leibowde84
Veteran Member
Of course. But, I would argue that the Baby is in the default position, as the Baby has not contemplated the issue at all (nothing done).So, the question whether baby has belief of a deity is meaningless.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Of course. But, I would argue that the Baby is in the default position, as the Baby has not contemplated the issue at all (nothing done).So, the question whether baby has belief of a deity is meaningless.
Exactly. Anyone and anything that does not actively believe in the existence of God is "without" said belief. Why is that such an issue for you? Atheism is an extremely general term.
Of course. But, I would argue that the Baby is in the default position, as the Baby has not contemplated the issue at all (nothing done).
"Baron mother's son"? I'm not sure what you are referring to.Barren mother's son applies to you also?
You must be joking man.
(That was meant to apply as a synonym for a baby holding a belief or disbelief. I did not know that it applied to you equally.)
Yes.Agree. Our pristine consciousness is the default.
This is nonsensical. You don't have to have the ability to believe to be without a specific belief. That is the whole point. You are reading something into the word "lack" that isn't there.But as per you and others, a stone and a baby and a chair and an atheist all lack a belief in existence of Deity.
Did barren mother had a son?
I can also say "I lack a belief in every concept I am not familiar with repectively". .
You are very lost indeed if that is what you have taken away from this.You are correct that I don't understand this firm belief in non-existent things.
It can actually. But this isn't the issue. If the concept didn't exist then this forum wouldn't exist. The concept exists rather objectively.Logic doesn't allow for non-existent things.
"To lack" is a relation.A relation is not necessary to lack something. I lack belief in many things that I am not aware of, as I do not "hold" those beliefs. The reasoning doesn't matter, as the only requirement is to be "without".
Nevertheless. "Atheism" is not a very meaningful term, as it only requires to be without something.Then it is as meaningless as is the question of barren mother's son.
"Belief" is the acceptance of a given proposition as true. It is a specific position on a specific subject. If you lack the position, then you lack the belief.So. What does 'lacking a belief' in itself mean? What is the belief about?
That's not an example of a nonexistent thing.It can actually. But this isn't the issue. If the concept didn't exist then this forum wouldn't exist. The concept exists rather objectively.
Ok. But the subject doesn't have to be aware of the relation."To lack" is a relation.
Relations are connections drawn from observation. Any connection between things is not inherent. Consciousness organizes the information it garners about the world and makes connections.
The world as we understand it to be does not match the "objective" world. Relations are an understanding about the world.
This is nonsensical. You don't have to have the ability to believe to be without a specific belief. That is the whole point. You are reading something into the word "lack" that isn't there.
The fact that rocks don't have minds and they are unable to hold beliefs means that, by definition, they lack all beliefs, as they lack the ability to believe period.Lacking means lacking 'something'. In this case, the 'something' is a belief of a Deity. And that is in your mind.
For stones and babies that matter is altogether different.
Good. Now we can move on from your confusion and discuss this existent thing.That's not an example of a nonexistent thing.
To those for whom it is meaningful, though, it is specifically meaningful.Nevertheless. "Atheism" is not a very meaningful term, as it only requires to be without something.
Strong atheism is far more meaningful.To those for whom it is meaningful, though, it is specifically meaningful.
The fact that rocks don't have minds and they are unable to hold beliefs means that, by definition, they lack all beliefs, as they lack the ability to believe period.