.[3] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.[1]
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yet simply saying something doesn't make it so. Now are you going to attempt to actually address any of my points in a meaningful way, or have you finally resigned yourself to surrender?
outhouse
Atheistically
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.
This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'll take that as your surrender.