That's what I was referring to, yes.
-
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
Curious George
Veteran Member
You seem like a smart fella, definitely not a dullard. But you must walk before you can run. How exactly did my statement either not follow logically from that to which it had responded, or how did the words I write not follow from the premise. You see, this was not written in the post, despite your assurances.
Hmm, is that a misplaced adverb or are you suggesting that the other person made the statement incorrectly? This would be very weird indeed. But the alternative is that you think I was making an statement incorrectly...this leads me to believe that you did in fact not understand my post, or you are being lazy and failed to go back and re-read what I wrote.
Curious George
Veteran Member
To emphasize what you are leaving out and to parallel it with your logic for including "personhood" in the definition.
PackJason
I make up facts.
I dunno. I'm just drunk.
I don't know anything about them arguing this.
A theist is per definition "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Theist
So according to you if we put a- in front we get "not a person who believes in the existence of God or gods" or exactly what do you think we get?
Perhaps he only thought he created it, & his interpretation pre-dated this.
I don't know, but it appears he was championing an existing definition.
McBell
Unbound
really?
So you are not paying any attention to the posts in this very thread?
I don't understand this.
PackJason
I make up facts.
Yeah, more or less. It was sort of a "lost" definition I suppose. At that time people were almost exclusively using "atheist" as an assertive stance. All Flew really did was correct that.
I recall that in the 70s, we atheists commonly disbelieved in gods, without saying they don't exist.
Even back then, rational thought existed.....so how could we say something cannot exist when
proof thereof is impossible? So agnosticism & atheism intersected before Flew discovered us.
PackJason
I make up facts.
I wasn't alive in the '70s, so I don't have a personal point of reference to that decade.
Yes, I strongly agree that agnosticism & atheism intersected before Flew.
Wait.....it's too early to agree.
People will become bored.
Call me some names, or attack my education.
PackJason
I make up facts.
Jerky McJerkface!
Guess not.
Artie, we will be going in circles unless we agree that there is a difference in perspective between your and my views.
My view is based on the understanding that a baby neither believes nor disbelieves God. A baby has no thought on the subject 'God'.
Your view is based on a partial truth that a baby (like adult atheists), 'does not believe in God'. That is as true as calling 'Grey' as 'Not White' and insisting that others who describe colour 'Grey' as "neither white nor black but grey", are in error.
...........
I enjoyed your friendly and non aggressive approach al lot. Bye.
OK. Atheism has had lots of definitions over the years and many different interest groups use it in different ways, but if people are going to communicate in serious religious discussion a common understanding of the term needs to be nailed down.
Atheists here keep presenting a simple, basic concept as a starting point, and this is immediately set upon by Byzantines who parse it, invent objectionable ramifications, propose alternatives and generally obfuscate the whole subject with convoluted semantics and etymology.
This leads nowhere. It leads to 1400 posts endlessly repeating the same points.
It gets tedious.
Atheists here keep presenting a simple, basic concept as a starting point, and this is immediately set upon by Byzantines who parse it, invent objectionable ramifications, propose alternatives and generally obfuscate the whole subject with convoluted semantics and etymology.
This leads nowhere. It leads to 1400 posts endlessly repeating the same points.
It gets tedious.
There was a common understanding of the term before people began reifying negation, one that could not possibly be applicable where belief is not also capable of being applied.
It would help the discussion to understand what, if anything, babies believe in. Or what we babies accepted as reality.
Interesting, to me, that babies are presented as a 'them' category, when everyone reading this was at one time, 'them.' Seems more appropriate to discuss it as an 'us' proposition. What as a baby did you believe in?
I personally don't recall much from that time, but really do think I saw my parents as highly influential to my being, and not far removed from how some people currently understand the term 'god.'
But I also realize that as a baby, I wasn't aware that I was a baby, nor that I was born, nor that beliefs exist. Without any (intellectual) beliefs, but existing as a person that accepts a reality, I wonder if us adults can actually comprehend that type of existence. For all we know, that is knowledge. We label it as ignorance, but participate on threads 80 pages deep debating the minutiae about the very idea of beliefs. Thinking it will lead to knowledge on beliefs, or lack thereof. Perhaps we are still in our infancy?
Interesting, to me, that babies are presented as a 'them' category, when everyone reading this was at one time, 'them.' Seems more appropriate to discuss it as an 'us' proposition. What as a baby did you believe in?
I personally don't recall much from that time, but really do think I saw my parents as highly influential to my being, and not far removed from how some people currently understand the term 'god.'
But I also realize that as a baby, I wasn't aware that I was a baby, nor that I was born, nor that beliefs exist. Without any (intellectual) beliefs, but existing as a person that accepts a reality, I wonder if us adults can actually comprehend that type of existence. For all we know, that is knowledge. We label it as ignorance, but participate on threads 80 pages deep debating the minutiae about the very idea of beliefs. Thinking it will lead to knowledge on beliefs, or lack thereof. Perhaps we are still in our infancy?