The default position...

[leibowde84]

and implying that children are atheists is not a support.
Children can be ignorant of God....
and you then call them atheists?
by default?

and anyone who ignores God is what?

A child that is ignorant of God is without belief in God and is thus, implicitly, an atheist by default. You have not even attempted to argue with this. You bring in irrelevant concepts like God's judgment of children or God's judgment of you and me, but you have not argued against our inclusion of those that are ignorant of the concept of God under the general term atheism. I encourage you to actually present an argument.

 

[Thief]

They also don't know the easter bunny, the Loch Ness monster or Albus Dumbledore. What's your point?

They are ignorant.
You imply atheist.
Installed in any one person.....both at once....

 

[Thief]

A child that is ignorant of God is without belief in God and is thus, implicitly, an atheist by default. You have not even attempted to argue with this. You bring in irrelevant concepts like God's judgment of children or God's judgment of you and me, but you have not argued against our inclusion of those that are ignorant of the concept of God under the general term atheism. I encourage you to actually present an argument.

already did....
you're just playing this for the last post.

 

[leibowde84]

already did....
you're just playing this for the last post.

Nope. Just would like to hear your argument. Your previous comments were merely claims, not an argument.

 

[Thief]

Last post...I win!

 

[leibowde84]

They are ignorant.
You imply atheist.
Installed in any one person.....both at once....

And this would demand that ignorance and atheism be synonymous? Can you explain why?

 

[Thief]

And this would demand that ignorance and atheism be synonymous? Can you explain why?

Indeed.....you lean to the word...implication... for your support
and then ask the question you posted

 

[Curious George]

"That one believes the cat is alive and also believes the cat is not alive"

Explain how both of these can happen simultaneously, please.

Lol you are the one that said this was Impossible, you have the burden of proof.

With the belief that you actually are interested in understanding-

Take any two mutually exclusive positions. Let us use the flip of a coin.

The coin is flipped and covered.

I ask two questions.

Is it true that the coin is heads?
Is it true that the coin is tails?
Now given that the coin has equal chance, we would likely hear the answer "I don't know"
But we don't get to ask questions. We have to make propositions.

Heads is facing up.
Tails is facing up.


Now most people are influenced by skepticism. They reject both propositions until further evidence is discovered.

They are not accepting that neither proposition is true. This is because they believe one of the two propositions that they did not accept as true, is actually true.

Similarly, we can accept both of the propositions as true. I can look at that flipped coin and believe it is heads and believe it is tails, knowing that one of those beliefs will be wrong. But until further evidence is discovered that allows me to conclude it is not heads or tails I can believe both.

Perhaps a different scenario will help. One with justice in mind. Imagine two people. One of these two people committed mass murder and torture. But you do not know which one is guilty. With law we approach from the skeptic angle. Both are innocent until proven guilty.

However, in a clue type situation, where we find ourselves trapped in a mansion with these two, we act differently. Instead of treating these two as if neither one or the other is guilty, we treat them both as guilty, lest we become the next victim.

So while the answer to your question is simply one can believe the cat is alive, one can believe the cat is dead, and one can believe that one of the aforementioned beliefs will eventually prove wrong is enough to establish that one need not believe both the state of being alive and the state of being not alive are occurring simultaneously.

I should add that there is now a quantum piece of the puzzle wherein some do believe that both occur simultaneously until observation occurs. That people believe such should in itself indicate that belief in both is possible.

 

[leibowde84]

Indeed.....you lean to the word...implication for your support....
and then ask the question you posted

Ignorance of the concept of God implies atheism by definition. This in no way means that ignorance is required or that ignorance is synonymous with atheism. A theist can be ignorant of many things as well.

 

[Thief]

Ignorance of the concept of God implies atheism by definition. This in no way means that ignorance is required or that ignorance is synonymous with atheism. A theist can be ignorant of many things as well.

But we won't stand before God and plead ignorance.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol you are the one that said this was Impossible, you have the burden of proof.

With the belief that you actually are interested in understanding-

Take any two mutually exclusive positions. Let us use the flip of a coin.

The coin is flipped and covered.

I ask two questions.

Is it true that the coin is heads?
Is it true that the coin is tails?
Now given that the coin has equal chance, we would likely hear the answer "I don't know"
But we don't get to ask questions. We have to make propositions.

Heads is facing up.
Tails is facing up.


Now most people are influenced by skepticism. They reject both propositions until further evidence is discovered.

They are not accepting that neither proposition is true. This is because they believe one of the two propositions that they did not accept as true, is actually true.

Similarly, we can accept both of the propositions as true. I can look at that flipped coin and believe it is heads and believe it is tails, knowing that one of those beliefs will be wrong. But until further evidence is discovered that allows me to conclude it is not heads or tails I can believe both.

Perhaps a different scenario will help. One with justice in mind. Imagine two people. One of these two people committed mass murder and torture. But you do not know which one is guilty. With law we approach from the skeptic angle. Both are innocent until proven guilty.

However, in a clue type situation, where we find ourselves trapped in a mansion with these two, we act differently. Instead of treating these two as if neither one or the other is guilty, we treat them both as guilty, lest we become the next victim.

So while the answer to your question is simply one can believe the cat is alive, one can believe the cat is dead, and one can believe that one of the aforementioned beliefs will eventually prove wrong is enough to establish that one need not believe both the state of being alive and the state of being not alive are occurring simultaneously.

I should add that there is now a quantum piece of the puzzle wherein some do believe that both occur simultaneously until observation occurs. That people believe such should in itself indicate that belief in both is possible.

You are confusing believing both with believing neither. The topic is whether those who neither believe that God exists nor that God does not exist still lack belief in the existence of God. It is possible to lack belief in both, but it is not possible to hold positive beliefs in both.

 

[leibowde84]

But we won't stand before God and plead ignorance.

Of course not. In that situation ignorance is not a possibikity, as the subject would necessarily be familiar with the concept of God at that point.

 

[leibowde84]

But we won't stand before God and plead ignorance.

Can you please explain why this is relevant to the subject at hand, "atheism without declaration"?

 

[Curious George]

You are confusing believing both with believing neither. The topic is whether those who neither believe that God exists nor that God does not exist still lack belief in the existence of God. It is possible to lack belief in both, but it is not possible to hold positive beliefs in both.

Lol you keep asserting that but I have yet to see you do anything to prove me wrong. Even when I give explanations you are not pointing out where this supposed error in logic, or equivocation is.

From my point of view I am doing everything possible to explain and you are sitting there saying "nope, that's not possible."

You might as well be responding in stanzas talking about "declaration."

I understand that this is a difficult, and even counter intuitive concept, especially for those socialized by western society.

But either try to understand or articulate where the breakdown in logic is.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol you keep asserting that but I have yet to see you do anything to prove me wrong. Even when I give explanations you are not pointing out where this supposed error in logic, or equivocation is.

From my point of view I am doing everything possible to explain and you are sitting there saying "nope, that's not possible."

You might as well be responding in stanzas talking about "declaration."

I understand that this is a difficult, and even counter intuitive concept, especially for those socialized by western society.

But either try to understand or articulate where the breakdown in logic is.

When someone believes in the existence of God (A), they hold a positive belief. When someone believes that God cannot exist (-A), they hold a positive belief. A and -A cannot exist simultaneously, as one is the negation of the other. Belief in God means, by definition, that one does not believe that God does not exist.

With the coin example, the person who claims to believe both, in actuality, believes neither.

 

[Curious George]

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?

Equivocation that follows regarding incapable of belief with skepticism.

And labeling the same position with mutually exclusive terms.

Inefficiency of language.

Those are the problems.

 

[Curious George]

When someone believes in the existence of God (A), they hold a positive belief. When someone believes that God cannot exist (-A), they hold a positive belief. A and -A cannot exist simultaneously, as one is the negation of the other. Belief in God means, by definition, that one does not believe that God does not exist.

With the coin example, the person who claims to believe both, in actuality, believes neither.

This is an equivocation. The negation of believes god exists =not believes god exists

There is no violation of non-contradiction.

Unless you are trying to argue that believing God does not exist = not believing God exists, you are wrong.

 

[Curious George]

.

With the coin example, the person who claims to believe both, in actuality, believes neither.

Lol, really?

That they accept it is heads and that they accept it is tails and that they accept that one of these is wrong= they do not accept it is tails and they do not accept that it is heads?

Please show how those are equal.

 

[leibowde84]

This is an equivocation. The negation of believes god exists =not believes god exists

There is no violation of non-contradiction.

Unless you are trying to argue that believing God does not exist = not believing God exists, you are wrong.

I'm saying that "not believing God exists" necessarily includes those that "believe God does not exist". Thus, believing God exists cannot happen simultaneously with either.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol, really?

That they accept it is heads and that they accept it is tails and that they accept that one of these is wrong= they do not accept it is tails and they do not accept that it is heads?

Please show how those are equal.

Because "accepting something will happen" necessarily means that you are necessarily "not accepting that any alternative will happen". That is what the term "accept" implies. If you said "could" it would be different.