The default position...

[leibowde84]

Not a person ... means something that is not a person.

My computer is not a person.

How are you getting that? And why are you so confident in it. How do you know it isn't simply like this:

"Is that guy a person who believes in God?"

"No, he is not a person who believes in God?"

What's the problem?

 

[Ouroboros]

How are you getting that? And why are you so confident in it. How do you know it isn't simply like this:

"Is that guy a person who believes in God?"

"No, he is not a person who believes in God?"

What's the problem?

Uhm... You don't see the problem there?

Well. Ok. I can't make you see it. It's very clear to me.

 

[leibowde84]

Uhm... You don't see the problem there?

Well. Ok. I can't make you see it. It's very clear to me.

What is the problem? Someone who is not a person who believes in god or gods is an atheist. It's how language worked back then.

 

[Shad]

Buddy ... atheist, not atheism.

Which is just a label for he term of atheism

1. The meaning of terms change throughout history. Why should atheism be any different? And, why were the early Christians regarded as atheists by the romans? Because they didn't believe in the Roman gods slecifically. Yet again, they used a different meaning for the term. I think I have provided more support than you for the modern usage of the term.

Religion in antiquity was far more practical than doctrinal. Hence code of laws which were applicable in society as a whole rather than doctrine for the individual. Christianity was doctrinal rather than practical as it abolished the practical aspect of it's foundation which is in Judaism. If you look at Judaism and the history of the area it was linked in practical application within the state and society. Hence why a number of prophets endorsed leaders, condemned them or both depending on a time frame. An example Saul and David. Saul was endorsed by prophets thus endorsed by God. When Saul failed in his task endorsement transferred to David. Later in David's life when he sinned he lost his endorsement and was punished by God for his acts. This endorsement and loss of it is repeated in the divide between Israeli and Judah in which the north is condemned for failing to follow the endorsed line of Kings.

Rome called Christian's atheists due to their rejection of the practical aspect of religion which was dominate in the Republic and Empire periods. However since Christians still believed in a god they can not be atheists by definition. This becomes a conflict of ideology between practical and doctrinal under a facade in order to gain public support. The Christians did the same thing to others. Christians argued that every other god is either fictional, a delusion or a demon. Thus any non-Christian religion was atheistic since Christians refused to accept what non-Christians believed thus was nothing more than bias.

2. Read previous comment with definition of atheist (not atheism).

In which you inject person after I pointed out it's lack of personhood. Changing the definition to what you want it to mean is irrelevant.

 

[leibowde84]

Which is just a label for he term of atheism



Religion in antiquity was far more practical than doctrinal. Hence code of laws which were applicable in society as a whole rather than doctrine for the individual. Christianity was doctrinal rather than practical as it abolished the practical aspect of it's foundation which is in Judaism. If you look at Judaism and the history of the area it was linked in practical application within the state and society. Hence why a number of prophets endorsed leaders, condemned them or both depending on a time frame. An example Saul and David. Saul was endorsed by prophets thus endorsed by God. When Saul failed in his task endorsement transferred to David. Later in David's life when he sinned he lost his endorsement and was punished by God for his acts. This endorsement and loss of it is repeated in the divide between Israeli and Judah in which the north is condemned for failing to follow the endorsed line of Kings.

Rome called Christian's atheists due to their rejection of the practical aspect of religion which was dominate in the Republic and Empire periods. However since Christians still believed in a god they can not be atheists by definition. This becomes a conflict of ideology between practical and doctrinal under a facade in order to gain public support. The Christians did the same thing to others. Christians argued that every other god is either fictional, a delusion or a demon. Thus any non-Christian religion was atheistic since Christians refused to accept what non-Christians believed thus was nothing more than bias.



In which you inject person after I pointed out it's lack of personhood. Changing the definition to what you want it to mean is irrelevant.

On the second point, did you miss where it says "a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"? I'm confused. How am I making it up?

 

[Shad]

Do show me the source of that.
.


This is why I should be more specific, I knew you were gonna do this.
When I asked for definition I meant definition, not long *** articles based on a viewpoint.
The first one was the closest to what I wanted, but even though it gave you the definition you wanted it also provided "lack" a little further down.
Leading me to believe they were articles you have either not read in a while, or just found on the first page of a google search.

[Edit] I actually read all three of them too, and checked their sources.
(Even though I didn't have to due to them not fitting the request)

Only the first source using "lack" in reference to a belief. However each one is based on arguments proposed by the individual named against theism. So in this context "lack" is based on the rejection of the arguments for theism.

I fulfilled your request by providing a summary of atheism and it's position. All of which confirm it as a rejection of rather than a lack of theism. I have provide this definition repeatedly over the last few pages as have others such as Ouroboros and Legion. At a point repeating what has been provided already become tiresome. Please take a moment to read the last few pages, I do not expect you to read all 56, in order to see my previous definition.

 

[Shad]

On the second point, did you miss where it says "a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"? I'm confused. How am I making it up?

I quoted your post which had no person within the definition. After that reply you edited the definition in a second post, which is covered by a quote drop down. Regardless of person being included your definition is still factually wrong within philosophy which is the context of the term itself. Context matters thus the philosophical terms trumps the layman's term. All of which I have provided sources for in previous posts.

More so your two definitions show of the layman's view can not even get the basic idea right. One includes a person, one does not. Which is it? Perhaps both are in error as pointed out above.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Only the first source using "lack" in reference to a belief. However each one is based on arguments proposed by the individual named against theism. So in this context "lack" is based on the rejection of the arguments for theism.

I fulfilled your request by providing a summary of atheism and it's position. All of which confirm it as a rejection of rather than a lack of theism. I have provide this definition repeatedly over the last few pages as have others such as Ouroboros and Legion. At a point repeating what has been provided already become tiresome. Please take a moment to read the last few pages, I do not expect you to read all 56, in order to see my previous definition.

Very well, but if it isn't a definition then I will immediately disregard it.
I have no use in reading through viewpoint articles that don't give me the specifics I seek.
I want a clean and well thought out very short summary on what exactly atheism is defined as, nothing more or less.

 

[Shad]

Very well, but if it isn't a definition then I will immediately disregard it.
I have no use in reading through viewpoint articles that don't give me the specifics I seek.
I want a clean and well thought out very short summary on what exactly atheism is defined as, nothing more or less.

The first source gives specifics for almost every argument for atheism. From these specifics the definition is clear since all arguments are based on naturalism or the rejection of arguments for theism.

Atheism is the rejection of theism as true. This definition, or a form of, is on each source either in the foreword or the first section along with argument for the basis of rejection in follow sections. It is not hard nor time consuming to read a paragraph at or close to the beginning of each article.

 

[Thief]

Very well, but if it isn't a definition then I will immediately disregard it.
I have no use in reading through viewpoint articles that don't give me the specifics I seek.
I want a clean and well thought out very short summary on what exactly atheism is defined as, nothing more or less.

believing there is no God.

How's that for concise?

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Yeah I understood the intent. It was a deflection.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

To quote Ernest Nagel (American philosopher early to mid 20th century)

"I shall understand by 'atheism' a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."
Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.

Here's a link to some thoughts by a modern philosopher, John S Wilkins, that you might like: Definitions of atheism | Evolving Thoughts
"“Atheism” is historically defined as the denial of some specific deities. When Hume was called an atheist by his contemporaries, it was because he rejected the orthodox Christian God and religion; he was most likely a deist, someone who believes in a deity that is not directly involved in the ordinary affairs of the universe."

 

[leibowde84]

I quoted your post which had no person within the definition. After that reply you edited the definition in a second post, which is covered by a quote drop down. Regardless of person being included your definition is still factually wrong within philosophy which is the context of the term itself. Context matters thus the philosophical terms trumps the layman's term. All of which I have provided sources for in previous posts.

More so your two definitions show of the layman's view can not even get the basic idea right. One includes a person, one does not. Which is it? Perhaps both are in error as pointed out above.

"Atheist" and "Atheism" are different terms. One applies to the absence of theism, one applies to a person who adheres to atheism. I provided the definition for both and did not change either after doing so. Please don't make blatantly false accusations about me. It is poor form.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah I understood the intent. It was a deflection.

He is showing bad form, imho. He accused me of changing definitions when, in actuality, I literally copied and pasted them from an online dictionary. I can completely understand disagreement on meaning, but accusations of fraudulently changing definitions is pretty darn pathetic.

 

[leibowde84]

Which is just a label for he term of atheism



Religion in antiquity was far more practical than doctrinal. Hence code of laws which were applicable in society as a whole rather than doctrine for the individual. Christianity was doctrinal rather than practical as it abolished the practical aspect of it's foundation which is in Judaism. If you look at Judaism and the history of the area it was linked in practical application within the state and society. Hence why a number of prophets endorsed leaders, condemned them or both depending on a time frame. An example Saul and David. Saul was endorsed by prophets thus endorsed by God. When Saul failed in his task endorsement transferred to David. Later in David's life when he sinned he lost his endorsement and was punished by God for his acts. This endorsement and loss of it is repeated in the divide between Israeli and Judah in which the north is condemned for failing to follow the endorsed line of Kings.

Rome called Christian's atheists due to their rejection of the practical aspect of religion which was dominate in the Republic and Empire periods. However since Christians still believed in a god they can not be atheists by definition. This becomes a conflict of ideology between practical and doctrinal under a facade in order to gain public support. The Christians did the same thing to others. Christians argued that every other god is either fictional, a delusion or a demon. Thus any non-Christian religion was atheistic since Christians refused to accept what non-Christians believed thus was nothing more than bias.



In which you inject person after I pointed out it's lack of personhood. Changing the definition to what you want it to mean is irrelevant.

I didn't change any definitions. I copied and pasted them both from an online dictionary. You can see them yourself by searching for "atheism definition" and "atheist definition" in google.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

57 pages

 

[leibowde84]

I quoted your post which had no person within the definition. After that reply you edited the definition in a second post, which is covered by a quote drop down. Regardless of person being included your definition is still factually wrong within philosophy which is the context of the term itself. Context matters thus the philosophical terms trumps the layman's term. All of which I have provided sources for in previous posts.

More so your two definitions show of the layman's view can not even get the basic idea right. One includes a person, one does not. Which is it? Perhaps both are in error as pointed out above.

Just as a warning, since I never changed any definition, I am going to report false accusations from you about dishonesty.

To clarify, I included the definition for atheism in my first comment. Then, I added the definition for the term "atheist" in the second. No changes were made to either.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Explanations of previous uses of the word are great and all, but what do they really matter in this conversation?

It should be very clear how the terms are being used, as they've been defined multiple times by those of us who support the idea of implicit atheism.
It's also been well explained how, when, and why these terms apply to certain individuals.
To avoid any confusion I will say it again - Babies are not explicit atheists. It is impossible for them to be so. They are implicitly atheistic, however, because they do not believe in god(s).
Implicit atheism is a rather pointless term as it carries not weight - but it is an accurate statement regardless.

Now, that being said, what is wrong with the statement "babies do not believe in god." ?

Babies do not believe in Dragons
Babies do not believe in Gnomes
Babies do not believe in Democrats
Babies do not believe in Boy Scouts / Girl Scouts
Babies do not believe in Apartheid
Babies do not believe in Economics
Babies do not believe in Stephen Hawking
Babies do not believe in Sherlock Holmes
Babies do not believe in Condoms
Babies do not believe in Apollo 11
Babies do not believe in God

All of those statements are implicitly true. So what is the problem?

 

[Thief]

Explanations of previous uses of the word are great and all, but what do they really matter in this conversation?

It should be very clear how the terms are being used, as they've been defined multiple times by those of us who support the idea of implicit atheism.
It's also been well explained how, when, and why these terms apply to certain individuals.
To avoid any confusion I will say it again - Babies are not explicit atheists. It is impossible for them to be so. They are implicitly atheistic, however, because they do not believe in god(s).
Implicit atheism is a rather pointless term as it carries not weight - but it is an accurate statement regardless.

Now, that being said, what is wrong with the statement "babies do not believe in god." ?

Babies do not believe in Dragons
Babies do not believe in Gnomes
Babies do not believe in Democrats
Babies do not believe in Boy Scouts / Girl Scouts
Babies do not believe in Apartheid
Babies do not believe in Economics
Babies do not believe in Stephen Hawking
Babies do not believe in Sherlock Holmes
Babies do not believe in Condoms
Babies do not believe in Apollo 11
Babies do not believe in God

All of those statements are implicitly true. So what is the problem?

No problem....children are not atheists.

and are you really sure what children believe?

I think the congregation here is relying on wordplay.
You pay taxes....and believe in the government.
You stop at red lights...and believe in the law.
You call the police when you need help....and believe it could happen.

or do you?

 

[jonathan180iq]

No problem....children are not atheists.

and are you really sure what children believe?

I think the congregation here is relying on wordplay.
You pay taxes....and believe in the government.
You stop at red lights...and believe in the law.
You call the police when you need help....and believe it could happen.

or do you?

Which of these statements is untrue?

• Babies do not believe in Dragons
• Babies do not believe in Gnomes
• Babies do not believe in Democrats
• Babies do not believe in Boy Scouts / Girl Scouts
• Babies do not believe in Apartheid
• Babies do not believe in Economics
• Babies do not believe in Stephen Hawking
• Babies do not believe in Sherlock Holmes
• Babies do not believe in Condoms
• Babies do not believe in Apollo 11
• Babies do not believe in God

Please note, babies do not pay taxes, or believe in taxes.
Babies do not stop at red lights, or believe in the law
Babies do not call the police, or believe in law enforcement...