The default position...

[outhouse]

Your assertion that implicitly all babies and stones are atheists is your own understanding of what atheism is.

False

One does not need to label anything "implicit" atheism to know babies are not theist.

Are babies theist? No, factually they are not. So implicit atheism is not required to label anything.

Because you cannot accept that some people are not theist, and that a conscious rejection of theism is not required to NOT BE a theist.

Is there any proof required other than your posts asserting that again and again?

Yes. a simple understanding that you and everyone else has two main choices here. There are those who are theist and those who are not theist. That is factual proof

Implicit atheism is a subjective view of what atheism is.

Not at all.

It is part of a definition that describes different types of people who factually are not theist.


When learning to debate you might find using terms like "rock" to describe a term given only to people is called "non sequitur" its not valid.

 

[outhouse]

There exists a world wherein God exists.

There exists a world wherein God does not exist.

One of these worlds represents our actual world.

The problem here is the burden of proof has never been met by those that make the first claim.

It is also non sequitur.

But as I have already articulated

Also non sequitur.


There are two positions here, Those who are theist and those who are not. You can use philosophy to dance around any topic one chooses.

But it often used to dance around or skirts context, because a person is looking for a different conclusion then what is typically defined.

 

[outhouse]

Implicit atheism is a subjective view of what atheism is

There is nothing subjective when one is NOT a theist.

 

[atanu]

There is nothing subjective when one is NOT a theist.

You mean there is no subject who has a view if one is not a theist? Incredible.

 

[atanu]

One does not need to label anything "implicit" atheism to know babies are not theist.
eople is called "non sequitur" its not valid.

One needs only a little intelligence to realise that babies are not atheists either.

 

[outhouse]

You mean there is no subject who has a view if one is not a theist? Incredible.

Then maybe you can answer a very simple question.

what do you call someone not a theist?

 

[Shad]

Then maybe you can answer a very simple question.

what do you call someone not a theist?

A nontheist.

 

[outhouse]

One needs only a little intelligence to realise that babies are not atheists either.

Sure they are, it is our default position, as we are FACTUALLY not born theist

A conscious rejection of theism is not required for one to not be a theist.

This is where I see your mistake, you want to redefine the concept to suit your own needs.

 

[outhouse]

A nontheist.

Yes exactly an atheist.

 

[atanu]

Sure they are, it is our default position, as we are FACTUALLY not born theist

A conscious rejection of theism is not required for one to not be a theist.

This is where I see your mistake, you want to redefine the concept to suit your own needs.

And this is where you are mistaken. A baby is atheist as per your subjective thought.

 

[Shad]

Yes exactly an atheist.

Nope, atheism is the rejection of theism , not a lack of belief-ism.

 

[Shad]

Sure they are, it is our default position, as we are FACTUALLY not born theist

A conscious rejection of theism is not required for one to not be a theist.

This is where I see your mistake, you want to redefine the concept to suit your own needs.

So cats, dogs and rocks are atheists. Reductio ad absurdum counter based on the "lack of" parameter.

 

[atanu]

Then maybe you can answer a very simple question.

what do you call someone not a theist?

In case of stones and babies this question is meaningless.

Only a fool will go to stone and ask "Are you a theist or an atheist?" And in absence of an answer this way or that way, a fool alone will merrily assert "o stone, I declare you an atheist".

Ha ha.

 

[Curious George]

The problem here is the burden of proof has never been met by those that make the first claim.

It is also non sequitur.




Also non sequitur.


There are two positions here, Those who are theist and those who are not. You can use philosophy to dance around any topic one chooses.

But it often used to dance around or skirts context, because a person is looking for a different conclusion then what is typically defined.

There are no conclusions so it cannot be a non sequitur.

 

[Curious George]

.



.


There are two positions here, Those who are theist and those who are not. You can use philosophy to dance around any topic one chooses.

But it often used to dance around or skirts context, because a person is looking for a different conclusion then what is typically defined.

Absolutely, when looking at a theist there are two positions theist and not theist. And when looking at an atheist there are two positions, atheist and not atheist.

But when comparing not atheist and not theist we find a group with the same position.

 

[outhouse]

Nope, atheism is the rejection of theism , not a lack of belief-ism.

That is only your own personal definition. It may have some popularity as well, but that does not make it the end all.

There are factually theist and those who are not theist known as atheist.

 

[outhouse]

But when comparing not atheist and not theist we find a group with the same position.

How so?

 

[outhouse]

I have the sources that state a conscious rejection of theism is not required to be an atheist.

You do not have anything credible other then simplified vague definitions published by theist.

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism


"implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".


The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.

 

[Curious George]

How so?

Hmm, complicated question. First let us understand why atheist cannot just equal not theist. No word is given only a negation as a parameter, because doing such would be incompatible with English and an instance of the miscategorization fallacy. Therefore there must exist a category describes both not theist and not atheist.

The million dollar question is however what are the parameters. While we can use the broadest possible parameter of thing and have a sound conceptualization, this is not the best. Placing too many parameters could cause error as well. So, the optimal categorization will be that which gives the most meaning and detracts the least meaning.

While it is theoretically possible to create a category that eliminates the position problem by adding to the definition of theist, most people here are advocating for a definition of theist which is simply believing one or more gods exist.

If this is so, the position of belief in both propositions that God exists and God does not exists is the same position as rejecting both propositions. Thus, either a position exists that is both not theist or not atheist, or the definition of theist is wrong.

 

[outhouse]

First let us understand why atheist cannot just equal not theist

Impossible because that is exactly what atheism implies 100%

No word is given only a negation as a parameter

That's right a single letter works fine. The "A" in atheist.

Therefore there must exist a category describes both not theist and not atheist.

If you had ever read the full definition you should or would know the lack of belief in any god, is the exact difference.

most people here are advocating for a definition of theist which is simply believing one or more gods exist.

You mean for the most part theist LOL sorry they don't get to define anything from bias of preconceived belief.




Twist it however you want, but belief in god or mythology is a learned trait we are not born with. We are all born without belief in a god making every child a atheist.

If you don't believe in any of the thousands of gods man has created and factually defined, your an atheist. Does a baby believe in god? no. pretty simple, but you have fun making it complicated by your own admission to meet your personal agenda.


Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism


"implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".


The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.