The default position...

[Willamena]

"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.

No, just an implicit atheist (a subset).

 

[Curious George]

Impossible because that is exactly what atheism implies 100%



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



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.

Atheism is a thing. Therefore it can not be a not thing. Theism is a thing, therefore it cannot be a not thing.

Your definition bolsters my claim that atheist cannot simply be defined as not theist.

 

[Bunyip]

This just gets better. According to you, there exists a set (which you don't define) of atheists, and all theists are subsets (also not defined) of this set?

Correct. Didn't you just explain that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct.

So what is the set (that is, how do you formally define the set)?

 

[Bunyip]

So what is the set (that is, how do you formally define the set)?

You defined it in the post I was responding to. Read your post again mate.

 

[Bunyip]

Your own posts show how you use atheist which is a word which has a definition.

No, that is wrong - there is no single definition.

You then link this with babies, ergo you are using a definition. I challenge this, you have declined it. Thus your definition has not been defended, is fallacious therefore false. Try to pay attention to the words you are using.... Your own posts show you to be a liar, I need not make up any argument to support this, you won words are good enough.

Also were you not also claiming that I was doing the same a few days ago. Pot meet Kettle

What? That accusation doesn't even make sense.

Its was a conclusion based on your own posts. I provided evidence above and evidence is abounds in your posts in this thread. The only tantrum is your own in which you deny using a defination of a word in your arguments, the very definition which you provided above which also contradicts your previous claims about not using a definition.... I provided a counter argument but you dismissed it as absurd. However you do not understand that was the point of the argument. To show that the definition of "lack of" is absurd

Which you haven't done - you just state that it is absurd and attack anybody that disagrees. You sure haven't made a logical argument.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. If a theist believes in one God they can not be an atheist.

They can certainly be atheist in relation to other Gods - which is what I claimed, you must have misread.

It does not matter if they reject other gods, as long as they believe in one they are still theists.

Again you are providing a definition which others and myself have challenged and you deny in providing. Hilarious.

That didn't happen mate, you're making stuff up.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You defined it in the post I was responding to. Read your post again mate.

Here's what I said:

This just gets better. According to you, there exists a set (which you don't define) of atheists, and all theists are subsets (also not defined) of this set?

I said there "exists" a set and I named elements of it. Even had I said "composed only of atheists" or "made up only of atheists", it still wouldn't be a set definition. I can give a much more formal-like definition for a set that cannot be a set (the set of all sets that don't contain themselves). To define a set as consisting of all atheists doesn't tell me whether rocks are members of this set. You have to define the property that you are using to include or exclude members from the set.

 

[Bunyip]

Here's what I said:

I said there "exists" a set and I named elements of it. Even had I said "composed only of atheists" or "made up only of atheists", it still wouldn't be a set definition. I can give a much more formal-like definition for a set that cannot be a set (the set of all sets that don't contain themselves). To define a set as consisting of all atheists doesn't tell me whether rocks are members of this set. You have to define the property that you are using to include or exclude members from the set.

Legion, I was responding to YOUR post to George. You defined the set in question. Read your post again. As to rocks, if you ever have a conversation with a rock, ask it if it is an atheist - although that you are conversing with rocks on theology would indicate a deeper need to consult a psychiatrist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, I was responding to YOUR post to George. You defined the set in question

This?

Actually, (Curious George), you had an even better point I didn't think of: Bunyip, you have defined polytheists as a "subset" of the "set" of theists. Sets are defined formally, mathematically, and clearly. Your "definition" that "all theists are also atheists" entails, under any interpretation, that there exists no set such that [s.t.] theists are anything other than a subset of atheists.

Again, there is no definition of the set either of theists or atheists. I have simply used the relation you used between these would-be sets s.t. if they were well-defined (were sets), then it must be that theists are subsets of atheists. However, this doesn't prevent rocks from being atheists and babies from being theists. You have no "set".

if you ever have a conversation with a rock, ask it if it is an atheist

If I ask a baby this, I'll get as much of an answer as I would were I to ask a rock.

 

[outhouse]

No, just an implicit atheist (a subset).

A young child is not a theist, by default he is an atheist until he learns theism.

 

[outhouse]

Your definition bolsters my claim that atheist cannot simply be defined as not theist.

Only in your mind and or your personal opinion, that means nothing to me and does not apply to anyone but you.


I posted credible sources defining atheism. You have not.

 

[Curious George]

Impossible because that is exactly what atheism implies 100%



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



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.

I read the posts of my reply to this and to the post which this post of yours is replying and realize they are hard to follow.

So perhaps I can use Aristotle's work to create my point. Aristotle listed nine (I think) categories which we can organize ideas and objects. To which category does atheist belong?

To which category does theist belong?

Now there are 8 categories left of which neither a theist or an atheist can belong.

Therefore at least these categories represent not theist and not atheist.

So, this should illuminate that there are indeed groupings that are neither atheist or theist.

Another way of explaining this is that we should at least be able to agree that atheism is a noun. Therefore atheism cannot be a quantity, or a verb, or an adjective etc. So all of the ideas that are represented by verbs cannot be atheism. Nor, for that matter can they be theism.

Now this may seem silly to think of at first but this is how we classify. With parameters. Atheism is a noun. Nouns are person places things or states. Anything that is not a noun cannot be atheism. This is at least our first parameter, and this is how we know that atheism cannot simply be "not theism"

 

[outhouse]

Atheism is a thing.

Define thing

 

[Curious George]

Only in your mind and or your personal opinion, that means nothing to me and does not apply to anyone but you.


I posted credible sources defining atheism. You have not.

Did your credible sources indicate that atheism is only "not theism?"

 

[outhouse]

So perhaps I can use Aristotle's work to create my point

There is less value in this ancient perspective, then the credible sources I have posted.

As it comes from a time when people lived mythology and many gods existed in the minds of men.

 

[outhouse]

Did your credible sources indicate that atheism is only "not theism?"

Yes, in one sense if you read it. Stated quite clearly theism is the belief in at least one god.

Those that do not believe in gods or lack belief or have no knowledge of gods, are factually defined as atheist.

You can refuse the definition all day every day, we don't care. We know we hold the default position we are all born into.

I don't have a belief about any god, but Im an atheist, juts like a child.

 

[outhouse]

Theist | Define Theist at Dictionary.com

belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com


1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.


Notice the key word doctrine OR belief LOL

 

[Curious George]

Yes, in one sense if you read it. Stated quite clearly theism is the belief in at least one god.

Those that do not believe in gods or lack belief or have no knowledge of gods, are factually defined as atheist.

You can refuse the definition all day every day, we don't care. We know we hold the default position we are all born into.

I don't have a belief about any god, but Im an atheist, juts like a child.

A belief is a thing. If something is not a belief it cannot be atheism then. Would you agree?

 

[outhouse]

How are Atheism & Theism Different? How are Atheism & Theism Similar? Neither Atheism or Theism Mean Much in Isolation


theists believe in at least one sort of god. How many gods, the nature of these gods, and why the belief exists is irrelevant to the concept.


Atheists lack belief in the existence of any gods external to human minds.