Curious George
Veteran Member
Doctrine and beliefs are parameters.
-
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
outhouse
Atheistically
Not required so it is non sequitur in this debate.
outhouse
Atheistically
Curious George
Veteran Member
Non of these state that atheism is defined only as not theism.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Absolutely required.
outhouse
Atheistically
Curious George
Veteran Member
You suggested that atheism is defined as not theism. I would like you to acknowledge there are other parameters.
outhouse
Atheistically
I just posted a source that stated lack of belief.
George start bringing sources to the table or were done here. Im not going to debate your personal opinion
Curious George
Veteran Member
If atheism is defined by one of your sources as a belief or doctrine then it logically follows that if something is not a belief or a doctrine it cannot be atheism.
outhouse
Atheistically
Implicit atheism is not up for debate.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Your appeal to authority is noted, but I understand why you would want to avoid logic.I just posted a source that stated lack of belief.
George start bringing sources to the table or were done here. Im not going to debate your personal opinion
Once you acknowledge there are other parameters beyond "not theism" (a fact noted in your own sources) we can progress.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That is fine I am arguing against both weak explicit and implicit atheism as being categorized as atheism.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Then why ask? What is the point?
There are no babies or rocks participating here Legion, why ask such questions?
This thread is about what people believe in regard to a certain topic Legion, your powers of obfuscation lead you down yet another winding garden path. Why not focus on what people believe in relation to the topic and leave the philosophical opinions of rocks and babies to explore elsewhere at your leisure?
Why ask a baby? I wouldn't, because just like rocks, they can't answer if they are atheists and thus aren't. You are the one suggesting that I ask rocks (but that if I were to do so, I should seek professional help), yet insist that you can describe infants as atheists as if you could talk to then.
Because you have defined rocks as not being atheists and infants as being atheists; however, the main question I'm still waiting on is how you are defining this set (that you mentioned long before any response I made to another poster).
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Infants are implicit atheists
You still haven't defined the set atheists. Now, in addition to failing to define this set, you have added an additional qualifier but even this doesn't help you because, as you put it with respect to rocks
If I ever ask a baby, I won't get any more of an answer than with a rock. Are rocks implicit atheists in your (STILL) undefined set?
That is better, yet does not signify much till one knows that implicit atheism is a term coined by a person who defined it as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".
So, do you consider yourself an implicit atheist who has not ever had any conscious thought on the matter? Or should we think that you are unable to have any conscious thought on the matter?
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Who cares?
1) People like you have written hundreds of posts on this
2) People interested in religion
3) People interested in language or lexical semantics
.
.
.
(etc.)
n-1) Me, as I don't like someone telling me I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any god when I also don't believe that there isn't any, particularly when this is done via claiming that certain definition (which even dictionaries don't reflect) is correct and based on the "logic" that because atheism is a "lack of belief" rather the epistemic position it is, therefore anybody who doesn't believe in god has the same (atheist) position that someone who believes there is no god (or that there can be those who "lack belief" in god yet are able to identify themselves as atheists or use the word god).
n) People who are concerned with the atheist intellectual tradition being dumbed down by illogical attempts at defining it as a default position, choosing to define their position as somehow the automatically "right" one or "default" such that they need not engage in the arguments and intellectual feats that drove religious debate and culture itself forward thanks to a lack of such simplistic cowardice.
So why cite a dictionary that refutes the definition you claim to be true?
- Status