Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[atanu]

They are born an atheist. ... Basic logic. Are you unschooled in that?

History. You need to learn some.

It is always like this. Lack of belief Equals good education.

 

[atanu]

"I am a child who has never been introduced to the idea of God, thus I lack belief in God." = not a claim ("implicit atheist")

Ha ha. Have you ever seen or heard a child speaking like this?

This definition of implicit atheism reflects not the reality but only your Imagination of a child making a claim.

 

[leibowde84]

Ha ha. Have you ever seen or heard a child speaking like this?

This definition of implicit atheism reflects not the reality but only your Imagination of a child making a claim.

This is called a hypothetical. If the kid said this, they would be explicitly atheist. It is showing the reality, not a literal statement. Can you argue that this is not the case with infants, disregarding the word "atheist".

 

[atanu]

I'll try to make this more simple for you.

"I am a child who has never been introduced to the idea of God, thus I lack belief in God." = not a claim ("implicit atheist")

This is called a hypothetical. If the kid said this, they would be explicitly atheist. It is showing the reality, not a literal statement. Can you argue that this is not the case with infants, disregarding the word "atheist".

Kid does not say or think like this. He has neither any belief nor any disbelief wrt to the question of presence or absence of a deity. That is reality.

Now if you wish to call that 'Implicit atheism', that is your viewpoint. I do not object to that. But please do not impose this on me.

 

[Bunyip]

Kid does not say or think like this. He has neither any belief nor any disbelief wrt to the question of presence or absence of a deity. That is reality.

Now if you wish to call that 'Implicit atheism', that is your viewpoint. I do not object to that. But please do not impose this on me.

What on earth are you thinking? Nobody is going to impose a descriptive term on you, how did you imagine they could or would?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Atheism is not a default because it implies an assessment of the evidence for God an alternative metaphysic to account for the evidence. These must be based on claims equally in need of support to those of the theist. In truth, anyone who makes a claim in an argument that the other side does not accept needs to support it. The only one who has no burden is he who is not interested in arguments and just is going about his everyday life.

 

[Bunyip]

Atheism is not a default because it implies an assessment of the evidence for God an alternative metaphysic to account for the evidence.

What evidence is that?

These must be based on claims equally in need of support to those of the theist. In truth, anyone who makes a claim in an argument that the other side does not accept needs to support it. The only one who has no burden is he who is not interested in arguments and just is going about his everyday life.

Like implicit atheists?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with religious beliefs. Atheists maintain (or return to) that default position.

Firstly, this seems to conflate a psychological default with a logical one. Men can psychologically be disposed to believe or not believe in God, but that has no necessary bearing on where the logical default should fall, and vice versa.

Secondly, if we concentrate on a psychological default, you seem to be begging the question here. If God exists, then there may well be good reason to think that, in fact, man is predisposed to believe in him. Your claim seems to imply he doesn't exist and this is natural for man to accept.

Lastly, you don't show any proof about man's psychological development. Whether or not men are predisposed, and in what way, to religious belief is controversial and complex. Your bald assertions are hardly a sophisticated window into that discussion.

 

[Bunyip]

Firstly, this seems to conflate a psychological default with a logical one. Men can psychologically be disposed to believe or not believe in God, but that has no necessary bearing on where the logical default should fall, and vice versa.

Secondly, if we concentrate on a psychological default, you seem to be begging the question here. If God exists, then there may well be good reason to think that, in fact, man is predisposed to believe in him. Your claim seems to imply he doesn't exist and this is natural for man to accept.

Lastly, you don't show any proof about man's psychological development. Whether or not men are predisposed, and in what way, to religious belief is controversial and complex. Your bald assertions are hardly a sophisticated window into that discussion.

Well sorry mate, but a vague notion that believing in Yahweh is innate is an even balder assertion.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What evidence is that?

The evidence anyone uses to come to a conclusion about whether God does or does not exist, and indeed to form a general worldview or metaphysic. You seem to be implying that the fact you think there is no god evidence for God somehow affects my point. It does not. Even if the only evidence for God theists ever put out was complete nonsense and blind faith, it wouldn't change the fact the atheist would have to asses this and assess the cosmos in general, apart from specific theist arguments, and come to a conclusion that atheism is the better position. This is still based on claims about evidence and about the world that need supporting as much as the theist's.

Like implicit atheists?

Anyone who just goes about their lives and ignores arguments.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Well sorry mate, but a vague notion that believing in Yahweh is innate is an even balder assertion.

I am not sure how this is a proper response to what I wrote.

 

[Bunyip]

I am not sure how this is a proper response to what I wrote.

Well think about it - is assuming that belief in Yahweh is innate less extraordinary than assuming that it is not?
I would think the idea that humans are born with a belief in a specific Hebrew deity seems quite a stretch.

 

[Bunyip]

The evidence anyone uses to come to a conclusion about whether God does or does not exist, and indeed to form a general worldview or metaphysic. You seem to be implying that the fact you think there is no god evidence for God somehow affects my point. It does not.

Of course it does.

Even if the only evidence for God theists ever put out was complete nonsense and blind faith, it wouldn't change the fact the atheist would have to asses this and assess the cosmos in general, apart from specific theist arguments, and come to a conclusion that atheism is the better position.

No, not at all - atheism is just the default.

. This is still based on claims about evidence and about the world that need supporting as much as the theist's.

Anyone who just goes about their lives and ignores arguments.

That is not related to either atheism or theism.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Well think about it - is assuming that belief in Yahweh is innate less extraordinary than assuming that it is not?
I would think the idea that humans are born with a belief in a specific Hebrew deity seems quite a stretch.

Well, firstly, the issue is about whether people are born theists or atheists, not whether they are born Christians or Jews or whatever. That is a red herring.

Secondly, you just seem to be question begging. Your point seems to rely on your personal belief that theism is wrong. I would think your comments are just the last thing Cephus would want as support for his contention. You seem to illustrate the tendency of such claims to be based on question begging premises.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Of course it does. No, not at all - atheism is just the default. That is not related to either atheism or theism.

There is no argument here.

When your posts come up they say that the content is hidden because I have you on ignore from last year. I am beginning to recall why. In my brief time back here I have encountered two prolific atheist posters who seem to be actual trolls. This alone might explain some of the antipathy towards atheists here.

Now, do you have an argument for your assertions or a proper response to my argument?

 

[Bunyip]

There is no argument here.

When your posts come up they say that the content is hidden because I have you on ignore from last year. I am beginning to recall why. In my brief time back here I have encountered two prolific atheist posters who seem to be actual trolls. This alone might explain some of the antipathy towards atheists here.

Now, do you have an argument for your assertions or a proper response to my argument?

Playing the victim huh? I gave a rational response - you respond by calling me a troll. Maybe look to your own behaviour buddy.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You gave no argument. You simply denied my point and asserted your own beliefs.

I see no real reason to respond to you again. You are clearly a sophist and a troll, as I recall from my previous sojourn here. I hope you don't dare to act intellectually superior to any believer, or anyone else at all.

 

[Bunyip]

You gave no argument. You simply denied my point and asserted your own beliefs.

I see no real reason to respond to you again. You are clearly a sophist and a troll, as I recall from my previous sojourn here. I hope you don't dare to act intellectual superior to any believer, or anyone else at all.

Well you reject my argument, but respond only with personal attack. Note that I have not done the same.

 

[Bunyip]

The post was not in response to you.

All i am trying to say is that nobody can make you adopt a usage. No offence meant. There is no way to enforce a definition, they are just ways that lexicographers try to describe a word usage.

In relation to words like 'atheism', 'theism', 'God' there is no universally accepted definition. Dictionaries struggle to keep up with emerging new usages and there is no arbiter or authority that can, or would want to enforce a specific usage as the correct one.

If you think a usage does not accurately reflect your view, then don't apply it to describe your view. But attacking the usage is pointless - there is no perfect, universal uncontested definition.

 

[atanu]

All i am trying to say is that nobody can make you adopt a usage. No offence meant. There is no way to enforce a definition, they are just ways that lexicographers try to describe a word usage.

I have ignored your posts since long, because it is not possible to engage in any meaningful discussion when the following is the stock default belief. You come to me as a troll. No offence meant. I am not imposing my view on you.

Of course it does. No, not at all - atheism is just the default. That is not related to either atheism or theism.

Where is there any scope for any discussion?