Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[LuisDantas]

Even while a baby observably has influential beings watching over them, that were their creator(s)?

That is an interesting question. Around which age would you guess that said baby would have abstract thoughts that might conceivably include some sort of god-notion?

Not from birth, I assume? In any case, it is an interesting question to ponder.

Personally, I think the idea is exotic enough that most children only learn of it from others. There are certainly exceptions, but for the concept to have any useful meaning it would probably have to develop after the child has learned to differentiate self from other.

Surprisingly enough, that takes a considerably long time to happen and may even figure into the appeal of the idea that we are meant to be by a supreme being's will.

 

[Marsh]

That a rock (or an infant) can't really understand either theism or atheism and therefore ought to be assumed atheistic.

Oh, that's what "implicit attribute of entities" means. Why didn't you say so?

I've had this argument before and I think that calling a rock, a frog, or a newborn an atheist is absurd. Unless, or until, an individual is capable of grasping the concept in its simplest form then the assertion is just sophistry.

 

[Marsh]

Probably not.

Here are some of my concerns regarding the vague definition of "God(s)".

1) The atheist says, "I lack belief in God(s) whatever definition they might have."
2) The theist says, "My carved wood figure is God." (replace carved wood figure with banana, rock, universe, mystical supernatural magician, or whatever)
3) The atheist says, "I don't believe that's God. That's ridiculous.".

There's the problem, he's not a clever enough atheist. He should have replied, "I don't believe an actual god exists behind your carved representation of your god."

 

[Acim]

That is an interesting question. Around which age would you guess that said baby would have abstract thoughts that might conceivably include some sort of god-notion?

Not from birth, I assume? In any case, it is an interesting question to ponder.

I would go with pre-birth actually.

I think the 'god-notion' would not be deemed very intelligible to an intellectual model that is inherently self limiting. I would think a mystic type would see it as sensible/conceivable, even if challenging to describe/define.

Personally, I think the idea is exotic enough that most children only learn of it from others. There are certainly exceptions, but for the concept to have any useful meaning it would probably have to develop after the child has learned to differentiate self from other.

Unless differentiating 'self' and 'other' is deemed less useful when it comes to divine rationality.

 

[Marsh]

This might help as an overview of implicit/explicit atheism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

Thanks for the link. I should have typed implicit atheism instead of "implicit attribute of entities" when I did my search. I've had a quick look and it does help clear things up.

I've been told I am a strong atheist, but to prevent confusion perhaps I should only refer to myself as an explicit atheist. Yes?

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, that's what "implicit attribute of entities" means. Why didn't you say so?

I've had this argument before and I think that calling a rock, a frog, or a newborn an atheist is absurd. Unless, or until, an individual is capable of grasping the concept in its simplest form then the assertion is just sophistry.

It is absurd to say that it chose atheism, but not to say that it is implicitly atheistic.

 

[Ouroboros]

There's the problem, he's not a clever enough atheist. He should have replied, "I don't believe an actual god exists behind your carved representation of your god."

That still means that to the atheist, the carven figure is not the "God" per the theists definition. The theist could answer, no, I don't believe an "actual god" (whatever that means) is behind the figure. He could say, The figure IS God. The atheist has to then argue that to say that the figure is God is the same as saying that there has to be an "actual god" behind the figure, and then it's upon the atheist to define what this "actual god" means in the new context. So, in the end, the definition of what God is is redefined by the atheist and the theist definition is rejected. It is upon the theist to define God, I think, not the atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would go with pre-birth actually.

I think the 'god-notion' would not be deemed very intelligible to an intellectual model that is inherently self limiting. I would think a mystic type would see it as sensible/conceivable, even if challenging to describe/define.

Unless differentiating 'self' and 'other' is deemed less useful when it comes to divine rationality.

I don't think that makes much sense, personally.

Even if I did, it would still make me wonder why people are so troubled with atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is upon the theist to define God, I think, not the atheist.

I wish. We are apparently expected by many to give a reason not to share of someone else's definition and even off the belief itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wish. We are apparently expected by many to give a reason not to share of someone else's definition and even off the belief itself.

If you ask, you'll receive. Ask the theist for their definition, then you can say if you agree to that definition or not. That's not the same as saying that you don't believe in "it", but rather don't agree on the definition or concept of it. An explicit atheist can do this and figure out why they don't agree, without accusing of word games. An implicit atheist can't say anything because they're lack of belief isn't based on reasoning or arguments, but purely on just... emptiness.

If you truly are an implicit atheist, there's no reason for you to argue why you don't believe. You just don't.

If you are an explicit atheist, you have reasons and arguments (hence a forum where the pro and cons are discussed) to provide.

Perhaps it's better to see it as this: An explicit atheist is only explicitly atheistic regarding the God(s) that he/she knows about (definitions and concepts), but he/she is implicit atheist regarding all the unknown definitions until confronted by them and can take a stand at that point and become explicit.

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you sure you are an Atheist?

I am definitely not an Atheist/Skeptic/Agnostic.
A real Atheist is never sure, always in doubt. It is one aspect of the Atheist people that some or many of them prefer to be belonging to Skepticism.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi, Nefelie. Welcome to RF.
My take on it is that theism is a strong vocation for some people.
Myself, I'm atheistic as a stone. And I have come to conclude that deities exist to the extent that people decide to lend them existence.
Their actual useful attributes do exist, but they do not include existence.

It is not relevant to Islam/Quran. G-d does not get existence from the people but the people get existence from G-d. Just to express myself.
Regards.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you ask, you'll receive. Ask the theist for their definition, then you can say if you agree to that definition or not. That's not the same as saying that you don't believe in "it", but rather don't agree on the definition or concept of it. An explicit atheist can do this and figure out why they don't agree, without accusing of word games. An implicit atheist can't say anything because they're lack of belief isn't based on reasoning or arguments, but purely on just... emptiness.

If you truly are an implicit atheist, there's no reason for you to argue why you don't believe. You just don't.

If you are an explicit atheist, you have reasons and arguments (hence a forum where the pro and cons are discussed) to provide.

Perhaps it's better to see it as this: An explicit atheist is only explicitly atheistic regarding the God(s) that he/she knows about (definitions and concepts), but he/she is implicit atheist regarding all the unknown definitions until confronted by them and can take a stand at that point and become explicit.

You are forgetting the main thing: we are not given the option not to care. We are assumed theists until and unless we say otherwise.

It should not be necessary. But it is, and not by our choice.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not relevant to Islam/Quran. G-d does not get existence from the people but the people get existence from G-d. Just to express myself.
Regards.

You are very reverential towards your God, but that does not seem to motivate you towards sparing Him from the burden of having to somehow have literal existence.

Kind of callous of you, I would think.

 

[Pudding]

~~~
Just a friendly question to all Atheists:

Is your belief of God’s non-existence based entirely on how God is perceived by all Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and Polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Old religions etc),

or,

it also covers the Pantheistic philosophies of the One, such as Tao, Zen, Pythagorians/Empedoclians, some Gnostic movements, etc?

Thanks for your responces

~~~

I'm an atheist, but i have no beliefs about any god's non-existence.

Ever hear that atheist can be subcategory into positive/strong atheist and negative/weak atheist?

Positive/strong atheist: who don't believe any god exists, at the same time actively believe/claim that every gods doesn't exist.

Negative/weak atheist: who don't believe any god exists, at the same time also doesn't believe/claim that any god doesn't exist. Also calls as agnostic atheist.

So your op is flaw in that you shouldn't said "question to all atheist" when what you're actually said according your later context is "question for part of all atheist" who is the positive/strong atheist who indeed have beliefs in every god's non-existence.

 

[Acim]

I don't think that makes much sense, personally.

Even if I did, it would still make me wonder why people are so troubled with atheism.

I don't think this makes sense based on what I wrote.

A baby could, rather easily be pre-exposed to divinity during pre-birth. Therefore, the infantile conception would be grounds for non-atheism, even while intellectually that might not make personal sense to a self-identified explicit atheist. And because the baby can't express anything about anything, then projecting onto them that they are implicit (atheist) would be as warranted as projecting onto them that they are Christian.

Yet, us outside observers do observe they are being influenced by a being that is their (literal) creator(s).

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think this makes sense based on what I wrote.

A baby could, rather easily be pre-exposed to divinity during pre-birth. Therefore, the infantile conception would be grounds for non-atheism, even while intellectually that might not make personal sense to a self-identified explicit atheist. And because the baby can't express anything about anything, then projecting onto them that they are implicit (atheist) would be as warranted as projecting onto them that they are Christian.

Yet, us outside observers do observe they are being influenced by a being that is their (literal) creator(s).

That is both awfully specullative and way too loaded with the idea that divinity is a Real Thing (TM).

 

[Acim]

That is both awfully specullative and way too loaded with the idea that divinity is a Real Thing (TM).

To say it is possible is awfully speculative? Same could be said about anything regarding existence and a baby. Awfully speculative and way too loaded to suggest idea of implicit atheism. And yet, here we are having discussion about what is possible and not so possible. Unfortunately, I don't see how any agreement is plausible, but doesn't mean we can't try, have some fun along the way.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are forgetting the main thing: we are not given the option not to care. We are assumed theists until and unless we say otherwise.

Atheists are assumed to be theists? Perhaps in the American culture that's true, but I grew up in a secular country in Europe where you're were assumed atheist or agnostic. (That's where I was most fundamentalist Christian. Then I moved to the Christian USA, and I became an atheist. I never seem to go with the flow...)

It should not be necessary. But it is, and not by our choice.

I know. People, and you and me, make assumptions daily in all interaction with everyone. For instance, it's very easy for me to think of God as the Christian version when I talk to people, even though I have a new idea or concept of what I would like God to really represent. So in discussions, I easily assume the other party to talk about the Christian God, but it's not what many "theists" really think. For instance, progressive theism has gone quite far from the literalist JudeoChristian God. Pantheists don't see God as the vengeful dualistic based God. And so on. We all presume things (unfortunately), instead of asking.

 

[LuisDantas]

To say it is possible is awfully speculative?

Oh yes. Presuming a belief in a deity in a child that lacks the means to say it is IMO both awfully speculative and all-out abusive.

I sure wish we did refrained from such a nasty habit.

Same could be said about anything regarding existence and a baby. Awfully speculative and way too loaded to suggest idea of implicit atheism.

That is just entirely wrong, preposterous even. It is only respectful and fair to take notice that there is no reason whatsoever to assume a god-belief in beings that give no indication of any.

And yet, here we are having discussion about what is possible and not so possible. Unfortunately, I don't see how any agreement is plausible, but doesn't mean we can't try, have some fun along the way.

I wish it wasn't necessary, personally. People fail to see how dangerous theism is.