How do you define "Athesim"?

[Storm]

But the infant's cognitive inability to grasp theism has quite a bit to do with whether they're capable of being theists.

A person who is incapable of being a theist is not a theist. A person who is not a theist is an atheist.

I disagree, I've said why, and endless repetition of the same unsupported point is not going to change my mind.

 

[outhouse]

The religious affiliation of the parents has nothing to do with an infant's cognitive inability to grasp the concept in question.

theres the key statement


one doesnt have to grasp anything to lack theism

 

[Storm]

theres the key statement


one doesnt have to grasp anything to lack theism

No, one has to grasp any concept as a prerequisite for acceptance OR rejection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that that's a popular definition among atheists who for some reason want to inflate their numbers by adding rocks. Unfortunately it's a silly definition that everyone else I know rejects.

No, it's based on the acknowledgement that rejecting each and every god is a fool's errand, so most people define atheism by lack of belief.

If I walk up to someone and ask them "do you believe in any gods?", if their answer is "no", I will conclude that they're an atheist. I don't have to ask them about what concepts of god they've encountered, and I don't have to ask if they've come to conclusions about all of them.

Let's put it another way: do you agree that I am an atheist?

Yes it is. Now, we can play "is so, is not" for the next 20 pages, or you can actually muster an argument.

For starters: what do you think makes a person an atheist?

Your question and answer thing from earlier sort of implies that a person can't be an atheist unless they're aware of their atheism. Is this your position?

Did you miss the part where I said there is no default? If you can't grasp a concept, you can't disbelieve it any more than you can believe.

I saw where you asserted it. I missed the part where you gave any reason for me to accept it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, one has to grasp any concept as a prerequisite for acceptance OR rejection.

It's not necessary to grasp a concept to not do something.

For example, a person who has never smoked a cigarette is a non-smoker. This is true even if they haven't come to any decision that smoking is bad. It's even true if the person doesn't know what a cigarette is.

It's the same for theism and atheism: they're MECE categories: every person belongs to exactly one of them.

 

[Storm]

No,

"No," what? "No," that's not the popular understanding in my neck of the woods? Sorry, but you're wrong, and my anecdotal evidence is worth just as much as yours.

it's based on the acknowledgement that rejecting each and every god is a fool's errand, so most people define atheism by lack of belief.

Still burning that strawman? I forgot my marshmallows.

If I walk up to someone and ask them "do you believe in any gods?", if their answer is "no", I will conclude that they're an atheist. I don't have to ask them about what concepts of god they've encountered, and I don't have to ask if they've come to conclusions about all of them.

Indeed.

Let's put it another way: do you agree that I am an atheist?

Obviously, and also irrelevant. You have the cognitive ability to form the opinion.

For starters: what do you think makes a person an atheist?

I already answered that: an opinion.

Your question and answer thing from earlier sort of implies that a person can't be an atheist unless they're aware of their atheism. Is this your position?

No, my position is that one can't have any affiliation until one at least grasps that there are teams.

I saw where you asserted it. I missed the part where you gave any reason for me to accept it.

I've at least offered up a working, logical definition that isn't totally self-serving. Have you?

 

[Storm]

It's not necessary to grasp a concept to not do something.

For example, a person who has never smoked a cigarette is a non-smoker. This is true even if they haven't come to any decision that smoking is bad. It's even true if the person doesn't know what a cigarette is.

It's the same for theism and atheism: they're MECE categories: every person belongs to exactly one of them.

Smoking a cigarette is a physical action. It requires motor skills, not cognition. As for the MECE thing, your own link states that its purpose is to map information. Which makes it utterly useless when there's no information to be mapped.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism isn't based on cognition.

Some of us are atheists because of what we believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"No," what? "No," that's not the popular understanding in my neck of the woods? Sorry, but you're wrong, and my anecdotal evidence is worth just as much as yours.


Still burning that strawman? I forgot my marshmallows.

I'm not going down this road. If this is just going to devolve into sniping, then I'm not going to engage with you. If you want to discuss this issue with me, you'll have to do it with respect and courtesy, and right now that's not coming across.

Indeed.

Okay. So hypothetically, if we had insight into what was in a person's head, if we could ask "does this person believe in any gods?" and conclude "no", then we could conclude that this person is an atheist... do you agree?

Obviously, and also irrelevant. You have the cognitive ability to form the opinion.

It's not irrelevant. We just haven't gotten to why it is relevant yet.

What makes me an atheist?

I already answered that: an opinion.

What opinion?

No, my position is that one can't have any affiliation until one at least grasps that there are teams.

So in your view, a person does not necessarily have to recognize that they're an atheist in order to be an atheist?

I've at least offered up a working, logical definition that isn't totally self-serving. Have you?

You haven't, actually. I'm still trying to figure out your definition - you haven't given enough for me to conclude that it's working or logical, and you certainly haven't demonstrated that it's not self-serving.

 

[outhouse]

No, one has to grasp any concept as a prerequisite for acceptance OR rejection.

to not be a theist, doesnt require a grasp on theism.

no prerequisite or knowledge is needed to not be a theist.

 

[Storm]

I'm not going down this road. If this is just going to devolve into sniping, then I'm not going to engage with you. If you want to discuss this issue with me, you'll have to do it with respect and courtesy, and right now that's not coming across.

Well, the feeling is mutual. I consider it a lot more disrespectful to pull a strawman argument than to call one out.

Okay. So hypothetically, if we had insight into what was in a person's head, if we could ask "does this person believe in any gods?" and conclude "no", then we could conclude that this person is an atheist... do you agree?

That would depend on whether said person HAD any concept of Gods.

It's not irrelevant. We just haven't gotten to why it is relevant yet.

Well, that's most persuasive.

What makes me an atheist?

Your opinion that God does not exist.

What opinion?

That God does not exist.

So in your view, a person does not necessarily have to recognize that they're an atheist in order to be an atheist?

Let me nip this in the bud: yes if you take enough quotes out of context, you can pretend I don't disagree with you. However, such dishonest tactics are beneath you, particularly after you scolded me for not showing proper respect.

You haven't, actually. I'm still trying to figure out your definition - you haven't given enough for me to conclude that it's working or logical, and you certainly haven't demonstrated that it's not self-serving.

It's really quite simple: Atheism is the opinion that God does not exist.

 

[Storm]

to not be a theist, doesnt require a grasp on theism.

no prerequisite or knowledge is needed to not be a theist.

No, but there is a difference between not being a theist and being an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, the feeling is mutual. I consider it a lot more disrespectful to pull a strawman argument than to call one out.

Fine. We're done.

 

[Tristesse]

No, but there is a difference between not being a theist and being an atheist.

And what would that be? Atheism litterally means without belief in a god. if you do not hold that belief you are without it, correct?

 

[Storm]

And what would that be? Atheism litterally means without belief in a god. if you do not hold that belief you are without it, correct?

The difference is that one is a subset of the other. I am aware of the etymology of "atheist," but it's about as convincing to me as my old southpaw friend's argument that "sinister" was a slur against southpaws.

 

[Willamena]

And what would that be? Atheism litterally means without belief in a god. if you do not hold that belief you are without it, correct?

It's like the difference between not smoking and not being a smoker. Is a smoker a non-smoker when they're sleeping?

 

[Tristesse]

The difference is that one is a subset of the other. I am aware of the etymology of "atheist," but it's about as convincing to me as my old southpaw friend's argument that "sinister" was a slur against southpaws.

Well, if you're not a theist, then does that mean that it's possible to not be a theist and believe in a god?

 

[Willamena]

Well, if you're not a theist, then does that mean that it's possible to not be a theist and believe in a god?

*raises hand*...

 

[Tristesse]

*raises hand*...

Sorry, I was using theist in a very broad sense, including those who doen't believe in a personal god.

 

[Storm]

Well, if you're not a theist, then does that mean that it's possible to not be a theist and believe in a god?

Sorry, I was using theist in a very broad sense, including those who doen't believe in a personal god.

With that clarification, no. It's not possible to be theist or atheist in the absence of cognitive capacity to grasp a concept of God.

A newborn is no more an atheist than a theist, or a Republican. Neither is a rock.