Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Bunyip]

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.



Where is there any scope for any discussion?

I gave a polite and detailed explanation, you - like the poster before you just deliver a personal attack.
I am happy to clarify or support anything I have said, but can not engage on your personal offensive.

 

[atanu]

I gave a polite and detailed explanation, you - like the poster before you just deliver a personal attack.
I am happy to clarify or support anything I have said, but can not engage on your personal offensive.

This will be my last post to you. I can assure you that there is never any personal insult that you see in every one's post.

 

[Bunyip]

This will be my last post to you. I can assure you that there is never any personal insult that you see in every one's post.

I have no idea what you mean, or what you are taking offence to. But as I said, I am happy to clarify or further explain anything I have said.

 

[atanu]

Not required. I neither require nor value your clarification. Bye. Best.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word "implicit". If the kid were to "think" about it, the term would no longer apply. It is true by definition alone. That is what "implicit" means.

 

[atanu]

Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word "implicit". If the kid were to "think" about it, the term would no longer apply. It is true by definition alone. That is what "implicit" means.

OTOH. A kid is an implicit rapist, a murderer etc etc.

I know what implicit means, btw.

 

[leibowde84]

OTOH. A kid is an implicit rapist, a murderer etc etc.

I know what implicit means, btw.

How could a kid be considered an implicit rapist or murderer? This leads me further to believe that you don't understand the meaning of the term "implicit". It almost seems as if you think it means "potential" or something.

 

[Ouroboros]

OTOH. A kid is an implicit rapist, a murderer etc etc.

That's probably taking it too far. LOL!

However, a kid is an implicit theist because he/she doesn't believe that the world came to be by natural means. Kids don't believe the world exists without a God. Kids don't believe you can't pray to a God that hears your prayers. So, implicitly, they're also theists.

 

[atanu]

Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word "implicit". If the kid were to "think" about it, the term would no longer apply. It is true by definition alone. That is what "implicit" means.

No. If a kid is an implicit atheist, when it has neither a belief nor a disbelief, it can be implicit anything.

I am not talking of 'potential'.

 

[atanu]

That's probably taking it too far. LOL!

Ha ha.

It however is not too far, considering the imposing of the 'Implicit atheist' label on kids.

 

[Augustus]

Again, you don't understand the meaning of the word "implicit". If the kid were to "think" about it, the term would no longer apply. It is true by definition alone. That is what "implicit" means.

The problem that some people have in regard to the idea that babies are 'implicit atheists' is not that some people consider babies implicit atheists, but that everybody should be forced to accept that babies are implicit atheists and therefore atheists.

People don't think that no one considers babies are implicit atheists, just that they reject the concept as being one that is legitimate.

It is like saying "we have defined babies as atheists, so you have to agree babies are atheists because we defined them as atheists. So they are. End of."

It is like saying that some people think that Donald Trump is an egotistical wanker, therefore you can't deny that Donald Trump is an egotistical wanker because some people think he is.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

It seems asinine to talk about the implicit beliefs of babies. Their powers of reasoning are not even developed to the level of a child of five or six, and besides it would be hard to comment on just what they believe, even if this wasn't true.

Besides it being highly dubious that atheism is the human default in a psychological sense, this is all conflating psychological default with a logical one and trying, implicitly at least, to derive the latter from the former. The two are distinct, and even if humans did tend to be default atheists, that would not make atheism the rational default position.

 

[leibowde84]

No. If a kid is an implicit atheist, when it has neither a belief nor a disbelief, it can be implicit anything.

I am not talking of 'potential'.

So, you are saying that the word "implicit" doesn't make sense in general? Or are you unable to get beyond the concept of lacking a belief without the necessity for contemplation?

 

[leibowde84]

The problem that some people have in regard to the idea that babies are 'implicit atheists' is not that some people consider babies implicit atheists, but that everybody should be forced to accept that babies are implicit atheists and therefore atheists.

People don't think that no one considers babies are implicit atheists, just that they reject the concept as being one that is legitimate.

It is like saying "we have defined babies as atheists, so you have to agree babies are atheists because we defined them as atheists. So they are. End of."

It is like saying that some people think that Donald Trump is an egotistical wanker, therefore you can't deny that Donald Trump is an egotistical wanker because some people think he is.

Is there any validity to the negative connotations with atheism that some people hold that cause these people to object? Because, it is just a word. And you are right, if the word atheism means the lack of belief in God, anyone that does not hold a belief in God is an atheist by definition (or "implicitly"). Why does it even matter? I am merely pointing out a logical truth.

 

[Bunyip]

How is it even significant if babies are implicit atheists or not? If rocks are implicit atheists or not? We never, ever find ourselves debating the great philosophical questions with either - so why such focus on this dead end?

Again the trail is lost in chasing the jabberwocky of arguing about what words mean, and trying to attack a position by attacking the words being used to describe it instead.

People are defending and fortifying their definitions like castles in the sky, as if inventing an unassailable definition could ever even address the position it is being used to describe.

This is a categoric error of logic equivalent to mistaking arguing about how to define 'War' with actually having one.

 

[Curious George]

How is it even significant if babies are implicit atheists or not? If rocks are implicit atheists or not? We never, ever find ourselves debating the great philosophical questions with either - so why such focus on this dead end?

Again the trail is lost in chasing the jabberwocky of arguing about what words mean, and trying to attack a position by attacking the words being used to describe it instead.

People are defending and fortifying their definitions like castles in the sky, as if inventing an unassailable definition could ever even address the position it is being used to describe.

This is a categoric error of logic equivalent to mistaking arguing about how to define 'War' with actually having one.

And what is the trail?

 

[Bunyip]

And what is the trail?

That was a common expression that refers to the trail of thought being discussed - in this case an observation about atheism. I was arguing that people focus almost entirely on attacking the way people describe their positions, rather than the position itself.

 

[Curious George]

That was a common expression that refers to the trail of thought being discussed - in this case an observation about atheism. I was arguing that people focus almost entirely on attacking the way people describe their positions, rather than the position itself.

Is a lack of position a position?

 

[Bunyip]

Is a lack of position a position?

Is the lack of a sandwich lunch?

 

[Curious George]

Is the lack of a sandwich lunch?

No