The default position...

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you insane?

I'm not the one who defines all polytheists as both theists and atheists.

 

[Shad]

Fyi, God can make water comes out from rock. So, a rock can be just a medium or channel whereby water make its way out. And water represents life which means u and me. So, when u said rocks represents theist or atheist, u mind as well say they are racist. [emoji517]

Nonsensical post. Water is not a belief, we have no evidence of God making water come from a stone just mythology from primitives that didn't understand the world around them. Thus you comment has nothing to do with what I said beside using the word rock. Also you did not even read my post as I said it was nonsensical for atheism to be absences of a belief as rocks lack beliefs as well, hence rock would be atheists. This is nonsensical as much as your post is.

 

[leibowde84]

We label some people theists because they started believing that god(s) exist at some point in their life. We label some people strong atheists because they started believing that god(s) don't exist at some point in their life. The rest haven't done anything to deserve a label have they?

We are talking about implicit atheism, so the subject isn't "doing anything" by definition.

 

[Shad]

Sheesh Legion, you think rocks have philosophical views? Are you insane?

It is a reductio ad absurdum counter to the definition of "absence of belief". Rocks do not have beliefs thus can be classified as atheists due the same absences of a belief.

If atheism is a philosophical view then it is either the rejection of theism due to it's arguments as not convincing or a positive argument based on naturalism. Every atheist argument is based on rejection, naturalism or a mix of both as both a rejection and proposed alternative.

 

[Thief]

I don't see why people have a problem with this...
Implicit vs explicit atheism. I agree rocks are implicitly atheistic.
I also think they are not left handed.
I would even go so far as to say they are not republican.

I don't understand the rocks are atheists thing.. as in, I don't understand why people seem to object to it.
I'm an atheist. I'm an explicit atheist, I've decided that I am an atheist after thinking about my position.
Rocks are atheistic implicitly, they, to the best of our knowledge, lack a god belief.

Not seeing an objectionable point.

a lack of mind is not a lack of belief.
It is a lack of ability.

so you keep a pet rock in your pocket?

 

[leibowde84]

No, it's just absence of things. Knowledge requires truth, but we can be ignorant of false things, too.


What car?

I "lack" or am "without" every car that I am unaware of.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

a lack of mind is not a lack of belief.
It is a lack of ability.

so you keep a pet rock in your pocket?

So a lack of mind IS a belief then?

If I were to take a binary label.. i.e republican vs not a republican only. Would a car be republican, or not a republican?

Also, your part about the pet rock has, literally nothing to do with the topic, or the rest of the comment.
At all.
Even a little.
PLEASE explain to me if I am wrong on this.
How is the pet rock comment, and whether one is in my pocket relevant to if you consider something implicitly classified by definition?

 

[Thief]

So a lack of mind IS a belief then?

If I were to take a binary label.. i.e republican vs not a republican only. Would a car be republican, or not a republican?

Also, your part about the pet rock has, literally nothing to do with the topic, or the rest of the comment.
At all.
Even a little.
PLEASE explain to me if I am wrong on this.
How is the pet rock comment, and whether one is in my pocket relevant to if you consider something implicitly classified by definition?

Well a pet rock has no belief in God.
how about you?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Well a pet rock has no belief in God.
how about you?

Do I have belief in god?
No I don't.

 

[Thief]

Do I have belief in god?
No I don't.

Then I'm sure you and your pet are very happy together.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Then I'm sure you and your pet are very happy together.

Was that a useful reply in any way?
That would be akin to me asking if you have a belief in god, and ending it with
"Then I'm sure you and your imaginary friend are very happy together"
...Do you HAVE arguments, or insights that aren't based purely off emotional appeal?

In fact, I'd like, since you ignored my previous question about labels to you, to instead, just sum up this exchange, or your side of it, with what you actual points here were.
Because I'm not seeing much.

 

[Willamena]

I "lack" or am "without" every car that I am unaware of.

Your ambition, then, is admirable.

 

[leibowde84]

Your ambition, then, is admirable.

I am in "lack of" every single car I don't own, as I am without those cars.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I am in "lack of" every single car I don't own, as I am without those cars.

You're an implicit acarist.

 

[lstan135]

Nonsensical post. Water is not a belief, we have no evidence of God making water come from a stone just mythology from primitives that didn't understand the world around them. Thus you comment has nothing to do with what I said beside using the word rock. Also you did not even read my post as I said it was nonsensical for atheism to be absences of a belief as rocks lack beliefs as well, hence rock would be atheists. This is nonsensical as much as your post is.

Same to u, my friend. A rock is just a rock. How can it lack belief? That''s real nonsense isn't it?

 

[leibowde84]

Same to u, my friend. A rock is just a rock. How can it lack belief? That''s real nonsense isn't it?

A rock, by definition, "lacks" all beliefs, as a rock is incapable of believing anything. To "lack" simply means "to be without". There is no requirement for consciousness of options or anything like that to merely "lack" something. I "lack" belief in everything that I am unaware of. Same goes for you.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Same to u, my friend. A rock is just a rock. How can it lack belief? That''s real nonsense isn't it?

This might be a language issue..
But to lack something, means to not have it.

If you're saying a rock can't lack belief, you're saying that a rock can't not have a belief..
..So you're saying a rock DOES have beliefs.

Please clarify, if not.

 

[lstan135]

A rock, by definition, "lacks" all beliefs, as a rock is incapable of believing anything. To "lack" simply means "to be without". There is no requirement for consciousness of options or anything like that to merely "lack" something. I "lack" belief in everything that I am unaware of. Same goes for you.

So is everything that's cannot think or breathe or rationalise.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So is everything that's cannot think or breathe or rationalise.

Yes. That would be exactly what implicitly lacking a belief is saying.

You are correct.

Which is why he said "A rock, BY DEFINITION "lacks" all belief"
What you just posted agrees with that completely.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Same to u, my friend. A rock is just a rock. How can it lack belief? That''s real nonsense isn't it?

So, I'll ask for clarification
If you think a rock can't lack belief.. what do you think it has.
What do you think, in the idea of rocks and beliefs. You said they can't not have a belief, so how would you put it.