Atheism is not a default position

[Thief]

Keep in mind that any belief that scripture is an accurate portrayal of God's will is based on speculation and faith. I have that faith (to some degree), and you do as well. But, you have to be reasonable enough to understand that it isn't necessarily a plausible position for everyone to hold. Trying to use scripture to argue theology with someone who does not give scripture any credence doesn't do any good. It has to be established why that person should belief scripture to be valid.

Indeed.
In my belief it was God's favored angel that led a rebellion.

If God's favorite can find himself cast out....then there is no such thing as a secured position.

For all the scripture the devil might know.....he is not in heaven.
(so I've heard)

 

[Thief]

So, then belief is not a requirement?

if you contend that unknowing baby's go to God......

 

[ArtieE]

entertainment

or do you expect to be bored for all of eternity?

Of course. Billy Graham describes heaven as a place where they polish rainbows and prepare heavenly dishes. "Heaven" Is NOT the Christian's Destination

 

[leibowde84]

if you contend that unknowing baby's go to God......

I certainly do.

 

[Thief]

Of course. Billy Graham describes heaven as a place where they polish rainbows and prepare heavenly dishes. "Heaven" Is NOT the Christian's Destination

I take aim 'somewhere over the rainbow'.....
(love that song)

 

[ArtieE]

I take aim 'somewhere over the rainbow'.....
(love that song)

I heard somewhere that the lion will lie down with the lamb. Sounds a bit kinky to me. I wonder who the tyrannosaurs will lie down with... whoever it is I won't be anywhere near the area.

 

[Ouroboros]

An intelligent, supernatural agency responsible for the creation or maintenance of the Universe and/or some aspect of the Universe.

So then naturalistic pantheists are by this definition atheists. I've been told several times that pantheist are theists. So how does that work? I don't believe in an intelligent nor supernatural agency.

You just completely spun off on a tangent there. They never said anything about the belief in the "word", they said "belief in any God".

Then you didn't follow the line of thinking.

Wrong. Beliefs don't disappear just because you're unconscious. Beliefs are mental states, and are included among both conscious and subconscious mental states. Being incapable of discerning a sleeping person's mental state on a particular subject doesn't mean they don't have a mental state on a particular subject.

Well, then how do you know that unbelief is just the lack of mental states? Is the unbelief in "god" (with your definition above) a mental state (unbelief in a known concept) or the lack of mental states (just pure lack of knowledge).

I would say that, like deism, it varies based on the individual's position. An ignostic can be either a theist or atheist depending on whether or not they accept the claim that God exists.

Ignostic believe the term "God" is incoherent and useless. It's like asking "do you believe in Flurgh?" The answer is, "I don't know if I believe in Flurgh or not, because I don't know what a Flurgh is or what it represents. Tell me what it represents first, then I will let you know if I believe in Flurgh or not."

Perhaps theological non-cognitivism is easier to understand. Here's a list of points from Wiki about them:

1. "God" does not refer to anything that exists.
2. "God" does not refer to anything that does not exist.
3. "God" does not refer to anything that may or may not exist.
4. "God" has no literal significance, just as "Fod" has no literal significance.

 

[Thief]

I certainly do.

Then maybe you also noticed a post earlier in this thread.....

Babies that pass early in life go back to God .....as a default position.

 

[leibowde84]

So then naturalistic pantheists are by this definition atheists. I've been told several times that pantheist are theists. So how does that work? I don't believe in an intelligent nor supernatural agency.


Then you didn't follow the line of thinking.


Well, then how do you know that unbelief is just the lack of mental states? Is the unbelief in "god" (with your definition above) a mental state (unbelief in a known concept) or the lack of mental states (just pure lack of knowledge).


Ignostic believe the term "God" is incoherent and useless. It's like asking "do you believe in Flurgh?" The answer is, "I don't know if I believe in Flurgh or not, because I don't know what a Flurgh is or what it represents. Tell me what it represents first, then I will let you know if I believe in Flurgh or not."

Belief is a mental state. The lack of belief is not, necessarily, a mental state, though it certainly can be part of one.

 

[leibowde84]

Then maybe you also noticed a post earlier in this thread.....

Babies that pass early in life go back to God .....as a default position.

I believe that to be the case, but it is merely based on my faith that God is loving and just. I can't claim to have sufficient supporting evidence for this assumption though. That is why I refer to it as a "belief", rather than knowledge.

 

[Thief]

I believe that to be the case, but it is merely based on my faith that God is loving and just. I can't claim to have sufficient supporting evidence for this assumption though. That is why I refer to it as a "belief", rather than knowledge.

So we can't be sure?

and someone who 'lacks' the ability to deny God.....can't go to heaven.?...
the rest of us are screwed.

Let's do a Pascal for this....and say the kid gets in.
hedging the bet the Door is open enough for us to follow.

 

[leibowde84]

So we can't be sure?

and someone who 'lacks' the ability to deny God.....can't go to heaven.?...
the rest of us are screwed.

Let's do a Pascal for this....and say the kid gets in.
hedging the bet the Door is open enough for us to follow.

I don't believe that Hell exists. I believe that everyone goes to the same place, at which God is present. The idea of Hell or punishment after death seems absurd to me. It seems like a mere attempt of the early Church to convince its adherents to live well.

 

[atanu]

That is not what I asked. Joe says there is (at least one) chair, Alice says there is no chair. None of them can see, neither provide any evidence, or lack thereof, that there is any chair. They are just guessing.
Nevertheless, I think that the following proposition is always true
P) either Joe or Alice are right, even if they cannot see whether there is a chair or not

Because no matter whether they see a chair or not, when the room is illuminated, one of the two was right and, therefore, P always holds, even in the darkness.

Ciao

- viole

That is okay. But that is not the truth about presence or absence of a chair. It is like if you toss a coin it will fall on its head or on its tail.

Probably you are leading to something.

 

[Thief]

I don't believe that Hell exists. I believe that everyone goes to the same place, at which God is present. The idea of Hell or punishment after death seems absurd to me. It seems like a mere attempt of the early Church to convince its adherents to live well.

So...everyone goes to heaven?........

Picture Jesus, Judas and Hitler at the same Table...sharing bread and a sauce bowl....
looking each other.....in the eye....

oh hell.....

 

[Ouroboros]

Belief is a mental state. The lack of belief is not, necessarily, a mental state, though it certainly can be part of one.

How is this mental state of "belief" uphold? Is it a combination of chemicals? A different part of the brain that's active? Or is it based on memory and identity? If belief is kept even during sleep and coma because a person happened to be a believer before he/she fell asleep, in what form is this mental state kept during night?

 

[viole]

That is okay. But that is not the truth about presence or absence of a chair. It is like if you toss a coin it will fall on its head or on its tail.

Probably you are leading to something.

I am leading to the fact that if I postulate P, then I can make assessments of truth even under a regime of ignorance.

Do we agree that P is always true?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

How is this mental state of "belief" uphold? Is it a combination of chemicals? A different part of the brain that's active? Or is it based on memory and identity? If belief is kept even during sleep and coma because a person happened to be a believer before he/she fell asleep, in what form is this mental state kept during night?

When dreaming you mean?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No, my response to you in post 807 was to explain to you what an agnostic is since you obviously thought that agnostics are fence-sitters when you can perfectly well have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists who have jumped off the fence. I also explained that we have a perfectly good expression, implicit atheist, for people who are not theists or strong atheists and haven't for some reason formed any beliefs, and I also explained that we have perfectly good expressions for those who are capable of forming and have formed beliefs: theists and strong atheists.Well of course you can go on using the terms you prefer instead of the proper ones. It doesn't help communication much though.

once again, you are dictating what is the "proper" words. I disagree with your interpretation, because other words, not requiring modifiers, already exist, existed long before anyone started this implicit/explicit and weak/strong modifiers for atheism (which appears to be in the 1970s, from what I can tell). To wit: Theist is perfectly fine for someone who believes. Atheist is perfectly fine for someone who actively believes that there is no god/gods. Agnostic is perfectly fine for one who is neither theist or atheist. Simple as that, and I don't see how I'm being unclear on this. Whereas, if you say "atheist," you have to tell me by using modifers which it is you're meaning.

 

[Ouroboros]

When dreaming you mean?

Maybe. Which one would you prefer? But, I'm interested in knowing how belief in God is maintained during deep sleep as well.

 

[atanu]

Not at all. You

I am leading to the fact that if I postulate P, then I can make assessments of truth even under a regime of ignorance.

Do we agree that P is always true?

Ciao

- viole

Not at all. You have full knowledge that the coin has a head side and a tail side.