-
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!
"Humans are born as atheists"
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
But "apolitical" doesn't mean not having a concept of politics. It means having no interest in politics.
Non-belief, in the context of having no concept of the subject of belief, cannot involve anything.
McBell
Unbound
saying a baby is an atheist is absurd in that it is meaningless.
Just like saying a rock is an atheist.
McBell
Unbound
If you have no concept of it you cannot have a belief in it.
Not having a belief is non-belief.
No idea why this is such a difficult concept for some people.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How can they be convinced -- unconvinced -- of something that -- for them -- doesn't even exist?? Babies are not "without theism." Theism doesn't exist for them to be without.
For some, it is absurd because of what "atheist" means to them.
Cannot believe (as in ignorance) and do not believe (atheism) are not the same thing. We don't "do" not believing, it's something we are. We don't "do" any nots. We do dos.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes, but if "political" isn't part of your world, you can't be "a" something that already doesn't exist.
Only if "theism" is part of your world. You and I cannot be "a" what doesn't exist, for we need the existence of the thing before we can claim to be "without" it. Can you tell me precisely what you are without that you have no concept of? How do you then know that you are "a" those things? Look at it this way: if there were no such thing as clothing -- if everyone was just naked all the time, no could be said to be "without clothing," because "clothing" wouldn't be a concept or a thing that it would even be possible to be "without."I'm not sure if I don't get the concept you're trying to express, or if you're just wrong.It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. If atheism is a lack of theism, then anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.
Just because theism is a "thing" for most people, doesn't mean that it is even a possibility for all people. It's a concept that's based in individual awareness. Just because you and I have a concept of "theism" doesn't mean that "theism" exists for everyone. And for those for whom it does not exist, those people cannot be "without" what, for them, doesn't even exist in the first place.
Yes. I would say that. "Most" isn't a qualifier here. "God-concept" is a general awareness of some deific concept, not a specific formulation of a particular mythological construct.
McBell
Unbound
Yes.
Which is why i find it rather comical, and sad at the same time, that so many people are unable to understand there is more than one definition of the word "atheist".
McBell
Unbound
Your insistence of making it far more complicated than it needs to be does not change in any way what I said.
They understand differently because they believe in a positive world. It's not complicated. It's how they were taught.
It's not complicated at all. The world is positive, and the English language, properly used, reflects that.
McBell
Unbound
Counting the hits and ignoring the misses doe snot help your "argument"...
I don't know what that phrase means.
Post #373 is not made to advance my argument but to point at underlying causes of the disagreement.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I think Willamena makes some good arguments on here.
It's a part of your world and my world, though, so it exists for us. It's you and I talking, so our shared understanding is enough.
The baby's understanding of politics only matters if we're trying to make ourselves understood by the baby.
Again: understanding of the terms only matters between the sender and the recipient. The subject of the communication doesn't need to be understood for the communication to be meaningful.
Do you have a concept of theism? I'm not sure I do. Theism ends up relating to gods and gods are... slippery.
This strikes me as nonsense. If something doesn't exist, it's *impossible* to be without it. The fact that we might not be aware of this fact is a separate issue.
So you have "a general awareness of a deific concept"? By this concept of yours, which purported theists aren't actually theists? When you compare the "gods" they believe in against your god-concept, which ones does your god-concept allow you to say "they don't believe in a real god"?
Edit: as a sample case, take Mercury/Hermes vs. Gabriel/Jibreel. Both divine messengers, both with very similar attributes... similar to the point that any single "deific concept" would either accept them or reject them as a package deal. However, the Greeks and Romans maintained that their divine messenger was a god, but the Christians and Muslims hold as a point of doctrine that their divine messenger is absolutely NOT a god. So which group is wrong by your deific concept?
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
That they think how they see things is the way it should be does not help either.
We all do.
McBell
Unbound
to one degree or another, yes.
which is usually not a problem.
However, when one starts denying the real world in favour of their ideal world, it can cause problems.