The default position...

[leibowde84]

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

You are incorrect. Maybe you missed the several times that I expressed this, but "atheism" is a general term that includes both "explicit" atheism and "implicit" atheism. It also includes weak atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) and strong atheism (belief that God does not and/or cannot exist). Because people from all of these subcategories refer to themselves as "atheists", I think this generalized definition without the requirement for active belief is the best. I accept that you do not agree with this.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Are you actually trying to falsely claim that there aren't atheists, included in the definition of the term, that actively believe that God does not and/or cannot exist? If so, you need to read my comments more carefully. I've never made any such claims.

 

[Shad]

That's fine. We have to agree to disagree about the limitations on the term. I have no problem with that.

My issue is not the limitation but the absorption of non-theism and agnosticism into atheism then redefining it after the absorption has taken place using definition of that which has been absorbed. Atheism is no long a limited term but an umbrella term in which anyone can cram anything that is not a form theism into it. Next will be pantheism under the facade of calling the universe god is not the same type of god, external, as other forms of theism thus is not a standard theistic belief.

 

[Thief]

What effect? God is going to punish babies because they are implicitly included in the term "atheism"?

now you're just repeating yourself....
hoping I'll give up

you want the last post?

really?

 

[Shad]

You are incorrect. Maybe you missed the several times that I expressed this, but "atheism" is a general term that includes both "explicit" atheism and "implicit" atheism. It also includes weak atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) and strong atheism (belief that God does not and/or cannot exist). Because people from all of these subcategories refer to themselves as "atheists", I think this generalized definition without the requirement for active belief is the best. I accept that you do not agree with this.

No I did not miss that. However it seems you have missed the fact that you have used a specific for as a generalization repeatedly. However the same reductio ad absurdum applies to implicit atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

My issue is not the limitation but the absorption of non-theism and agnosticism into atheism then redefining it after the absorption has taken place using definition of that which has been absorbed. Atheism is no long a limited term but an umbrella term in which anyone can cram anything that is not a form theism into it. Next will be pantheism under the facade of calling the universe god is not the same type of god, external, as other forms of theism thus is not a standard theistic belief.

Your logic is backwards. Theism is much more of a general term than atheism, even under my definition. And "agnosticism" deals with knowledge, not belief, so that is not a relevant complaint. One can be an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

now you're just repeating yourself....
hoping I'll give up

you want the last post?

really?

You refuse to answer any of my questions. So, what choice do I have but to ask them again? You are being stubborn, and refusing to provide reasoning and explanation for your views. You just expect people to accept them on your word.

 

[leibowde84]

you have used a specific for as a generalization repeatedly

Please provide an example.

 

[Thief]

You refuse to answer any of my questions. So, what choice do I have but to ask them again? You are being stubborn, and refusing to provide reasoning and explanation for your views. You just expect people to accept them on your word.

and you apparently have been reading only what you think you can retort.

go back.....and you will find all that you posted has been answered.....repeatedly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My issue is not the limitation but the absorption of non-theism and agnosticism into atheism then redefining it after the absorption has taken place using definition of that which has been absorbed. Atheism is no long a limited term but an umbrella term in which anyone can cram anything that is not a form theism into it. Next will be pantheism under the facade of calling the universe god is not the same type of god, external, as other forms of theism thus is not a standard theistic belief.

Can you give any evidence that the definition of atheism has ever changed from "absence of belief in God" or "disbelief in God"? What was the definition of atheism before this?

 

[Thief]

Can you give any evidence that the definition of atheism has ever changed from "absence of belief in God" or "disbelief in God"? What was the definition of atheism before this?

belief there is no God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

belief there is no God.

Can you give any evidence that this was ever the de facto definition of atheism at any point in time?

 

[Thief]

Can you give any evidence that this was ever the de facto definition of atheism at any point in time?

not going to drag you along....

 

[Shad]

Are you actually trying to falsely claim that there aren't atheists, included in the definition of the term, that actively believe that God does not and/or cannot exist? If so, you need to read my comments more carefully. I've never made any such claims.

I am claiming the term you use to define themselves is wrong not that people who lack a belief do not exist. Those people are not defining themselves as doing so would spark consideration of theism for them to even voice an opinion. Once this happens they are not longer implicit atheists. They are non-theists not atheists. This is also a claim of mine

 

[leibowde84]

and you apparently have been reading only what you think you can retort.

go back.....and you will find all that you posted has been answered.....repeatedly.

I have read your comments, and I can say for certain that this question has not been answered:

What negative 'effect' does the inclusion of babies under the term 'implicit atheism' have? Are you claiming that they will be punished even though they have not made any declaration (hence the word "implicit")? Are you claiming that there will be some sort of 'effect' on me for suggesting such a thing?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show at least a bit of decency/respect and kindly answer these questions.

 

[Thief]

I have read your comments, and I can say for certain that this question has not been answered:

What negative 'effect' does the inclusion of babies under the term 'implicit atheism' have? Are you claiming that they will be punished even though they have not made any declaration (hence the word "implicit")? Are you claiming that there will be some sort of 'effect' on me for suggesting such a thing?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show at least a bit of decency/respect and kindly answer these questions.

not going to drag you either.

 

[leibowde84]

I am claiming the term you use to define themselves is wrong not that people who lack a belief do not exist. Those people are not defining themselves as doing so would spark consideration of theism for them to even voice an opinion. Once this happens they are not longer implicit atheists. They are non-theists not atheists. This is also a claim of mine

And, my claim is that "non-theists" are included under the term "atheist". We merely disagree about this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

not going to drag you along....

So "no", then?

I am claiming the term you use to define themselves is wrong not that people who lack a belief do not exist. Those people are not defining themselves as doing so would spark consideration of theism for them to even voice an opinion. Once this happens they are not longer implicit atheists. They are non-theists not atheists. This is also a claim of mine

Why do you need to differentiate atheists and non-theists and render the terms mutually exclusive? What is wrong with atheism being an umbrella term that includes non-theists?

 

[Thief]

I think the discussion ended quite some time ago.

 

[leibowde84]

not going to drag you either.

So, you are just going to spew unsupported claims and then when people ask for explanation/substantiation, you are going to refuse to answer them? Why are you even on a debate forum then?