leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why would anyone get arrested?
-
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
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Wow, thanks for living my life for me, since you obviously know it better than me.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That is eerily spot on.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Now you're talking!!!!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Yes it is!!!!
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I'm still waiting for you explanation as to why you think God would punish a baby for merely being an implicit atheist by definition. If the baby is not capable of holding any beliefs, why would God punish the baby for lack of belief? That doesn't add up.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
But to a more accurate degree....
Your belief...or lack thereof has an effect.....on you.
God might not do anything at all.
You're declaration will set you up.
So...if children....not having declared, pass away too quick....
the default position is back to God.
and having made denial
the default position is back to the ground you came from
Your belief...or lack thereof has an effect.....on you.
God might not do anything at all.
You're declaration will set you up.
So...if children....not having declared, pass away too quick....
the default position is back to God.
and having made denial
the default position is back to the ground you came from
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Can you please stop changing the subject. "Declaration" is not relevant, as we are discussing "implicit" atheism, or atheism without declaration or active belief in any way. By default, children who are not familiar with the concept of God or gods "lack" or are "without" the belief in God. Thus, they are "implicitly atheistic" in that they "lack a belief in the existence of God". They are merely atheist by definition, not declaration.
You seem to be arguing with yourself on this one. Can you join the discussion, please?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
We are discussing the default position in the context of belief, not location or closeness to God.
Shad
Veteran Member
Actually you are offering a definition of atheism by calling babies atheist. Babies are not rejecting theism as per the definition supplied by me. You are using the definition of "lack/absences" of faith which is a horrible definition. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid counter not a fallacy, look it up... So now you must also agree with rocks are atheists as well. If you disagree with rocks and cats being atheists then you have disagreed with your own views making it moot. You want a dialogue in which only people agree with an absurd definition, a definition it's own creator called agnosticism, read Flew's book. You then cry foul when anyone changes such a definition. You want yes men more than a dialogue.
An issue with this new definition is that it changes atheism from an ontological claim to an epistemological claim and the psychology, mental state, of those that are atheists. However atheism like theism is a epistemological affirmations about what we perceive as ontological reality. For example if I do not believe God exists that is a statement about reality. If I believe water is blue that is a statement about reality. If I believe corn is yellow that is a statement about reality.
Shad
Veteran Member
All of which can be reduced to "a belief that at least one god exists" which is a claim about reality. Remove all the theological baggage and this is exactly what you get.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Right, and "atheism" applies to those who are without the belief you claim, that "at least one god exists". Both are extremely general terms. It is the refusal or inability to adhere to the belief that any gods exist.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It is merely your opinion that the term "implicit atheism" creates absurdities. We disagree. I don't see any issue with implicit atheism being applied to anyone who does not have the ability to adhere to the specific belief at hand.
Shad
Veteran Member
I still disagree with that term so I do not agree with your point. See my rely to Bunyip for another reason why I reject this defination. Post 1250
Thief
Rogue Theologian
but the effect will still be there...
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope. You are using "implicit atheism" to cover all of atheism. You only now start defining it with parameters while in the very comment before this one you used it as a generalization of atheism. Implicit atheism is nontheism not atheism. Nontheism is mental state not a claim of reality. Atheism is a claim of reality. I reject Smith definition for at least two of the reason I have already presented in this thread
Thief
Rogue Theologian
as soon as you realize....ALL such discussion will have an effect.
You might not like it....but the effect will be there.
If you claim no effect....then your stance has no weight or merit.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That's fine. We have to agree to disagree about the limitations on the term. I have no problem with that.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What effect? God is going to punish babies because they are implicitly included in the term "atheism"?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What specific "effect" are you referring to? And, why is that "effect" relevant to this conversation?
- Status