Atheism is not a default position

[Monk Of Reason]

I assure you, my ignorance is not by my intent.

You are slowly stripping me of my faith in humanity as I am beginning to believe you.

 

[Thief]

No, my argument against this would be that infancy is not the default position of a thinking, reasoning adult, like one capable of being an atheist. But that's another topic.
I assure you, my ignorance is not by my intent.

You started this thread.
what was your intent?

2,500+ postings and we have a carrousel....around and around we go.

Lack of belief is not ignorance.
Lack of belief is a choice.
An atheist lacks belief for he chooses a line of reason that led him to think so.

Babies and rocks are not part of this.
Babies are ignorant.....rocks are just rocks.

Now if an atheist would like to step up and plead ignorance......ok.
But I suspect doing so before God and heaven.....won't work.

 

[Thief]

I'll let you have another go at this post to post something relevant.

as if you have?.....I think not

 

[Monk Of Reason]

as if you have?.....I think not

Second strike. State what it is you are trying to discuss here or this is my last response. Angry mothers because you marked on their baby. I dare you to write "soft" or "Jesus" on a baby and see if the mother is still mad.

 

[Thief]

Second strike. State what it is you are trying to discuss here or this is my last response. Angry mothers because you marked on their baby. I dare you to write "soft" or "Jesus" on a baby and see if the mother is still mad.

Shifting the noun of discussion is just more sidestepping.

Atheist has a meaning.
a declaration .....no god.

 

[Curious George]

That the definition is a lack of belief? I have met this. IF you disagree can you tell me what it is that would convince you it is so?

Yes.

Establishing a reason for asserting such a definition would be a start. So far the only reasons are fallacious.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Shifting the noun of discussion is just more sidestepping.

Atheist has a meaning.
a declaration .....no god.

It isn't a sidestep. You haven't made a point for me to sidestep. Are you simply making the case that a mother might personally be offended if I told her that her baby was an atheist by extension? Even though I have explicitly stated that its a non-point and has nothing to do with the argument I've been making and its simply a side tangent that people often get caught up in?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes.

Establishing a reason for asserting such a definition would be a start. So far the only reasons are fallacious.

How about the definition? On what basis do you have the definition sit anywhere other than its definition?

Why do we call red red? This is absurd. If its the bloody definition then its the bloody definition. This is the point of insanity and you know it.

EDIT:
And beyond its definition its used in this case. It is used functionally as this case and has been by me and by any other number of people. There are books published on the very aspect of it. Your purely subjective personal opinion could be so ironclad that you would never accept it even if you were the last man on the earth. But there has to be some kind of pragmatism involved with language.

Why are you so set against the definition that has been defined, is held as the definition, and used as such?

 

[Curious George]

Write atheist on the forehead of the next baby you see......
and the irrate mother will kick your backside.

or maybe you will get lucky and the mother doesn't know the word.... athiest.
ignorance abounds.....

I would like to take the time to ask, is this literal or a metaphor?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I would like to take the time to ask, is this literal or a metaphor?

For him it is both, neither and always the same.

 

[Curious George]

How about the definition? On what basis do you have the definition sit anywhere other than its definition?

Why do we call red red? This is absurd. If its the bloody definition then its the bloody definition. This is the point of insanity and you know it.

No, it is a burden of proof. All agree that atheist includes those who believe goddoes not exist. That is the default with regard to the definition. If you want the definition to include more, than it is up to you to argue for it. Pages have been written on why not to do so. But the reason why still remains elusive, saving of course etymological fallacies and an appeal to the masses.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, it is a burden of proof. All agree that atheist includes those who believe goddoes not exist. That is the default with regard to the definition. If you want the definition to include more, than it is up to you to argue for it. Pages have been written on why not to do so. But the reason why still remains elusive, saving of course etymological fallacies and an appeal to the masses.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+definition+of+atheism?+

 

[ArtieE]

Yes.

Establishing a reason for asserting such a definition would be a start. So far the only reasons are fallacious.

When we hear a person say he's an atheist it tells us with 100% certainty that he is not a theist, that he doesn't believe gods exist. Since that is what the word tells us we have all already defined an atheist as a person who is not a theist, a person who doesn't believe gods exist.

 

[Thief]

It isn't a sidestep. You haven't made a point for me to sidestep. Are you simply making the case that a mother might personally be offended if I told her that her baby was an atheist by extension? Even though I have explicitly stated that its a non-point and has nothing to do with the argument I've been making and its simply a side tangent that people often get caught up in?

not a case.....just a scenario to show the repulsion of the name calling

 

[Thief]

I would like to take the time to ask, is this literal or a metaphor?

scenario of action....
the words used here in this thread as if they could be applied.....literally

 

[Monk Of Reason]

not a case.....just a scenario to show the repulsion of the name calling

And it has nothing to do with the name. If I called her baby Hitler then I don't think she would take kindly to it. I don't think that any such thing would be called for if it is an unknown woman and an unknown baby. But if I knew a woman who was an atheist and I called her baby an atheist it would be offensive. Most likely she would know what I mean and agree.

 

[Curious George]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+definition+of+atheism?+

Citing a definition is not the same as giving reasoning for that definition, unlessyou are suggesting the reason is that "because he says so" (an appeal to authority...and yet another fallacy).

 

[Curious George]

scenario of action....
the words used here in this thread as if they could be applied.....literally

That almost sounded like a thirteen year old saying "as if!" Was that the intent?

 

[Thief]

That almost sounded like a thirteen year old saying "as if!" Was that the intent?

ok....write atheist on a teenager.....
they might know the word.

Some will object....they have reason to do so.
Some might confess but object to the action.

but that would be declaration......

 

[Thief]

And it has nothing to do with the name. If I called her baby Hitler then I don't think she would take kindly to it. I don't think that any such thing would be called for if it is an unknown woman and an unknown baby. But if I knew a woman who was an atheist and I called her baby an atheist it would be offensive. Most likely she would know what I mean and agree.

she might (more likely) have in mind the teaching she would deal unto her child.
the child would be raised up.....no god.