Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Babies aren't capable of holding any sort of "isms" at all. Atheism does not mean incapable of forming or holding beliefs. That's what you have to make it mean in order to claim a baby is an atheist. Same with cows, dogs, cats, trees, and so forth. Words like theist and atheist cannot be applied to them, any more that words like patriot, or traitor, believer or non-believer, faithful or unfaithful. These only come online when the brain has had time to develop to hold the capacity for points of view to be held cognitively.

You are missing a lot about what babies can and cannot do. A baby, for example, can be demonstrated to suppose that a thing before it will remain before it. Try putting a cookie into a cup in front of a baby (or a chimpanzee) using a magician's palm so that the cookie doesn't actually go in the cup. The baby (and the chip) will be very obviously surprised when you show them the empty cup.

More importantly, you left out the part about what points of view are actually presented to the young brain -- and what that brain will then tend to believe. You can separate twins at birth, and teach them wildly different cultural norms -- and they will not recognize their kinship at all. The points of view they hold cognitively are those they were taught, not those they absorbed from thin air, nor those they were predisposed to learn.

 

[Windwalker]

Atheism is a lack of belief.

Do you believe God does not exist? It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you believe God does not exist? It's a simple yes or no question.

Do you believe that I'm going to answer "Yes" or "No" to something posed a "Yes" or "No" answer when there are more alternatives?

 

[LuisDantas]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

I would say that the reason is very clear. It is because you are talking of a version of the god of the gaps. You are projecting certain stances and expectations to what you hold to be proper according to your understanding of "god" and deciding that the world would be better if those pesky atheists only saw the light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are cats then, so are trees, by such a bizarre and meaningless sweeping definition of atheism. "Atheism is everything else that is not theism", in other words. The whole of creation is Atheist, except for theists then. Right?

It's just game playing with words and makes the meaning of atheism, meaningless. And atheists complain when people say everything is God, and then say why not just call that nature then? Yet, they are fine in claiming babies and cats and dogs and cows and trees are atheists? It's so absurd it doesn't merit serious consideration.

Such desperation. We were talking about the beliefs of human beings. Just in case you forgot.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you believe that I'm going to answer "Yes" or "No" to something posed a "Yes" or "No" answer when there are more alternatives?

ie, the Dictionary definition which I go by for "atheist" states disbelief or a lack of belief. One can simply lack belief. In which case, "yes" or "no" doesn't apply here.

 

[F1fan]

Do you believe God does not exist? It's a simple yes or no question.

It's a misleading question. You are asking someone if they believe (a judgment a person makes) a certain concept is true, and the concept you are asking about is "God does not exist", which is a negative position. In these discussions the concept tends to be "God exists". We argue and debate asserting X is true, and it's true because XYZ. So the way you phrase the question tries to force a position onto those you are asking, that being "God does not exist" and then you culd demand evidence for that conclusion. It's a difficult claim to argue since "God" is a broad set of concepts and there is no Gods known to exist, let alone a concept we all use and agree upon. It's also proving a negative. Let's point out that no one can prove there is no unicorn on Mars. This is why we debate affirmative concepts that can be tested and assessed for truth, not negative claims.

Humans can assess a specific God claim and conclude it does not exist given the evidence we have. Most god concepts are so vague that we can't make any judgment for or against the idea. Theists do try to exploint vagueness so critical thinkers can't use their wits to conclude the concept isn't true, or is likely untrue.

 

[stvdv]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues​

God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

To know what God thinks is only possible if you are God; meaning omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Of course there is a chance that you are all these 3, but I don't believe that, hence the title makes no sense to me

 

[Windwalker]

Do you believe that I'm going to answer "Yes" or "No" to something posed a "Yes" or "No" answer when there are more alternatives?

Please answer how you would choose to answer it then. Do you believe God exists? Or put another way, do you believe that God does not exist? You are free to form your answer to that question however you wish.

Also, if I were to ask a baby that question, how do you suppose it might respond? Same if I were to ask a cow that same question. Do you suppose either could understand the idea in order form an answer, if they could? Are they capable of any sorts of beliefs whatsoever?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Please answer how you would choose to answer it then. Do you believe God exists? Or put another way, do you believe that God does not exist?

I lack belief in God.

Also, if I were to ask a baby that question, how do you suppose it might respond? Same if I were to ask a cow that same question. Do you suppose they could form an answer? Do you suppose they would understand the idea in order to answer, if they could?

Let's say a baby possessed the ability to answer.

Person: "Do you believe in God?"

Baby: "Who's that?"

 

[Ostronomos]

I lack belief in God.




Let's say a baby possessed the ability to answer.

Person: "Do you believe in God?"

Baby: "Who's that?"

I don't think all babies are evil. However, all babies are hardwired to believe in God, so they would answer yes.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

However, all babies are hardwired to believe in God, so they would answer yes.

I'm skeptical of that. I'd like to see proof.

 

[Windwalker]

I lack belief in God.

Why do you lack belief in God? What is it about that idea you don't accept as valid?

Let's say a baby possessed the ability to answer.

Person: "Do you believe in God?"

Baby: "Who's that?"

So then you believe the baby is able to conceptualize reality in terms of a "who", or in abstractions such as "president", or "teacher", or God, but they simply lack the linguist skills to express their thoughts and ideas into language? You believe that are fully able to make differentiations of concepts and ideas like adults do, right?

So the way babies think and atheists think about God is really identical, correct? This is your argument, yes?

Also, you agree that cows are atheist cows, true?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think all babies are evil. However, all babies are hardwired to believe in God, so they would answer yes.

I'm not sure I agree with that anymore than I agree they are hardwired to be atheists. Can you support this notion?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Why do you lack belief in God? What is it about that idea you don't accept as valid?

First flesh out in detail the God you picture in your mind, then I can talk about how it's not possible, or whether it's not possible.

So then you believe the baby is able to conceptualize reality in terms of a "who", or in abstractions such as "president", or "teacher", or God, but they simply lack the linguist skills to express their thoughts and ideas into language? But you fully imagine they are able to make differentiations of concepts and ideas like adults do, right?

The point is that without conditioning and/or teaching a person to believe in God, that the default position is a lack of belief in God, which can be part of the Dictionary definition of atheism.

 

[Windwalker]

First flesh out in detail the God you picture in your mind, then I can talk about how it's not possible, or whether it's not possible.

Clearly you have an idea of what God is in order to call yourself an atheist. If someone where to ask me if I believe in Prakels, I would simply answer I don't know that is, so I can't say if I believe in it or don't. I might, but I just don't know what that word means.

Is that what you are claiming? You don't know what the word God means? Yet, your saying you don't believe in it, or "lack belief" in it, even without knowing what that word means?

The point is that without conditioning and/or teaching a person to believe in God, that the default position is a lack of belief in God, which can be part of the Dictionary definition of atheism.

There is no position whatsoever on a question that a mind that can't conceptualize reality in linguist terms can assume. There is no default position. There is no position at all. And that is the point you are equally as much in error as the theist who says theism is the default posistion. Infants have no positions on any questions. You have to be able to process questions first before there is a postion at all. This isn't difficult.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Clearly you have an idea of what God is in order to call yourself an atheist.

Honestly, it's up to theists to define God. I don't ask you to define what a "lack of belief in what a theist believes in" looks like.

And I call myself a "non-theist" actually.... same meaning as atheist, minus the baggage with the term.

Really, I'll make this simple.... You could talk for a whole hour about the philosophical side of it, until you are completely worn out, and you'd still miss the simple point that since the Dictionary says atheism can be described as a "Lack of belief in a God", then if a baby doesn't have belief in God or more likely lacks it, they can be considered an atheist. It's like arguing despite not noticing that you lost the conversation before you begin, and continuing to talk about every possibility despite not seeing that "got'cha" in the definition of atheist.

There is no position whatsoever on a question that a mind that can't conceptualize reality in linguist terms can assume.

And this is what it boils down to, as I was trying to hint around at....

This then means that, according to the Dictionary, the baby can be considered an atheist.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure I agree with that anymore than I agree they are hardwired to be atheists. Can you support this notion?

This is a pretty recent explanation of what is meant by being hardwired for belief in God and other religious concepts.

The Human Brain Evolved to Believe in Gods

How belief in the supernatural makes sense in light of evolution.

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[Windwalker]

Honestly, it's up to theists to define God. I don't ask you to define what a "lack of belief in what a theist believes in" looks like.

As I pointed out earlier, would you find it proper to say you have a lack of belief in something that you don't know what it is? Of course not. If someone used a term I was unfamiliar with, I would not say I had a lack of belief in it. I very well may fully believe in it, once I understood what they meant by it. Until then to say I "lacked belief" in it, would be disingenuous.

That's what I think I'm saying. This claim by those who call themselves atheists that it's merely a "lack of belief" in something they don't know what it is, is simply not true. It's disingenuous. I called myself an atheist for many years, and I very clearly knew what it was I "lacked belief" in. There was a very specific idea. That is not any bit different than saying "I believe that is not true", which is a statement of belief.

And I call myself a "non-theist" actually.... same meaning as atheist, minus the baggage with the term.

I get that. I think that is a friendly term to be sure. And it is very specific as well. It says I know what the belief of God looks like, and I simply don't make that a part of my life. That "lack of belief" is a conscious choice, not merely the absence of an idea.

Really, I'll make this simple.... You could talk for a whole hour about the philosophical side of it, until you are completely worn out, and you'd still miss the simple point that since the Dictionary says atheism can be described as a "Lack of belief in a God", then if a baby doesn't have belief in God or more likely lacks it, they can be considered an atheist.

I consider that stretching the meaning of what the dictionary means beyond its intended meaning. It is absurd to say a cow is an atheist, as much as it is to say a baby is. I consider it disingenuous and an argument of semantics to make it look as if atheism is not a belief based upon conscious choice. It is a choice based upon a stated question. In the absence of a question, there is no choice, and it would be improper to use the word atheism to describe that condition.

It's like arguing despite not noticing that you lost the conversation before you begin, and continuing to talk about every possibility despite not seeing that "got'cha" in the definition of atheist.

I've lost nothing at all. Saying cows and babies are atheists is the height of absurdity. Making the dictionary define a baby that way, is insincere.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As I pointed out earlier, would you find it proper to say you have a lack of belief in something that you don't know what it is? Of course not. If someone used a term I was unfamiliar with, I would not say I had a lack of belief in it. I very well may fully believe in it, once I understood what they meant by it. Until then to say I "lacked belief" in it, would be disingenuous.

That's what I think I'm saying. This claim by those who call themselves atheists that it's merely a "lack of belief" in something they don't know what it is, is simply not true. It's disingenuous. I called myself an atheist for many years, and I very clearly knew what it was I "lacked belief" in. There was a very specific idea. That is not any bit different than saying "I believe that is not true", which is a statement of belief.

So if we go for a second with your theory that atheism is all just disbelief, which I don't believe, how then do I define God so as to not believe in him? Even if we talk the Abrahamic God, there seems to exist some debate of specific points.

It seems insincere to say "I don't believe in the Christian God", because then people will say "How about this Hindu god? Or how about...."

And even if we agree on everything regarding which God to talk about, who is to say you and I don't have different mental images of him almost completely?