Definition is a statement to capture the essence.
-
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!
Atheism is not a default position
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
In a given context, yes.
The essence captured in a well-worded statement of definition is present in each context for each usage (for words with a similar root).
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That is a demonstrably false claim.
Okay, demonstrate.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure. Give me a definition of atheism and use it in a sentence, No problem.
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods."
Fred knew, in that instant, that he was an atheist.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Too easy. My friend from Somalia has a God by his back door, it has no magical powers, I bet Fred will believe it exists also, Other people descrobe God as love, Fred believes in love. He is still an atheist.
Now I don't know Fred. But the chances are, he is talking about a specific God, the one he used to beleive in. I would bet money on it.
You're right, you don't know Fred.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Is he nice?You're right, you don't know Fred.
That is what it really is.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Your post made me think of something. Here's a question, not with the intention to argue with you or disagree with you at all, but just to explore the thought your post caused me.
If you don't know Fred, then you don't know what God(s) he believed in. If you don't know what kind of God(s), then you don't believe in them. If you don't believe in them, you lack belief in them, and you're an implicit atheist according to the modern atheism. Now, the interesting part is that imagine if you were a theist, this would mean that you are a default implicit atheist simply because you don't know what God(s) Fred used to believe in.
It is as clear as double distilled water.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Awesome. Please feel free to do that at any time.
So ask him. Remember, we are not talking about theoretical possibilities - we are talking to people.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
What if he's dead and we can't ask him? This means that you and I are implicit atheists regarding his God(s). And there's no surviving documents to tell us what they were.Awesome. Please feel free to do that at any time.
So ask him. Remember, we are not talking about theoretical possibilities - we are talking to people.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Ok.
So let me keep up....
The case so far...Fred is dead.
You are having a discussion with him about his views on the existence of God......
How is that going?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
No. I haven't had any discussion with him. I only just read about him that he used to have a belief in God(s), but I don't know what they were, and there's no one to ask.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Ok, great. Why do you need to know?
And does this sort of situation pop up a lot for you?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Never mind then.
Ha. Ha. And you thought you could pursue a civil debate? See how soon he changes his stance.