Curious George
Veteran Member
Semantics. This is the same position as rejecting both propositions. Yet you "if you had to, would qualify it as theism.
You don't understand how this lacks meaning?
-
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
Semantics. This is the same position as rejecting both propositions. Yet you "if you had to, would qualify it as theism.
You don't understand how this lacks meaning?
Oh, I'm just answering to someone's post which says that I reminded him of his mother. I forgot what's that kid's name.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Theism = when one believes in the existence of God or gods ... even a little, at least if it is an active belief and not merely suspicion. The differentiation is whether the subject does not allow the obvious lack of evidence in God to stop his belief that God is real and that God exists in reality as an entity of some kind or another ... or any other god as well. Belief/faith is ignoring the lack of evidence in something and accepting it's factuality anyways. In this case, the subject believes in a god as being real. Doubts are surely going to happen from time to time, but the subconscious assumptions are still there. Obviously there are different strengths, but if a belief of this kind is present, "theism" applies.
Atheism = when one does not believe in God or gods. They either are unaware of all dieties, they do not see sufficient reasoning to ignore the issue with the lack of sufficient evidence for God's existence and choose not to buy into the concept of God or gods, or they believe that the evidence is sufficient to show that God cannot exist and is merely an illusion created by the mind of man.
I don't get why the meaning of these terms cause you issue. Imho, they work perfectly together. They both are general and describe the two options that exist. SInce "theism" is such an old concept, that idea existed (most likely) even before the term "atheism". So, one should expect the first "atheists" to be explicitly rejecting even the possibility of God. But, that does not mean that the term, logically and linguistically speaking, cannot and/or should not be seen in modern times to be more inclusive. The "atheism" movement has been growing for quite some time. So, I would expect the term to become more inclusive to include new "levels" of those who do not believe in the existence of God or gods.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Sorry. please excuse my stupidity.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
no .....no excuse for it.
this far down a thread and you obviously posting for the item.
There's another thread for that.
as for this thread.....it is unraveling for the misuse of 'implied'.
back to the implication.....
If children (ignorant of God) are implied to be atheist......
then atheism is held by ignorance.
ignorance is part of the default position.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, people ignorant of God claims are atheist by default. Well done, you seem to be finally getting it.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I knew it from the start....
but some refuse the effect of the implication.
Implicit is never what he was. As he would tell you, he's quite explicit.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
"Atheism" includes those who are ignorant. And, yes, ignorance is the default position and is, thus, atheism. But, I have to assume you already know that just because the "ignorant of God" people are included in the general term "atheism", it does not mean that "atheism" is some magical way defined by ignorance. It is the lack of belief in the existence of God. Since those who are ignorant of God lack a belief in God necessarily (you can't believe in something that you aren't aware of), they are included in the "lacking belief in the existence of God" group, a.k.a. "atheism".
leibowde84
Veteran Member
If the kid can talk and has been introduced to the concept of God I would agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so you accept definition when you like it....and ignore it when you don't
spoken like a true closet atheist....
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh yes it does.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What is the effect? And, after all this, you are agreeing with us?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What implication? Are you going to suggest that because implicit atheism is drawn from ignorance of God claims - that you can then for some reason insult atheists by calling them ignorant? Would that kind of arch stupidity actually make sense to you?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
None of my claims that you have been disputing deal at all with any kids who can claim anything explicitly. That is why we have been using the term "implicit atheism". Simply means by definition.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
If the definition fits....wear it.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Did he just completely abandon his argument?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
You can't be that dumb surely? Way to make yourself look a fool.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I think his 'argument' was no more than a set up for a spectacularly childish insult.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I would suggest a class in linguistics. You obviously don't understand the fact that something that is merely included under a terms definition does not define the term.
Also, I would suggest looking up the term "ignorant" while your at it. It appears you don't have the hang of that one either.
- Status