leibowde84
Veteran Member
For you, it ended when you stubbornly refuse to answer any questions directly.I think the discussion ended quite some time ago.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For you, it ended when you stubbornly refuse to answer any questions directly.I think the discussion ended quite some time ago.
It includes non-sentient items as well.So "no", then?
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?
answer my last post.For you, it ended when you stubbornly refuse to answer any questions directly.
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?
It isn't. Why would it be? That's like saying "credulous" is a synonym for theist.It includes non-sentient items as well.
Now if you are willing to accept ignorant as a synonym.....for atheist....
Straw man BIT TIME!!! Do you know what "synonym" means? No one has argued on here that atheism = ignorance. We are arguing that those who are ignorant of the concept of God can be INCLUDED under the term "atheism".It includes non-sentient items as well.
Now if you are willing to accept ignorant as a synonym.....for atheist....
Already did. You obviously don't know what the term "synonym" means, as no one has argued that "atheism" is synonymous with "ignorance". Those that are ignorant of the concept of God can merely be INCLUDED under the general term "atheist". That's all. Please don't create blatant straw men.answer my last post.
None of those sources really provide an answer to my question. Could you point to where they explicitly state that the definition of atheism is or was anything other than "absence of belief in God" or "disbelief in God"? The first two articles specifically adhere to that definition in the opening paragraphs.
Ignorant of what?Now we might be getting somewhere.
I might lack proof of God....
and you might be ignorant.
I was asking you to accept the notion.Already did. You obviously don't know what the term "synonym" means, as no one has argued that "atheism" is synonymous with "ignorance". Those that are ignorant of the concept of God can merely be INCLUDED under the general term "atheist". That's all. Please don't create blatant straw men.
3 Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit. That includes 5% who say they are “absolutely certain” about the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are many people who fit the dictionary definition of “atheist” but do not call themselves atheists. More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%).
No we're not. You're just going around in circles.Now we might be getting somewhere.
Sure. What does that have to do with the definition of atheism?I might lack proof of God....
and you might be ignorant.
It's implied....children don't know GodNo we're not. You're just going around in circles.
Sure. What does that have to do with the definition of atheism?
What is "implied" specifically? Can you please do a better job explaining your arguments. This is just about as close as you can get to a "meaningless comment", as you haven't said anything. You just constantly make general statements without any support.I was asking you to accept the notion.
It's implied.
Is this another straw man? We have only argued that children who are not familiar with the concept of God are ignorant to the concept of God. This is indisputable fact, as it is basic logic. There is no way around it. If you are not familiar with something you are ignorant of it by definition. Can't argue with this one.It's implied....children don't know God
I see your definition (which is hotly contested in the comments section of the same page) and raise you these definitions:
If, some day, we found evidence that showed that children miraculously started life with an inherent belief in God, then they would no longer be considered implicit atheists. Further, as soon as the are familiar with the concept of God, they are no longer implicit atheists. We have said this over and over.It's implied....children don't know God
and implying that children are atheists is not a support.What is "implied" specifically? Can you please do a better job explaining your arguments. This is just about as close as you can get to a "meaningless comment", as you haven't said anything. You just constantly make general statements without any support.
They also don't know the easter bunny, the Loch Ness monster or Albus Dumbledore. What's your point?It's implied....children don't know God