Atheist by birth?

[idav]

It's obvious, it is a conspiracy and dictionaries are written by theists.

 

[Acim]

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.

It might not mean you have conviction, but if you have opinions on what evidence must be for you to accept existence, then you are demonstrating beliefs in existence. If you are talking in debate mode talking about the God existing, then you have beliefs that are observable. After all this, you can come back to rejection, or explicit atheism.

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?

Nope, you're missing the rather simple point. One can discuss these things, and then come back to explicit rejection of existence of these things. Like if I say, "in order for me to buy into Big Foot existence, I'd need to see him in a recliner next to me, eating Doritos and reading Tolstoy. Until then, I simply don't think people have really seen him, and are going on imagination." All this isn't lacking in belief in existence of Big Foot, or representative of absence of belief in Big Foot, but is clearly demonstrative of my rejection of Big Foot (based on how I am construing the evidence).

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.

It means you are entertaining the existence and I'm guessing that you reject the belief that it actually exists. The way you wrote this clearly demonstrates that you are not absent of beliefs about this villain and that at some level there is existence of him within your consciousness.

Babies wouldn't likely have any concept or awareness of the villain, nor entertain concepts, nor demonstrate beliefs. They would instead demonstrate absence of beliefs in this villain.

 

[Acim]

Atheism being a passive absence of belief, rather than the rejection of a fundamental cornerstone of human society or an individual's ego-integrity, has important social ramifications.

I would suggest if it is truly passive absence of belief that it stay in that domain and that one who is 'not a theist' do not engage in debates, discussions, thinking about existence of God(s) and what evidence must look like. For when one does this, one moves from passive absence of believe into explicit atheism, if one maintains position of "they do not exist."

Also be mindful of concepts that could be construed by the more aware persons who understand God doesn't need personhood to be understood or experienced. If you speak to non-physical things of which you have no evidence (like Reason), you are entering a territory of belief and Knowledge that a more astute observer may scrutinize what it is you really think, and values you hold on this, and how you self justify these things. Is it matter of faith, or is it matter of physical observation courting rational thinking (ultimately attempting to deny the faith on which it is based)?

Babies don't attempt to pass themselves off as something they are not, for they remain truly passive on these matters.

 

[Acim]

Who says I am rejecting anything?

I am.

If I had never heard of your god, I still would be without belief in him.

Correct, in cases where you are unaware of particular God, you (like me) would be without belief of that particular God. It would be akin to infantile awareness of that particular God. Though, understanding what I have come to understand about your position, I would find it unreasonable for you (and most atheists reading this) that you are absence of belief in all god(s).

There are hundreds of gods that I have no clue about, but I still have no belief in them.

Bit tricky to say there are hundreds of gods, and to also claim absence of belief. Would be odd to me that you are able to quantify the number of gods you don't have a belief in, and that they are 'there.'

 

[laffy_taffy]

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.

It means you are entertaining the existence and I'm guessing that you reject the belief that it actually exists. The way you wrote this clearly demonstrates that you are not absent of beliefs about this villain and that at some level there is existence of him within your consciousness.

ok, if most of you guys here think this way.....that a discussion about storybook characters means that I have some level of belief in their existence, then there is no hope in ever getting it across to you. Debating about different concepts and/or characters does not mean that we hold the belief that such things exist (in reality)!

 

[Falvlun]

ok, if most of you guys here think this way.....that a discussion about storybook characters means that I have some level of belief in their existence, then there is no hope in ever getting it across to you. Debating about different concepts and/or characters does not mean that we hold the belief that such things exist (in reality)!

I think you missed a subtle point there. The point wasn't that you may believe the villian exists, but that you do believe that he doesn't.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I am.



Correct, in cases where you are unaware of particular God, you (like me) would be without belief of that particular God. It would be akin to infantile awareness of that particular God. Though, understanding what I have come to understand about your position, I would find it unreasonable for you (and most atheists reading this) that you are absence of belief in all god(s).



Bit tricky to say there are hundreds of gods, and to also claim absence of belief. Would be odd to me that you are able to quantify the number of gods you don't have a belief in, and that they are 'there.'

Google it. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods listed out there. Have I read up on each and every one of them? No way! Have you? Do you believe in them all? If not, have you "rejected" each and every one of them? If you have rejected them, why?

 

[Storm]

During all of this time, I am considered to be "capable" of belief, right? So at what point am I rejecting god or asserting that god does not exist?

Incorrect. What I'm saying is that the capacity for belief is something that develops over time. Babies don't have it.

 

[Acim]

ok, if most of you guys here think this way.....that a discussion about storybook characters means that I have some level of belief in their existence, then there is no hope in ever getting it across to you. Debating about different concepts and/or characters does not mean that we hold the belief that such things exist (in reality)!

Depends on how the debate is being framed. Really does. I've brought up examples and those are ones where it is clear to me (observable) that atheists demonstrate beliefs.

I grant that ultimate position is rejection.

There is slight disconnect we are having on this that is at fundamental level of thought and awareness. I do believe I am (well) aware of this, and am thinking some here may not be. That doesn't make me 'right' and you 'wrong' and is not how I look at it. Ultimately, I will accept that in other threads where things will get discussed, debated about god(s), that you really believe you have 'passive absence of belief in god(s)' while I will essentially understand that as 'pretending.' I do not think you will see it this way, and for sake of whatever that other discussion is, it won't really matter.

Perhaps another way of understanding this is to think of old school models of atoms. I hesitate to go in this direction because anyone who knows some of my positions would realize I reject 'reality' of atoms, but for sake of making point, I am talking about something I do believe exists (even if I ultimately understand it as unreal). Anyway, the model is something I can deny, and say THAT doesn't exist. That would be rejection. But to come back after having awareness of the model and say atoms don't exist because I do not see them and have no evidence of their existence, is further rejection of belief in existence of atoms. And then to fall back from this and conclude that the default position (after all this) is to say absence of belief in atoms is reasonable, natural, etc. is where I think some of you all would be relishing in debate if I stuck to 'absence' and 'lack' as my 'final stance.' Especially given idea that existence of atoms has evidence that is literally all around us. I would think someone countering that argument (that I lack belief in existence of atoms) would simply have a field day.

That is akin to how I look at this intellectual disagreement we have. It is undeniably fun to debate this, especially with how I understand the evidence.

 

[Acim]

Google it. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods listed out there. Have I read up on each and every one of them? No way! Have you? Do you believe in them all? If not, have you "rejected" each and every one of them? If you have rejected them, why?

I believe it is possible they all exist in conscious awareness. For me, the evidence of how they exist would be discernible with my understandings of awareness and existence.

 

[work in progress]

61 ******* pages! Seriously! Is it really that important whether atheism is an absence of belief, or a rejection of belief? Many of the atheists who are trying to organize atheist movements, and claim that all aspects of organized religions and supernatural beliefs are harmful delusions, do not act like they are "weak atheists" lacking the evidence to believe in some kind of God....and I think actions speak louder than words.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I think you missed a subtle point there. The point wasn't that you may believe the villian exists, but that you do believe that he doesn't.

I thought I made that point clear when I said:

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.

I thought it was obvious that I did not believe that this villain existed. Just debating about a concept or character does not mean that you hold the belief that such a thing exists in real life. In the case of the storybook character, I would additionally hold the belief that the villain does not exist. Unlike the case for gods and aliens. I may not (yet?) hold a belief in their existence, but I do not hold the belief that they do not in fact exist, either.

 

[Falvlun]

Google it. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods listed out there. Have I read up on each and every one of them? No way! Have you? Do you believe in them all? If not, have you "rejected" each and every one of them? If you have rejected them, why?

Have you read every single concept of a fairy that has ever been conceived and written down? No? And yet I am willing to bet that you don't believe fairies exist either. How is that possible? Could it be because we have a general concept of what a "fairy" is, and we find the likelihood of existence of anything that falls within that category to be rather low?

I don't see why the same reasoning doesn't apply to the concept of gods.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Have you read every single concept of a fairy that has ever been conceived and written down? No? And yet I am willing to bet that you don't believe fairies exist either. How is that possible? Could it be because we have a general concept of what a "fairy" is, and we find the likelihood of existence of anything that falls within that category to be rather low?

I don't see why the same reasoning doesn't apply to the concept of gods.

Are fairies something that are purported to be real? I guess I never investigated fairies in the same way that I have never tried to verify if Pinocchio was a real boy. As for gods, the majority of the world believes in a god and many people claim to have had personal experience, etc. The descriptions of the various god concepts are so varied that I could not reject all potential gods based on the "general concept". For instance, I actually find it "believable" that there could be an impersonal, creator type deistic god that we cannot perceive and has no interaction with us. I have not yet found any evidence to convince me to believe that such a god does in fact exist, but I cannot claim that such a god does NOT exist.

 

[Falvlun]

Are fairies something that are purported to be real? I guess I never investigated fairies in the same way that I have never tried to verify if Pinocchio was a real boy. As for gods, the majority of the world believes in a god and many people claim to have had personal experience, etc. The descriptions of the various god concepts are so varied that I could not reject all potential gods based on the "general concept". For instance, I actually find it "believable" that there could be an impersonal, creator type deistic god that we cannot perceive and has no interaction with us. I have not yet found any evidence to convince me to believe that such a god does in fact exist, but I cannot claim that such a god does NOT exist.

Fairies, much like unicorns and mermaids and gnomes, were certainly something considered to be real. Not so much nowadays, of course, but they do fall in a different category than fictional characters from a story.

As for your god example, you are still thinking too specific. The god definition I use is as follows: "A god is a supernatural being (or force) that has control over at least some aspect of reality."

If something doesn't fit that definition, then I do not think it is a god. Usually, this is because it is something that people are calling "god" even though some mundane word like "Universe" would suffice. That is their perogative, but I do not have to consider it a god simply because they do.

 

[idav]

Fairies, much like unicorns and mermaids and gnomes, were certainly something considered to be real. Not so much nowadays, of course, but they do fall in a different category than fictional characters from a story.

They do fall in the fictional category these days as they are in the sci-fi fantasy realm along with monsters and aliens. They were believed because of superstition.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, and by that definition, "atheism" is equally applicable to you, a zygote, and a rock. Which makes it rather meaningless, don't you think?

wrong, dead wrong.

the definition states "somebody" NOT something.

try again

 

[outhouse]

Definitions of atheist (n)



a·the·ist [ áythee ist ]

1. unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, agnostic, freethinker, humanist




TELL ME how does a newborn child NOT fit this description

I still see no one wants to answer the question that sinks their boat opcorn:

 

[Storm]

I still see no one wants to answer the question that sinks their boat opcorn:

Missed that. Look at the synonyms and tell ME how a newborn is capable of fitting any of them.

 

[jarofthoughts]

They were believed because of superstition.

How does that make them different than gods?

Excepting popular opinion, (which, as history shows, is a poor requisite for what's real and not) what separates faeries from gods in the respect of being considered real or not?