• 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...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
If a child cannot use his head.....he is an atheist.....
or perhaps my 'worthy opponent' can see his error.....?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
If a child cannot use his head.....he is an atheist.....
Click to expand...
"If a child cannot use his head", that child can be accurately referred to as an "implicit atheist". This, however, says nothing about what the child believes. It merely speaks to a specific belief that the child does not yet hold. Use your head!! Not too hard of a concept to understand.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
"If a child cannot use his head", that child can be accurately referred to as an "implicit atheist". This, however, says nothing about what the child believes. It merely speaks to a specific belief that the child does not yet hold. Use your head!! Not too hard of a concept to understand.
Click to expand...
White man speak with forked tongue....
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
If a child cannot use his head.....he is an atheist.....
or perhaps my 'worthy opponent' can see his error.....?
Click to expand...
You have yet to point out any error. You merely make a claim that there is an error and that it should be obvious. Which actually does make it "obvious" that you don't have any real argument at all. If you did, you would have surely provided it by now.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
You have yet to point out any error. You merely make a claim that there is an error and that it should be obvious. Which actually does make it "obvious" that you don't have any real argument at all. If you did, you would have surely provided it by now.
Click to expand...
any third party watching this one?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
go back and read this thread.....again....and again....
and someday.....you will have that epiphany....
Click to expand...
You haven't provided any argument, so I'm not sure whether any "epiphany" is even possible. You have to substantiate your claims with supporting evidence. If you can't do this, you should just admit it. If you can, you should provide the evidence.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
You haven't provided any argument, so I'm not sure whether any "epiphany" is even possible. You have to substantiate your claims with supporting evidence. If you can't do this, you should just admit it. If you can, you should provide the evidence.
Click to expand...
There are arguments all through this thread.....many similar to my own....
go back and read the whole thing.....again...
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Thief said:
There are arguments all through this thread.....many similar to my own....
go back and read the whole thing.....again...
Click to expand...
You haven't provided an argument yet, so how would I know which one you agree with? Why are you so stubborn in not providing a substantiated argument?
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
ArtieE said:
The definition of disbelief is

"disbelief
dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun
  1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
    "Laura shook her head in disbelief"
    synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief..."
Disbelief = lack of belief = absence of belief
Click to expand...

Typically, disbelief is not used in the context of 'unaware of' as in 'cats disbelieve in Zeus'. We disbelieve what we are aware of and choose not to believe.

I'm not sure I've ever heard it used in the context of 'unaware of'. Any examples?

leibowde84 said:
Nope. Even the most vocal atheists consistently say that they do not actively believe that God does not or cannot exist. They merely lack belief in God due to insufficient evidence. And, they are vocal about defending their view that the evidence is insufficient. I listen to religious debates from some of the most well-known scholars all the time, and I have never heard a single one of them say that they "believe that God cannot exist". Instead, they all merely claim that they "do not believe in God", or are "without theism" ("a-theism").
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll use the Oxford English Dictionary definition One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God as being an accurate description of my view.

Disbelief is defined as The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.

As such, you don't implicitly deny or disbelieve in things you are unaware of.

I think that atheism requires mental rejection of the existence of god. An implicit atheist would therefore be someone who has rejected the existence of god, yet is unable to articulate this viewpoint rather than someone who is unaware of god.

Do you think that someone can be implicitly theist, they believe in something that meets an accepted concept of a 'god' yet are unable to express this belief?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Augustus said:
Typically, disbelief is not used in the context of 'unaware of' as in 'cats disbelieve in Zeus'. We disbelieve what we are aware of and choose not to believe.

I'm not sure I've ever heard it used in the context of 'unaware of'. Any examples?



Alright, I'll use the Oxford English Dictionary definition One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God as being an accurate description of my view.

Disbelief is defined as The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.

As such, you don't implicitly deny or disbelieve in things you are unaware of.

I think that atheism requires mental rejection of the existence of god. An implicit atheist would therefore be someone who has rejected the existence of god, yet is unable to articulate this viewpoint rather than someone who is unaware of god.

Do you think that someone can be implicitly theist, they believe in something that meets an accepted concept of a 'god' yet are unable to express this belief?
Click to expand...
"Disbelief" includes "lack of faith" and the "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". Both of these would include those who are unaware of the concept of God. To those who are unaware of God, they are "unable to accept that God's existence is true" necessarily. Also, those that are unaware of God, "lack faith" in God, as they are without ("lack") belief in the existence of God necessarily. I have provided the definition of "disbelief" from Oxford English below, which proves these points.

disbelief: definition of disbelief in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
disbelief:
noun
1. Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
1. Lack of faith in something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top