Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's not a problem at all to me. You can say that babies don't believe in god. It's the faulty use of the term atheism. Atheism is a philosophical position. It's a doctrine of unbelief, not just unbelief.
-
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!
The default position...
- Thread starter Deathbydefault
- Start date
- Status
By definition, lack means 'having not enough' or 'insufficient'. And not 'don't have'. Clear enough?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You are incorrect. In this context it means to be without. While the term can mean both in different contexts, by your logic, an atheist would be someone who believes in God, just not enough, which is certainly not correct. See definition of "lack" below.
lack
lak/
noun
- the state of being without or not having enough of something.
Nope. Disbelief is total unbelief. Lack belief is insufficient belief. Clear enough?
Ya, the latter definition agrees with mine too.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
So you're just going to ignore the former definition?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Right, as i clearly stated there are two, you see? Yours is one of them. Different meanings in different contexts, and as I explained, the meaning here is most definitely "to be without". If your claim was true, an atheist would be one who believes in God, just not enough. See how silly that would be?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You are incorrect. Disbelief includes those who are incapable of belief. And "lack" in this context means "to be without".
dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun
- inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Awesome!
That simple statement is all that is meant by "implicit atheism".
Babies don't believe in god. It seriously carries no other weight than that.
Like I said somewhere in one of these threads or another, I think the issue that people have is the addition of the "atheist" moniker. People attribute varying degrees of weight to that word and get put off by it immediately. So, while the term is accurate in essence, it's inaccurate by association.
Call them implicit non-believers, if you like. Call them implicit agnostics. Call them anything, really, since it ultimately doesn't matter what the term is. It's simply a factual thing that babies don't believe in god(s).
(I don't think there is an assumed ideology that goes along with generic non-belief - but I've been wrong before.)
Last edited:
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
You guys are approaching him the wrong way.
This guy is similar to my mother, logic and reasoning don't exactly do the trick.
You have to fight fire with fire here, at least until he leaves...
Example:
You obviously have zero idea of which you are discussing.
Maybe coming out of fantasy land for a little while might help you gain some brain cells.
That and a 7th grade education.
This guy is similar to my mother, logic and reasoning don't exactly do the trick.
You have to fight fire with fire here, at least until he leaves...
Example:
You obviously have zero idea of which you are discussing.
Maybe coming out of fantasy land for a little while might help you gain some brain cells.
That and a 7th grade education.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Excellent, a summation.
And an excellent one at that.
I'm afraid your posting rights may have to be blocked if you don't start adding more useless rhetoric, and vague useless comments.
I kind of agree.
Kids do not have teeth either. But it would be a bit silly, I think, to give importance to the fact that that having no teeth is the default position. Technically true, but useless.
Fact is, when kids grow up, they acquire teeth, and beliefs. So, I am not at all sure that atheism, which acquires meaning only when you can think about these things, is the real default position.
Ciao
- viole
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Like this.
Perfect example. Good job, Thief.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
May I say that this is the smartest argument I have seen made for those against the atheist default position.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
We are merely relying on the meaning of the terms in question.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
"Atheism" is the word used to describe the default position because atheism is known by us teeth-chomping adults to describe a void in the god/belief arena.
Since babies are born without a belief in god, as without a mouth-full of teeth, it simply shortens the explanation.
"Babies are atheists" is just a way to start the conversation about the origination of faith and belief in the supernatural.
Ultimately, I think, the whole point is to show that people are taught their faiths - they aren't born with them. And because they aren't born with them, people's faiths have no jurisdiction over the lives of others.
Since babies are born without a belief in god, as without a mouth-full of teeth, it simply shortens the explanation.
"Babies are atheists" is just a way to start the conversation about the origination of faith and belief in the supernatural.
Ultimately, I think, the whole point is to show that people are taught their faiths - they aren't born with them. And because they aren't born with them, people's faiths have no jurisdiction over the lives of others.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Well, that depends on each person, I guess..
In general atheism would be the default.
When someone tells you a god claim, any and all god claims that you could hear.
..Do you immediately believe it, or do you disbelieve until you've been given sufficient reason to believe?
Even if that sufficient reason is the person telling you is someone you trust enough to believe them on the spot.
If you automatically believe every god proposition you hear, and consistently believe in all gods you hear about, then your default position may very well be something other than disbelief of god claims.
But if it's not, then default position still sits as "not believing until sufficient reason, specific to you and the circumstance, is given to you, " I would think.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The problem I have is to link it to atheism in an shape or form. It's not atheism unless it's a view held by a person. This whole "implicit" thing is an invention, and not accurate use.
The term agnostic was the term that mean unbeliever because of no knowledge. Until the 70's. Then the concept was hijacked by Flew and Smith.
It's only half-accurate. They don't have a belief, true, but they don't have a capacity for belief even. It is unnecessary and it undermines the core ideas of what the philosophical view of atheism is. It will deteriorate the usage of the core word. You will eventually see more theists making fun of atheists for being ignorant like children. That's the connection it makes. Atheists are atheists because they don't know better. And to me, that means atheism has lost its fight to gain trust and respect.
How about not call them any of the terms. They haven't formed the conceptual abilities yet. They don't have the synaptic foundation to belief or unbelief.
And also, the research do show that the brain forms to accept belief in early age because of our genetic heritage, and that unbelief, in brainscans are not absence of anything, but is a pattern of nerve activity.
It's a mistake to make a link between ignorance or inability to form conceptual thoughts to atheism, that's all I'm concerned about.
No, what's been happening is that this idea of implicit atheism was suggested as a kind'a-like'a label for those who didn't have any belief at all, but as I've seen in these threads here, the primary definition of atheism now is "lack of belief", which is extremely broad, and inaccurate. I don't mind if the "lack of belief" is used like this: "Children lack belief in God, so in some sense, we could say they're atheists, but they're not truly or fully atheists because atheism is a position or view that has been achieved by a person who has considered its foundations and consequences to some degree." Then the "lack" definition is a minor sidenote. But in this thread and the other, the "lack" definition has been made the primary, only, exalted, major definition. And that's a diminishing return of the philosophy behind atheism as a thought system.
Well, I like to think that "not believing until sufficient reason" requires a whole lot of cultural baggage.
Unfortunately, we have only the human race to put under test here. And it does not score very well. Most of it believes in the craziest things without evidence. And they started believing things without a shred of evidence. In many cases independently, and developing different and contradicting beliefs.
So, if we look for evidence that atheism is not the default, we have it. That it is indeed the default, we have no evidence.
If you believe the contrary, then it is you, I am afraid, that believes in things without evidence
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
No it was a counter which is a valid logical argument. It take the proposition to it's logical conclusion when those that propose it have not done their due diligence.
- Status