Atheist by birth?

[Sunstone]

I think we're ... arguing about angels dancing on pinheads.

Yup...

 

[Acim]

IMO, what Willamena is saying is: atheism is a rejection of the belief in God.

That is how I understand atheism, and is one that makes most sense, except when considering implicit atheism. As I've stated now about 7 times on this thread, none of you are implicit atheists. You may think you are, I (and apparently Willamena) am all too glad to debate you on this.

In fact, I'm going backwards right now in this thread to do just that. For the fun of it.

 

[Acim]

I'm not excluding thought, I'm just being specific. Idea is more accurate.

I said belief is aspect of thought, you are saying aspect of idea. My dictionary says idea is: an opinion or belief. So you are saying belief is an aspect of belief, while I am (still) saying, for sake of accuracy, that belief is an aspect of thought.

For sake of discussion (moving forward), I'm willing to write this off to semantics. For sake of debate (and getting bogged down in details), I could be persuaded to stay stuck on this if accuracy is prime concern.

Not a choice, not if it is, as you say, thought.

I said aspect of thought. I think beliefs are composed, which is word you said. I think there is mindful intention when it comes to expressing or holding beliefs.

The thing about "a choice" is that it was made between options. Thought offers no options. We believe in things, propositions about the world, because they hold the appearance of truth. We don't choose the truth for them.

We don't choose the truth, but we choose to accept them as true. Now, this is where I would split hairs and say if we are less aware (of self and world) we may not exercise choice, but via aspect of awareness, we have beliefs which are composed by faith (trust) rather than mindful intention that is, how you say, reasonable. Like beliefs that the physical world (and physical senses) are showing us reality. I once had this sort of awareness, and when I scrutinized the hell out of it, I came to understand it is low level awareness (for me), and is belief I held that was composed by faith, not by reason.

 

[Acim]

I never understood the phrase that atheism is a "lack" of belief. Not having this belief isn't some kind of deficiency or not having something that is needed, so my absence of belief in the existence of gods isn't a lack of anything. It's simply an absence of holding that belief.

This becomes something that is discussed / mentioned often in last 4 pages or so.

I tend to see this logic of absence in same vein as lack, and as illogical as how Willamena is suggesting it is.

While it is "simply an absence of holding that belief" it is closer to accurate to say it is rejection of that belief, and is not default position.

Within context of this thread, I can still see it as absence and implicit atheism, but only applicable to those with infantile awareness, and even that, as Willamena is continuing to point out (I think) is "us" projecting that onto "them." Babies aren't telling us they have infantile awareness, or something that is 'lacking' or 'absence' of our awareness. We more or less assume this, and feel we are being reasonable, open minded, because we are (hopefully) very open to idea that maybe one day babies will let us know otherwise. Or perhaps research will come down the river and say, 'a ha, this research we've done and now corroborated 77 times, proves babies are and have always been born Gnostics. Now we know.'

But until that research or message comes from babies, I think adults are just going to go on assuming, with sense of righteousness, that babies have infantile awareness, which translates into they are absent of ideas, concepts, and beliefs we hold. In fact, they have no discernible ideas that we are aware of.

While all you all (atheists of the explicit kind) have plenty of ideas about that God belief. I've seen them. Often. You have all sorts of beliefs, concepts, opinions about what a divine being, deity, Abrahamic God is up to, was up to, might be up to, ought to be up to, should be up to, etc., so on and so forth. You ain't absent nothing. It is cute that you pretend to be, and cute that you think you are in default position. Your expressions prove otherwise, and so clearly you are practicing explicit atheism. You reject belief in God, and do a bang up job sticking to that position of rejection.

 

[Acim]

So... a person who doesn't have the proposition necessarily doesn't have the understanding and therefore necessarily doesn't have the belief. This is has been my position all along, and why I say that the baby is an atheist: in not having any proposition of gods, we know that he or she doesn't have any belief in gods. Since not having belief in gods is the sole criterion for atheism, the baby is an atheist.

I add this to what I just said in previous post, because some of you have either stated, or I anticipate will state (again) that you, like me, don't have awareness of particular propositions in particular deities. And so in this very loose way of putting things, I too can be deemed atheist. Even implicitly atheist. Though I would argue this awareness is (or is akin to being) infantile.

Yet, once you become aware of proposition that asserts "god(s) exist" then your refusal to accept that is rejection not absence of that belief. And while there may be attempts to split hairs around awareness of proposition, it won't be too challenging for me in debate, and for those willing to scrutinize, just how much proposition does lead to understanding and to belief when we debate anything divine or deity related. You don't get to have absence of belief plus also argument that says "you are not convinced by the evidence." For that is rejection. You are aware of concept that evidence exists, and you reject it.

Someone could show me evidence that tells them Casey Anthony murdered her child, and I could reject that evidence in terms of saying, "yes it exists, but no it doesn't prove intent to murder" therefore I am absent of your belief. Which sounds almost innocent, but when scrutinized, it is clear you are not absent of the belief, but more so of the agreement with the belief. For arguably everything anyone believes (even if it is fact), and I disagree with it, I could claim "I am absent of your belief" and call that default position, even the most reasonable position.

You believe 2 times 2 equals four? You have proof to establish this? Well I don't believe the proof establishes it, and I am absent of your belief that 2 times 2 equals four, and I claim my position is the default. I just haven't seen enough evidence for it to be true. Perhaps if something was written across the sky at night, in blaze of fire, so I can see it, then maybe I'll call that enough evidence, but anything short of that, and it is simply not convincing enough for me to change my position which is the reasonable one and the default one. You have to enable a method of proof that matches my standards and (drum roll please) my beliefs, and then maybe we can see if what you are saying is true, is actually true. For now, it is nothing more than your mere belief, and imaginary. There is no "2 times 2 equals 4" found in the physical world, so clearly this is something you made up and perhaps got some other gullible saps to agree with you. I feel sorry for you all and your delusions, but I'll stick to the default position since I care to be logical and sane.

Cool?

Oh, and btw, babies don't acknowledge that 2 times 2 equals 4, which just proves that it is default position and therefore most reasonable.

 

[lunakilo]

It still behooves me what part of your a theist or your not these people cannot get through their heads.

they read the definition of atheist as if they were reading the bible and conjure up their own personal interpretation.

when asked to back their belief they act like creationist being questioned at a science fair.



why does your definition of atheist differ from the dictionary definition???

Yes, it all comes down to the definition...

So, is your whole hangup on the word "lack'? We don't have to use that word if it confuses you.

We can instead say, for the following statement:

Statement A: God exists

We are without a belief in statement A
We do not have a belief in Statement A

Additionally, you can call us non-believers, unbelievers, non-theists, atheists, whatever. Same difference.

Let's just take "lack" off the table, why don't we? The needfullness aspect's clearly a stumbling block.

Basically atheism is a simple absence of belief. Weather this definition's useful in discussions or meaningful is irrelevant. Weather an infant's pre-wired for religion or not is, while interesting, also irrelevant.
I think we're making mountains out of molehills, arguing about angels dancing on pinheads.

IMO, what Willamena is saying is: atheism is a rejection of the belief in God.

That is how I understand atheism, and is one that makes most sense, except when considering implicit atheism. As I've stated now about 7 times on this thread, none of you are implicit atheists. You may think you are, I (and apparently Willamena) am all too glad to debate you on this.

In fact, I'm going backwards right now in this thread to do just that. For the fun of it.

The problem here seems to be that people don't agree on the definition of atheism

There are two types of definitions being thown around
1) Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s)
2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in god(s)

If you use definition 1) you can argue that anyone or anything which does not believe in at least one deity is an atheist. That includes babies, dogs and rocks.

If you use definition 2) you can argue that you must first know what belief is in order to reject it. So using this definition babies, dogs and rocks are not atheists.

 

[lunakilo]

Anyway, new evidence has come to light which indicates that stones are actuallt theists!!!

Luke 19:37-40

New International Version (NIV)

37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38 “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”[a]
“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”
40 “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

 

[blackout]

Yes, it all comes down to the definition...






The problem here seems to be that people don't agree on the definition of atheism

There are two types of definitions being thown around
1) Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s)
2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in god(s)

If you use definition 1) you can argue that anyone or anything which does not believe in at least one deity is an atheist. That includes babies, dogs and rocks.

If you use definition 2) you can argue that you must first know what belief is in order to reject it. So using this definition babies, dogs and rocks are not atheists.

... and that.... should close out the thread.
(but I'm somehow quite sure that it won't. )

 

[KovertKitty]

Yes, it all comes down to the definition...






The problem here seems to be that people don't agree on the definition of atheism

There are two types of definitions being thown around
1) Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s)
2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in god(s)

If you use definition 1) you can argue that anyone or anything which does not believe in at least one deity is an atheist. That includes babies, dogs and rocks.

If you use definition 2) you can argue that you must first know what belief is in order to reject it. So using this definition babies, dogs and rocks are not atheists.

Highfive for awesomeness... :yes:

 

[Willamena]

If a thing does not exist, it is nowhere. If a thing is nowhere, it is not present. If a thing is not present, it is absent.

I disagree. I'm sorry. Locality is for things. Things exist.

Non-existent is non-existent.

But this is off-topic.

 

[Willamena]

OK lets cut the horse pucky

whats your special very own personal definition of A atheist???

Someone who rejects, denies or disclaims the existence of God.

In other words, someone who takes a firm stand and says, "I believe God does not exist."

 

[Willamena]

I said belief is aspect of thought, you are saying aspect of idea. My dictionary says idea is: an opinion or belief. So you are saying belief is an aspect of belief, while I am (still) saying, for sake of accuracy, that belief is an aspect of thought.

For sake of discussion (moving forward), I'm willing to write this off to semantics. For sake of debate (and getting bogged down in details), I could be persuaded to stay stuck on this if accuracy is prime concern.

It's only 'semantics' because you're trying to clarify.

The "proposition" of beliefs is a composition. Proposition, idea, concept, feeling, and the like --these rise above thought to take on a life of their own. They become actual 'things', objects in a composed world.

Thought is the baseline, mental activity at play. Aspect is a way of looking at things.

But I can work with the wording you prefer, if you like.

I said aspect of thought. I think beliefs are composed, which is word you said. I think there is mindful intention when it comes to expressing or holding beliefs.

I would say, rather, mindful attention.

Mindful intention suggests to me a composed delusion. Delusion and belief are distinct (though admittedly often made interchangable).

We don't choose the truth, but we choose to accept them as true. Now, this is where I would split hairs and say if we are less aware (of self and world) we may not exercise choice, but via aspect of awareness, we have beliefs which are composed by faith (trust) rather than mindful intention that is, how you say, reasonable. Like beliefs that the physical world (and physical senses) are showing us reality. I once had this sort of awareness, and when I scrutinized the hell out of it, I came to understand it is low level awareness (for me), and is belief I held that was composed by faith, not by reason.

I have a different image of your first line, here. I would say we assign truth. I hold that different from making a choice. Assignation is the world as it is imprinted our memories (as our memories are impressed); truth is but one bit of that world. A 'sign' points to the truth of a thing; 'assign' is what has occured when the truth of a thing has become apparent.

'Faith' is in the truth that is apparent but not yet actual.

I think we are saying very similar things.

 

[idav]

The problem here seems to be that people don't agree on the definition of atheism

There are two types of definitions being thown around
1) Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s)
2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in god(s)

They are both accurate in that one does not negate the other. The common factor is not believing. Your atheist if you don't believe whether you have a chance to reject it or not. A kid might not call himself atheist but I would call him that and if he wants to argue I'll give him the semantic jargon found on this thread.

 

[laffy_taffy]

This becomes something that is discussed / mentioned often in last 4 pages or so.

I tend to see this logic of absence in same vein as lack, and as illogical as how Willamena is suggesting it is.

While it is "simply an absence of holding that belief" it is closer to accurate to say it is rejection of that belief, and is not default position.

Within context of this thread, I can still see it as absence and implicit atheism, but only applicable to those with infantile awareness, and even that, as Willamena is continuing to point out (I think) is "us" projecting that onto "them." Babies aren't telling us they have infantile awareness, or something that is 'lacking' or 'absence' of our awareness. We more or less assume this, and feel we are being reasonable, open minded, because we are (hopefully) very open to idea that maybe one day babies will let us know otherwise. Or perhaps research will come down the river and say, 'a ha, this research we've done and now corroborated 77 times, proves babies are and have always been born Gnostics. Now we know.'

But until that research or message comes from babies, I think adults are just going to go on assuming, with sense of righteousness, that babies have infantile awareness, which translates into they are absent of ideas, concepts, and beliefs we hold. In fact, they have no discernible ideas that we are aware of.

While all you all (atheists of the explicit kind) have plenty of ideas about that God belief. I've seen them. Often. You have all sorts of beliefs, concepts, opinions about what a divine being, deity, Abrahamic God is up to, was up to, might be up to, ought to be up to, should be up to, etc., so on and so forth. You ain't absent nothing. It is cute that you pretend to be, and cute that you think you are in default position. Your expressions prove otherwise, and so clearly you are practicing explicit atheism. You reject belief in God, and do a bang up job sticking to that position of rejection.

There you go again! You are getting off on a tangent suggesting that atheists cannot have any beliefs at all about god (concepts). Of course we can. We just, by definition, do not hold the specific belief that god exists. Are you suggesting that just by debating god concepts that we believe in god?

 

[Acim]

I would say, rather, mindful attention.

Mindful intention suggests to me a composed delusion. Delusion and belief are distinct (though admittedly often made interchangable).

I'm not getting how you receive delusion from intention? I said, "I think there is mindful intention when it comes to expressing or holding beliefs." I could change that to 'mindful purpose' and would mean same for me. I think it possible to have mindful purpose and mindful attention with regards to beliefs. And mindful is word I could remove as it could possibly confuse if talking about more than one aspect.

I have a different image of your first line, here. I would say we assign truth. I hold that different from making a choice.

IMO, that is taking choice further. Accept truth is trust. I feel that as little effort needed, almost as if trust is natural. But since this is 'trust in something or someone' that added pattern of identification seems purposeful. Assigning truth seems like intellectual assertion that takes an extra step. I accept something (could really go either way on how much truth I give it), but when I assign truth to it, I've now moved from acceptance, to willful assertion of its place within my conceptual framework.

Assignation is the world as it is imprinted our memories (as our memories are impressed); truth is but one bit of that world. A 'sign' points to the truth of a thing; 'assign' is what has occured when the truth of a thing has become apparent.

'Faith' is in the truth that is apparent but not yet actual.

I think we are saying very similar things.

I think we are as well, though adding and spinning to 'assert place within our (own) conceptual framework' kinda sorta hoping it aligns with another's framework. I personally think that is possible, even plausible. When persons say things like, "our perspective is completely different," I tend to disagree with this, and see it as hyperbole that is unexamined. More like, "I don't even want to entertain idea that our opinions, concepts, could be quite similar, because the other day you said monkeys are purple and I just can't go along with that thinking. Everyone I know, knows monkey's are orange. Therefore we are 'completely' different."

/side tangent.

There are ways in which thoughts just 'stick' with us, and are seemingly beyond our control. Yet, on deeper examination of one's self, without probing / prying into physical version of self (via extraordinary means), I think examination of 'stuck' things is plausible. One can find memories that are stuck and were seemingly being held as if imprint was, for whatever reason, deemed necessary, or not worth further examination. And in such self examination, I think one becomes aware of idea that at some level of consciousness, all of this is chosen. Thus some, I would argue all of it, can be unchosen, or undone. I ain't saying that is easy, but when aware of how consciousness can really work, it is actually easy. As easy to remove imprint as it was to have it put there. No physical effort needed, thus whatever the perceived big deal would be in shifting perception from physical understanding of evidence to non-physical, is really just hoopla. 8 seconds after shift is made, one quickly forgets angst one might've had going into 'jumping into the abyss.'

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This becomes something that is discussed / mentioned often in last 4 pages or so.

I tend to see this logic of absence in same vein as lack, and as illogical as how Willamena is suggesting it is.

While it is "simply an absence of holding that belief" it is closer to accurate to say it is rejection of that belief, and is not default position.

I don't care - call it whatever you want. I never characterize it either way, as neither accurately describes my position. My position is simply that I cannot honestly claim belief in the existence of any god(s). I don't hold the belief that god(s) exist, nor do I hold the belief that god(s) do not exist. This is what makes me an atheist.

Whether someone decides to call this absence, lack, or rejection, doesn't really matter to me, as their need to label it as one or the other says more about their beliefs than mine.

To clarify, I generally use the phrase absence of belief in these contexts to convey that I don't hold a belief about the existence of god(s) either way. I suppose reject might be applicable to god concepts I've heard of, but I cannot have rejected something I don't have a concept of, so your insistence that "rejection" is more accurate than "absence" simply shows your unawareness of alternative semantical contexts, and honestly has more to do with a pathological contrariness than with you reaching some kind of rationally-based conclusion.

 

[Acim]

There you go again! You are getting off on a tangent suggesting that atheists cannot have any beliefs at all about god (concepts). Of course we can. We just, by definition, do not hold the specific belief that god exists. Are you suggesting that just by debating god concepts that we believe in god?

I am suggesting that by debating concepts about God(s), that you are with belief(s) in that god. Your ultimate position may be one of rejection, but along the way, it would be observable that you do not lack beliefs in this pre-conceived non-existent thing.

Think of it this way. I reject the reality of the physical world. Someone may say, "hmmm, what are you typing on to make this point you are making?" To which I reply, I believe I am in this world, but I reject it is reality.

Atheists observably have lots of opinions, ideas, rationalizations, and I would say beliefs about what God would have to do if God is to be believed (with conviction). That right there is belief. And it is belief that allows for position of rejection.

I do think it is plausible that if God is understood as (incredibly) large model, that atheists (like I would say all theists I've ever met, heard of) may lack beliefs in aspect of the model. But this would be due to, what I might suggest in context of this thread, as level of infantile awareness being demonstrated.

Like, an atheist type wants to put God up on pedestal insisting (really believing) that God must be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. And until that God shows up, convincingly so, with all things that are believed to match those characteristics, yeah until that God shows up, then 'default' is to be absence of belief in existence of that being.

While I think it incredibly likely that atheist type has realization(s) (and often) that God is as simple as deep profound love experienced for person where say it would be 'illogical' to have that bond. Thus experience this awareness, this intellectual understanding, coupled with profound feeling. But deny that as "experiencing God or divinity" because some sky daddy didn't come in with booming voice to announce this is holy revelation that you are receiving and are now anointed with special blessings accepting you into the fold of godliness. Yeah, since that didn't happen with the experience of simple, deep, peaceful love, then one gets to maintain rejection of God as non-existent, cause my physical eyes didn't see "him" and phew, all the other atheist types won't think of me as nuts.

 

[Acim]

has more to do with a pathological contrariness than with you reaching some kind of rationally-based conclusion.

My pathological contrariness, self identified as critical analysis by a free thinking individual, has led me to the rationally based conclusion that adult atheists do not lack beliefs in existence of God, even if they pretend otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My pathological contrariness, self identified as critical analysis by a free thinking individual, has led me to the rationally based conclusion that adult atheists do not lack beliefs in existence of God, even if they pretend otherwise.

I agree, my non-belief in god isn't a lack of anything.

 

[laffy_taffy]

There you go again! You are getting off on a tangent suggesting that atheists cannot have any beliefs at all about god (concepts). Of course we can. We just, by definition, do not hold the specific belief that god exists. Are you suggesting that just by debating god concepts that we believe in god?

I am suggesting that by debating concepts about God(s), that you are with belief(s) in that god. Your ultimate position may be one of rejection, but along the way, it would be observable that you do not lack beliefs in this pre-conceived non-existent thing.

First of all, what do you mean by "with belief(s) in god"? When we say that we are without a belief in the existence of god, we are talking about one singular, specific belief that we do not have. So are you saying that we believe that god exists? We can have all sorts of ideas and beliefs about the god concept. That doesn't mean that we hold the belief that such a god actually exists.

So, are you saying that one cannot debate someone about the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, aliens and so forth unless they believe that these things exist? What about when I have conversations with my girl friends about the evil villain from our favorite book series. We debate what he is going to do next, who's girlfriend he is going to steal and whether or not he will ever get a job. Does this mean that I believe that this villain actually exists in real life, just because I have certain beliefs and opinions about his character? Give me a break.