Its statement is in the dictionary.
-
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
Belief/thought doesn't have presence to you. It is you.
You've objectified it with language, but that doesn't change the understanding of it that you're arguing against.
They are not the same thing. It just happens that ignorance of a god-concept implies atheism.
Far as I see, while the arguments are indeed different (and fairly esoteric), you all end up insisting that atheism must be stated and/or active, so no practical difference there.If you want to lump us together, fine, I could hardly be in better company, but atanu, Draka and I argue from different stances.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
implication is not definition
Augustus
…
As many people have told you many times, this is totally irrelevant.
Things not considered to be god (including things you don't know about) make absolutely no difference whatsoever.
It is a statement of belief, not pure reason.
They are not 'obsolete' they are simply not your preferred definition. Do you understand the difference?
You seem to believe that there has to be a single, absolute, perfect definition of a term (god, theist, atheist) and that anything that is not an absolute logically perfect catch all term is somehow 'wrong'.
[For what it's worth, (conceptually) they are the 2 definitions in the OED. The 'lack of belief' definition is not in there. This doesn't mean other definitions are not valid (or even less valid), just that it demonstrates these 2 definitions are considered perfectly standard usage]
It's not 'underhand', but it is an attempt to achieve something. Why would there be an attempt to propose a new definition a word without the intent to achieve something. (Something could be: improved accuracy, advocacy or agenda, to meet changing realities, etc. it does not imply being 'underhand')
I'm pretty sure most people here aren't admitting their prejudices because they don't have any prejudices. They are simply explaining why they think one definition makes more conceptual sense than another. Pretty much like the other side of the argument really.
"While arguing about subjective preference, my side is dispassionate and reasonable, but those who don't accept that I am right and they are wrong only do so through prejudice and dishonesty."
Indeed. There is non-default, non-implicit atheism as well.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
To better facilitate this discussion, let me recommend using the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" instead of using "atheism" to cover both, and let me also recommend using these simple definitions:
atheism: a belief that there are no deities
agnosticism: an uncertainty as to whether there are any deities
atheism: a belief that there are no deities
agnosticism: an uncertainty as to whether there are any deities
This is the definition of STRONG ATHEISM. See http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Strong-Atheism.htm
That defies what both theism and atheism are about.
Theism is not "possessing the thought that there is a god" (which is an atheist attitude, by the way). Thoughts have intentionality, which is the property of being about something. The intentionality of "there is a god" is not that I have a thought that there is a god. It's that there is a god.
Belief is the thought that is thought to be true. The intentionality of "belief in god" is not that I have a belief that there is a god. It's that it's true that there is a god.
Last edited:
Yes. That's nothing I'm arguing.
I disagree with both definitions.
Since we've already discussed the word "atheism" to death, I'll just focus on "agnosticism":
agnosticism: the belief that the existence of gods is unknowable.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. An agnostic is a person who doesn't know or claims it can't be known whether gods exist or not.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I got away for a few months and you guys have a 32 page debate about Implicit and Explicit atheism? Without me?!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
Even if you want to take the side of Ernest Nagle or the naysayers, you're still left with an acceptable definition of (a)theism, being the "absence of theism".
Regardless, the argument still has legs. Should I bring up Abe-Mango again?
Raise your hand if you believed in Abe-Mango before you saw her name written here.
If you had no idea who she was, you were implicitly without belief in Abe-Mango.
If you knew who she was, then you necessarily made a decision about your belief or disbelief in her - making you explicit about your belief in Abe-Mango.
And for further emphasis, let's talk about babies being mechanics instead of babies being atheists....
Are babies born as Mechanics?
"But..." you'll say "they're not NOT painters..." and that's true. They have the capacity and ability to become any of those things. They can pretty much do whatever they want over the course of their lives, as all of the painters, matehmaticians, pilots, racecar drivers, and chefs will attest. But when they are born, they most certainly are not any of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
Even if you want to take the side of Ernest Nagle or the naysayers, you're still left with an acceptable definition of (a)theism, being the "absence of theism".
Regardless, the argument still has legs. Should I bring up Abe-Mango again?
Raise your hand if you believed in Abe-Mango before you saw her name written here.
If you had no idea who she was, you were implicitly without belief in Abe-Mango.
If you knew who she was, then you necessarily made a decision about your belief or disbelief in her - making you explicit about your belief in Abe-Mango.
And for further emphasis, let's talk about babies being mechanics instead of babies being atheists....
Are babies born as Mechanics?
- Painters?
- Mathematicians?
- Pilots?
- Racecar drivers?
- Chefs?
"But..." you'll say "they're not NOT painters..." and that's true. They have the capacity and ability to become any of those things. They can pretty much do whatever they want over the course of their lives, as all of the painters, matehmaticians, pilots, racecar drivers, and chefs will attest. But when they are born, they most certainly are not any of them.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I wouldn't argue that, just that it has a specifically "underhanded" purpose.
Or they're just not aware of them, I suppose.
I've not seen too much of that. It ultimately always seems to boil down to "A broad definition is somehow inherently less meaningful/appropriate than a more specific definition". I, personally, don't have an issue with people having their own, more specific definition of atheism - just with when they accuse another, less specific definition of somehow having less value or worth; as if a word's value is anything other than the definition under which it is being used in the particular topic of discussion. It just seems bizarre to me.
Well explained, thanks. The crux of the argument at the moment varies from author to author, but I think the real problem lies in that some want to interpret atheism as negating having a belief, while others want to negate the belief.
It's the same old story.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Not really. They're categories of people. One defined by the presence of a particular belief, one by the absence of it.
Who said that?
I never said anything that contradicted that. What are you actually arguing against?
Again: I disagree with the "doesn't know" definition.
For the second part, I'm not going to split hairs between "belief" and "claim". They're close enough to each other that the distinction doesn't matter to me here.
I did, right there. You responded to it.