• 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!

Atheist by birth?

A

Acim

Revelation all the time
outhouse said:
100% wrong
Click to expand...

I'm 100% wrong for saying:

Acim said:
Now atheism isn't lack of belief, but is knowledge of some sort.
Click to expand...

When I got that from:

outhouse said:
Atheism is not a lack of belief, its knowledge that ancient men in power had always created deities to match their specific needs, wants, and desires and hopes for life and a mythical afterlife.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that I was 100% wrong if you accept that my source for my assertion was also 100% wrong. Somehow, I don't think that will fly. I'll be the person who is 100% wrong for claiming "atheism isn't lack of belief, but is knowledge of some sort." While you give somewhere in neighborhood of 100% right to person who said "Atheism is not a lack of belief, its knowledge."

its not knowledge, its a lack of knowledge in a deity.

what part of theism is it that you do not understand??? Theism requires belief.
Click to expand...

Every concept requires belief. Every framework does. Let me know when you have a framework that doesn't require a belief. Here, I'll even try to help you. Let us take skepticism, which my computer dictionary defines as: a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions. Do skeptics accept that skepticism exists? If yes, then my point is still true - all frameworks require a belief.

The only qualifier for atheism is that you have no concept of any deities, this includes the attached dogma of any religion attached.
Click to expand...

And it would also include all opinions about said deities. Therefore for atheists to remain atheists, they cannot engage in debates with those who have concepts of deities, and are convinced about those concepts. Like if I am convinced God will save all humans, an atheist cannot enter into that discussion and say something like, "I don't see your God saving all humans, since I don't believe any human has been saved." That might be a wonderful item to debate, but it would not be me in discussion with someone who is actually atheist, more like poser atheist who certainly appears to have concept, ideas, belief about theological understandings, about what God does, what salvation is, and how salvation 'really works.'

theism is belief of deities within a religion. Atheism is the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

And with theism, believers get to have a whole range of ideas, concepts, avenues for nurturing their knowledge and faith. In expressing their faith, it will ultimately be expressed as beliefs, especially to those who are lacking experience or understanding of evidence. Those who truly claim to lack belief. If those lacking belief wish to hang onto consistent position of atheism, (perhaps they don't, but let's pretend they do), then they more or less cannot assert anything that resembles concept of deity, no matter how rational or irrational it may show up. For once they do, they cease to be (real) atheists.

your on a public forum with different views and opinions. If you want a example of different just take the 33,000 different branches of christianity and play with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll stick to atheism in this thread.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True, every concept may require knowledge, but atheism isn't a concept. It's a lack of concept. The definition applies weather the atheist conceptualizes anything or not.
 
Rhizomatic

Rhizomatic

Vaguely (Post)Postmodern
Without wading through the last 20 or so pages of this discussion, I'm going to call it a safe bet to assume that somewhere within them someone has defined atheism as a lack of theism, thus concluding that it must be the default position of humans.

I agree with that person.

Every concept requires belief. Every framework does. Let me know when you have a framework that doesn't require a belief. Here, I'll even try to help you. Let us take skepticism, which my computer dictionary defines as: a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions. Do skeptics accept that skepticism exists? If yes, then my point is still true - all frameworks require a belief.
Click to expand...
This seems tautological, since it is based on the (unstated and undemonstrated) assumption that atheism is a framework, not a property.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
St Giordano Bruno said:
The default position IMO is not atheism but ignosticism, because ignostocism by definition just simply means they don't know just by virtue of the fact the very concept has never entered an infant's mind in the first place, like what black holes and neutron stars would mean to Gallileo. The same applies to lesser animals as a concept of god has never entered their minds as well. Whereas with agnosticism you are aware of the concept in which you are discussing and cannot make up your mind one way of the other, but with ignosticism you have no idea about what others may be discussing about.
Click to expand...
IMO, ignosticism is a subset of atheism, though ignostics tend to bristle when they hear people say this.

Willamena said:
I can't agree with that. Ignosticism, agnosticism, non-theism and the like each have their image that springs from a theistic image of "God", as well as their image that springs from no image of "God". How you understand the theism (including atheistically) will shape how you understand each of them.
Click to expand...
But a person with no image of "God" cannot have a relationship with an image of "God". Therefore, such a person cannot be a theist, therefore, such a person must be an atheist.

Storm said:
So, basically, you're saying atheism doesn't even require the mental capacity of a rock?
Click to expand...
You don't need any capacity at all to not do something.

Willamena said:
Of course it would. It requires mental capacity to cognize "not" (and "have" and "any" and "something" and "lack" and...)
Click to expand...
So... a baby can't be an atheist until he recongizes that he's an atheist?

What other characteristics of a person must the person recognize before he actually has them?
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Storm said:
outhouse also called atheism knowledge.
Click to expand...

outhouse said:
not really

i set up a example, not completely defined but yes a part of the picture.
Click to expand...
Yes, really:

outhouse said:
Atheism is not a lack of belief, its knowledge that ancient men in power had always created deities to match their specific needs, wants, and desires and hopes for life and a mythical afterlife.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added. That's not an example, it's a flat statement.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
But a person with no image of "God" cannot have a relationship with an image of "God". Therefore, such a person cannot be a theist, therefore, such a person must be an atheist.
Click to expand...
Kudos for at least trying the Patty-speak.

The inherent relationship of an image of "God" is understanding. There's two sides to "no image of 'God'": no understanding because of no information/knowledge, and understanding the imageless thing. The former is atheism, as I know it, as I think we're using the term here; the latter, monotheism.

It's not so black and white.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
So... a baby can't be an atheist until he recongizes that he's an atheist?

What other characteristics of a person must the person recognize before he actually has them?
Click to expand...
Nah, nah, YOU and others here are the ones insisting babies are atheists. :)

The question was, "Why would it necessitate ANY mental capacity to NOT have (i.e., lack, be without) a belief in something?" Because it necessitates mental capacity to formulate the propositions in which we will either invest belief or not invest belief.

Each and every word of them.
 
Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Willamena said:
Because it necessitates mental capacity to formulate the propositions in which we will either invest belief or not invest belief.

Each and every word of them.
Click to expand...

With that reasoning, everything that has no reasoning capabilities, beleives in everything o.0
 
Last edited:
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
Willamena said:
The question was, "Why would it necessitate ANY mental capacity to NOT have (i.e., lack, be without) a belief in something?" Because it necessitates mental capacity to formulate the propositions in which we will either invest belief or not invest belief.

Each and every word of them.
Click to expand...
One doesn't need to be told about something in order to affirm a non-belief or to not believe. The non-belief exists even before anything is mentioned. The believe part might need a target but not believing does not require a target. Why would it when there is no target to not believe in even after something is made up and brought to our attention to not believe in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top