That is the whole definition of atheism.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't say "something like this".
No it doesn't. That is the definition of strong atheism not just atheism. Read up on the difference between strong and weak 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!
Atheism is not a default position
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Babies can't be atheists. Simple as that.
Learn the difference between weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism before making any more statements.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I refuse to accept that atheism is defined as ignorance. Babies don't believe in God because they're incapable and essentially ignorant of the concepts, i.e. atheism = ignorance. That's unacceptable.
Babies can't be Atheists. End of story.
It isn't. It's defined as the absence of belief.
That's why they have an absence of belief.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And for a baby it's based on their ignorance of what belief is and what God, so for babies, they're atheists because they're ignorant.
Because they're ignorant. And that's the only thing you have to be to be an atheist. Just plainly ignorant.
When I became an atheist, it was because my experience, my knowledge, my thoughts, and I arrived at that station in life where I realized I didn't believe in God (at least not in the traditional and old-fashioned way). It wasn't because I was ignorant about God. I knew a lot about the topic, and that's why I stopped believing in God.
This whole "babies are by default atheists" claim that has come about in recent years is just degrading atheism. Not only do theists now claim that atheists are ignorant, but atheists themselves are using ignorance as an argument. It's ridiculous.
Did you believe in God before you realized you didn't believe in God?
So first you didn't believe in God, then you started believing in God and then you stopped believing in God and went back to not believing in God?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Yep. Where's the problem? Why are you so hung up on babies?
Yes. Again, where's the problem? Why do the non-beliefs of babies bother you so much?
Congratulations. Doesn't change the fact that babies are still born without a belief in a God. You came to lack a belief after lots of consideration, but just because it took consideration from you doesn't mean lacking a belief requires any kind of mental effort. Lack of belief is still lack of belief.
Only if you're weak minded enough to think that pointing out that babies are atheists is somehow significant or indicative of something. It isn't. It is merely a technically true statement of fact, no different to saying "Babies don't have a marriage license" or "Babies cannot legally own nuclear weapons" or "Babies are not born covered in broccoli". Why does it matter to you so much?
Actually, I've never seen these two things happen. If anything, theists tend to be even more upset and object far more strongly to the idea that they are born atheists, but I have known a few who have actually come to understand atheism better after understanding how and why that it is and what it actually implies about the position. I have never seen an atheist "use ignorance as an argument". I'm not even entirely certain how someone would do that.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
When I was 6 years old, I didn't know what the concepts were. It's a state of ignorance. Sure, it was a non-belief, but that's not the same as the term Atheist stands for. An atheist is someone who has reached that mental position. Until then, he/she is neither.
Believing is still a mental state that can only occur in a brain (mind). Somehow people here seems to think that "belief" and "unbelief" exist outside of the mind. Do you believe that this "unbelief" that the baby has somehow is held as a state of mind in some spiritual world? Where is this state of not believing actually existing?
Put it this way, "unbelief" to me isn't just "lack of" but is a "state of". "Lack of" is to me only "lack of" and not the same as the "state of" something in the negative. Negating true and false is made by a mind. Holding something for true or false is made within a mind. Belief and unbelief are both states of the mind. A baby doesn't have that mind yet. It develops.
The world isn't a set of discontinuous modes or dichotomies. It's a continuous, multi-leveled, and analogous world. "Unbelief" isn't just simply the "ignorance" of something.
It actually has made me sick to the stomach and feeling a bit ashamed by how atheism is compared to ignorance by the atheistic community. I feel that I can't associate with such views anymore. I'm not an unbeliever in the anthropomorphic God based on ignorance, but because of years of experience and knowledge. So with this, I just have to conclude that I'm not an atheist anymore. Can't be with these kind of claims.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I thought this thread was about the default position of a person's beliefs and views, i.e. when they're born. No? Well, then. I have completely misunderstood the target of discussion for this thread. Then I'm going to leave it be.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Yes, that is exactly what it's about, but the fact that babies don't have beliefs is just part of that discussion. The point is that you seem obsessed with the notion of babies being atheists to the extent that you're arguing and debating in a highly irrational manner and acting as if that simple fact were somehow particularly significant. It isn't. I really don't understand why so many people have a problem with the notion of babies or rocks being technically considered atheists. It really shouldn't be a big deal.
That's exactly what the term atheist stands for. The prefix a- means "not, without". Not a theist, without belief.
A strong atheist is someone who has reached that mental position. Until then he/she is a weak implicit atheist. Learn the terms.
This doesn't make sense.
The definition of unbelief is "lack of religious belief; an absence of faith." Not believing the opposite.
You can perfectly well have an absence of belief in something you know what is.
If you have an absence of belief in God you're a weak atheist. If you also believe God doesn't exist you're a strong atheist.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
False. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a God.
But LACKING a belief isn't necessarily a mental state. It is the LACK of a particular mental state.
Unbelief is a lack of belief, so technically it does exist outside of the mind.
As stated above, a lack of belief isn't necessarily a mental state but a LACK of a mental state. For example, I have considered the question of God and reached the conclusion that I do not accept the proposition of a God; as a result, I lack the belief "God exists" and can be said to be an atheist; I lack that particular mental state, "God exists". A baby has not, or cannot, process the question of God, therefore they also can not be said to have accepted the proposition of God; as a result, they lack the belief "God exists" and can be said to be an atheists; they lack that particular mental state, "God exists".
If you prefer, and I can understand why defining it that way is more meaningful. Still, the fact that atheism is defined as a lack of belief and a baby is born without beliefs still makes it necessarily true that babies are atheists. As said before, this should be no less significant than stating "rocks don't eat cake". It is a statement of fact, one that is quite insignificant when actually trying to have an in depth discussion of the subject, but it is still technically an accurate statement. Referring to a child as an atheist really shouldn't be any bigger a problem than that.
It isn't. Nobody has equated the definitions except for you. Unbelief and ignorance are different mental states, but that doesn't mean any less that ignorance can and is a cause of unbelief.
Why? Why is it even remotely an issue?
Why not just stand on your own two feet and use your reason and arguments to represent yourself, rather than trying to use a broadly defined term that has a variety of broader definitions? I really don't see the reasoning behind your position. You're just behaving irrationally.
Well, when you were born did you believe that gods exist or that gods don't exist? If neither you were a weak implicit atheist.
I speak from the perspective of Nyaya system that holds:
"The expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t’. "
So, "Lack of belief of Deity" being counter positive of 'negation of deity' essentially involves knowledge of Deity.
And where did the so called atheist get knowledge of Deity?
Not believing "t" isn't the same as believing the opposite of "t". You can perfectly well not believe "t" and not believe the opposite of "t".
The default of a person's belief is not their lack of beliefs when they're born. It's a belief that attains, regardless of what they do.
*cut, copy, paste, frame... rinse, repeat*
What is "t"?