McBell
Unbound
So who is making this claimed proposal?
-
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
No, I reject that someone who is proposing that the man who is ignorant of god has no belief about god.
(Edit: Keep it on topic, please.)
McBell
Unbound
How can someone who has no knowledge of god believe in god?
No one at all.
Just so.
McBell
Unbound
So he would be an atheist.
Whats the problem?
The atheist is not the person ignorant of god. The atheist is the person who doesn't believe in god.
McBell
Unbound
How can someone who has no knowledge of god believe in god?
Indeed.
But more to the point, how can someone ignorant of god not believe in god? I've yet to hear that one explained. I've yet to hear the relation between knowing and believing that explains knowing nothing about god equating to not believing in a god.
McBell
Unbound
Stop ignoring the definitions of "atheist" you dislike.
Disbelief in a deity is only ONE of the many definitions of atheist.
Lack of belief in any deity is ALSO one of the many definitions of the word atheist.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
How could "people who believe in nothing" not be seen to be incuded in those who are without any specific belief?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sheesh. Its simple grammar. The strict definition of atheist is (a) lack of (theist) belief in deit(ies).
Anything more is personal beliefs. Its a default position. No one believes in deities until someone tells them, hear, or read about about it.
Anything more is personal beliefs. Its a default position. No one believes in deities until someone tells them, hear, or read about about it.
Seems to me I'm not the only one ignoring definitions that don't suite me.
Because no one can believe (or its negation) without something to believe (or its negation).
Belief is the belief of a proposition. (Because the world exists, it doesn't fail to exist.)
Atheism is specifically not believing in god.
It's not about nothing, which is all it would be to the person who is ignorant of said proposition.
McBell
Unbound
Bull ****.
The fact of the matter is that one does not have to fit every definition to be an atheist.
Only one.
Thus it is you who is having to ignore the definition that merely lack of belief in any deity makes one an atheist.
Now that it has clearly established it is your ignoring of definitions that is the problem, one cannot help but wonder the why.
McBell
Unbound
Again I call bull ****.
Atheism is ALSO the lack of a belief in any deity.
The fact of the matter is that one has to suite only your interpretation of the definition. Got it.
You win. Golly.
I won't stop arguing it, though.
McBell
Unbound
Careful, your transference is showing.
I am not the one ignoring definitions in order to have an argument.
That would be you.
Feel free to make an even bigger fool of yourself.
It is your credibility taking the hit, not mine.
It's all logic, really. Unless you can convince me of some other logic, my basic Aristolean logic applies.
Golly. I didn't know it was about credibility. I'd better re-think my positi---no. I'm good, thanks.