Atheism is not a default position

[jonathan180iq]

I know from other posts ...you believe.

as for the label pasting....
It's a practice dealt when misery has no comfort.

Ever see children do it?
I have.

Do you believe in the supreme deity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
(I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't)

Since you do not believe in the supreme deity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, isn't it accurate to say that "Thief does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Now, you may actively reject the FSM based on the lack of evidence for his existence, you may even preach against such ridiculous deities... or, you might just not give it much thought at all and instinctively respond to the concept of the FSM with a passive disbelief. Regardless of the your level of disbelief, the statement is still true that you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Babies, likewise, do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Is that statement somehow incorrect? You seem to think it is when it refers to your god. How are the two statements any different?

 

[Thief]

Do you believe in the supreme deity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
(I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't)

Since you do not believe in the supreme deity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, isn't it accurate to say that "Thief does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Now, you may actively reject the FSM based on the lack of evidence for his existence, you may even preach against such ridiculous deities... or, you might just not give it much thought at all and instinctively respond to the concept of the FSM with a passive disbelief. Regardless of the your level of disbelief, the statement is still true that you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Babies, likewise, do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Is that statement somehow incorrect? You seem to think it is when it refers to your god. How are the two statements any different?

ask them if they do....and they might consider.

 

[jonathan180iq]

ask them if they do....and they might consider.

Do babies believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[leibowde84]

I know from other posts ...you believe.

as for the label pasting....
It's a practice dealt when misery has no comfort.

Ever see children do it?
I have.

If the term "atheist" was derrogatory in any way, I might see your point. But, it is just a term that indicates a lack of belief in this context. It is implicitly factual, so there is no "agenda" possible.

Is it wrong to call a crayon "blue"? Is it wrong to say that a person is "tall" or "short"?

 

[McBell]

Nay to all of the above.

Thank you for further proving my point.

 

[Willamena]

Babies, likewise, do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Is that statement somehow incorrect? You seem to think it is when it refers to your god. How are the two statements any different?

Actually, yes, it is incorrect. "To believe," and hence its negation, requires that a baby have a proposition about the world to assess as true. Babies arguably have no propositions, and do not doubt.

 

[Thief]

If the term "atheist" was derrogatory in any way, I might see your point. But, it is just a term that indicates a lack of belief in this context. It is implicitly factual, so there is no "agenda" possible.

Is it wrong to call a crayon "blue"? Is it wrong to say that a person is "tall" or "short"?

It CAN be....
where I work you gotta keep a reign on every syllable.

and I suspect even greater disciplines before God and heaven.
they can see how you think and feel.

Picture someone who never grew old enough to learn a sense of discernment.
The lack of belief may not be a problem.
Children go to heaven....so most believers say....

Picture someone who makes denial.....
oooops!

You can lean on 'implicit' all you want.
the default position.....for 'lack of belief'.....is heaven.

the fault position for denial....is something else.

 

[leibowde84]

It CAN be....
where I work you gotta keep a reign on every syllable.

and I suspect even greater disciplines before God and heaven.
they can see how you think and feel.

Picture someone who never grew old enough to learn a sense of discernment.
The lack of belief may not be a problem.
Children go to heaven....so most believers say....

Picture someone who makes denial.....
oooops!

You can lean on 'implicit' all you want.
the default position.....for 'lack of belief'.....is heaven.

the fault position for denial....is something else.

Ok, but that is just your belief, and how YOU see the word as being derrogatory. That seems to be more of a problem with your own prejudice against disblief in God or your opinion about God's feelings towards disbelievers. It doesn't make the term ACTUALLY derrogatory, because this prejudice isn't shared by everyone.

 

[Thief]

Ok, but that is just your belief, and how YOU see the word as being derrogatory. That seems to be more of a problem with your own prejudice against disblief in God or your opinion about God's feelings towards disbelievers. It doesn't make the term ACTUALLY derrogatory, because this prejudice isn't shared by everyone.

I just use cause and effect.
You can see the flow of thought.
I'm not using prejudice.

or maybe you think there will never be any consequence for what goes through your head?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Actually, yes, it is incorrect. "To believe," and hence its negation, requires that a baby have a proposition about the world to assess as true. Babies arguably have no propositions, and do not doubt.

Likewise, it is also accurate to say that they do not believe in the propositions that they do not have, right?

Look, I follow you completely on active belief and active disbelief - it's just that active belief and disbelief aren't at issue when dealing null states.
As long as we can agree that babies are null states, then the fact will always remain that they do not believe in anything, regardless of variable.

Babies do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Thief]

Likewise, it is also accurate to say that they do not believe in the propositions that they do not have, right?

Look, I follow you completely on active belief and active disbelief - it's just that active belief and disbelief aren't at issue when dealing null states.
As long as we can agree that babies are null states, then the fact will always remain that they do not believe in anything, regardless of variable.

Babies do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

neither does anyone who lays comatose.

but maybe they do!
an atheist in a coma?......

 

[McBell]

Actually, yes, it is incorrect. "To believe," and hence its negation, requires that a baby have a proposition about the world to assess as true. Babies arguably have no propositions, and do not doubt.

False dichotomy.
There are options other than believe/disbelieve.
Lack of belief is one.

 

[jonathan180iq]

neither does anyone who lays comatose.

That is correct, assuming comatose is a null state

 

[Thief]

That is correct, assuming comatose is a null state

So after a lifetime of denial....a coma takes away the belief.....
and you would no longer be an atheist?

 

[jonathan180iq]

So after a lifetime of denial....a coma takes away the belief.....
and you would no longer be an atheist?

I would return to my null state of implicit atheism, wouldn't I? I would have no beliefs one way or the other.
I certainly wouldn't be an explicit atheist anymore.

 

[leibowde84]

I just use cause and effect.
You can see the flow of thought.
I'm not using prejudice.

or maybe you think there will never be any consequence for what goes through your head?

My belief is that actions speak louder. We will be judged by what we do, not what we think.

 

[leibowde84]

So after a lifetime of denial....a coma takes away the belief.....
and you would no longer be an atheist?

He would then be an implicit atheist, as he would have no beliefs.

 

[Thief]

I would return to my null state of implicit atheism, wouldn't I? I would have no beliefs one way or the other.
I certainly wouldn't be an explicit atheist anymore.

So all atheists are eligible for heaven.....by default....
and would be happy to be there.....
and heaven would not mind all the denial made....

 

[Thief]

He would then be an implicit atheist, as he would have no beliefs.

like a child....

see previous post

 

[leibowde84]

So all atheists are eligible for heaven.....by default....
and would be happy to be there.....
and heaven would not mind all the denial made....

I don't think God is petty enough to hold disbelief in himself against people for eternity. Call me crazy, but that seems counterintuitive. Why would people be rewarded for buying into beliefs that may or may not be accurate?