The default position...

[Shad]

I never made the claim that atheism only applies to people.

My reductio ad absurdum counter stands. Rocks, cats, dogs, birds, etc are atheists since atheism is a lack of belief.

My only claim was that the term "atheist" is defined as applying to people.

Given the above you can not infer it only involves people. You can only infer it involves objects and things which lack a belief. Reductio ad absurdum

Give both of the above comments/replies consider the rejection view. Rejection is a judgement thus personhood/people can be inferred and supported in both terms. Strong/weak atheism are positions of confidence thus justification. Justification requires arguments and reasons for or against a position. The reductio ad absurdum argument for rocks, cats, etc fails.

And, I provided my reasoning for why I think archaic definitions are not appropriate for this discussion, no matter whether they were known to be the original meaning thousands of years ago. We are discussing the assignment of the term in public discourse, so I think the "layman's understanding" should be considered.

The above is grounds for rejecting the layman's understanding due to it's flaws. The definition is flawed.

 

[Shad]

No,not at all - it was a fatuous evasion.

Imagine we were discussing 'republicans', and rather than engage in meaningful dialogue - you were enough of a troll to dismiss whatever your opponent was saying by waving your hand and quipping 'Well, huh, huh, huh.....by that definition strawberries are republicans!"

It was hardly an evasion, it was a direct challenge to the definition of a term thus it undermines many of the arguments such as babies are atheists.

So you want a meaningful dialogue in which no one can provide counter-arguments or voice objections to the terms being used?

 

[Shad]

You merely provided evidence of the initial "atheists" expressing that they believed that God did not and could not exist. I agree that this was the case, but you make the false assumption that, for some reason, this limits the term. I agree that atheism includes those that explicitly claim that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean the term cannot extend beyond that, even when it was coined. The term was a rejection of Theism, and rejecting theism does not necessarily mean that one believes actively that God does not exist. It isn't "rejecting God". It is "rejecting the belief in God's existence". Thus, those who are aware of the theism option, reject it due to lack of sufficient evidence, but also reject the belief that God does not exist, still would be included in your definition. Thus, the claim that "God does not or cannot exist" is not necessary to fall under your definition of the term.

Most of the atheists I know would not claim that they believe God cannot exist. They merely don't see sufficient reasoning to believe actively that God does exist. That is why I feel like the state of being "without belief" is in modern times referred to as atheism.

You do not understand my position. I am not saying due to tradition we must use the term supplied by me or others. I am using the reductio ad absurdum and sources for why people did not use it as a term of "lack of belief". My argument is that the definition is absurd because the "lack/absence" parameter cause issues and abuse. It is ill defined. It also avoids the burden of proof as people use "lack/absence" of a screen in dialogues with theists.

*edit*

I made allowances for the rejection of arguments for theism and a position that belief is unjustified. Look in my earlier posts.

 

[atanu]

No. Not the same. One is just included in the other.

After due thought, I am unable to accept your view on this matter.

 

[Bunyip]

It was hardly an evasion, it was a direct challenge to the definition of a term thus it undermines many of the arguments such as babies are atheists.

So you want a meaningful dialogue in which no one can provide counter-arguments or voice objections to the terms being used?

Babies are atheist, they are not theist. Challenging such a simple fact by appealing to ridicule is fallacious.
I want a dialogue where the other party engages meaningfully on the topic, rather than infantile dismissals.
The critical point is that I was not offering a definition, nor was I arguing about or trying to discuss definitions - I am interested in discussing beliefs. Ridiculing me for the definition of atheism I offered was dishonest and deceptive - I wasn't offering one.

 

[atanu]

Babies are atheist, they are not theist. Challenging such a simple fact by appealing to ridicule is fallacious.
I want a dialogue where the other party engages meaningfully on the topic, rather than infantile dismissals.
.

There can be no dialogue when you start with assertions.

 

[lstan135]

Haha. Just in case you all do not know, faith is a gift from God for those who are destined to become a believer in Him. Faith also comes from hearing for those are believers to increase in faith and for the chosen pre-believers to receive faith. So, if you are not chosen, most likely ynu are an athesist. Got the picture?

 

[lstan135]

Haha. Just in case you all do not know, faith is a gift from God for those who are destined to become a believer in Him. Faith also comes from hearing for those are believers to increase in faith and for the chosen pre-believers to receive faith. So, if you are not chosen, most likely you are an athesist. Got the picture?

 

[Desert Snake]

You cannot hold both of those positions simultaneously. The first would be a theist and the second would be an atheist. If there was another person who had never heard of the concept of God, they would be implicitly atheist, as they would "be without" ("lack") "a belief in the existence of God". What's the problem?

The problem is that you end up using the same label for some one who merely has no belief either way, / and for some one who actively dis-believes in the idea of a deity. These are two very different positions, not just in semantics, but in format. It simply doesn't work.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Haha. Just in case you all do not know, faith is a gift from God for those who are destined to become a believer in Him. Faith also comes from hearing for those are believers to increase in faith and for the chosen pre-believers to receive faith. So, if you are not chosen, most likely ynu are an athesist. Got the picture?

Just in case you didn't know, I don't care.
Atheism is better, at least I don't have to feel like an ******* for eating pork.
Nor do I have to beg forgiveness.

I feel as though my freedom is more than double yours, and it's entirely your fault.

 

[lstan135]

Just in case you didn't know, I don't care.
Atheism is better, at least I don't have to feel like an ******* for eating pork.
Nor do I have to beg forgiveness.

I feel as though my freedom is more than double yours, and it's entirely your fault.

Haha, nobody really has freedom. You are either belong to God or to Satan. You are also control by the law of your country and also your parents before you become an adult. When you enters a school or any organisation, you will have to comply with their rules and regulations. Lastly you are being controlled by yourself (thoughts, belief system, emotions and mood swing). Now, are you really free?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Haha, nobody really has freedom. You are either belong to God or to Satan. You are also control by the law of your country and also your parents before you become an adult. When you enters a school or any organisation, you will have to comply with their rules and regulations. Lastly you are being controlled by yourself (thoughts, belief system, emotions and mood swing). Now, are you really free?

I control 90% of my thoughts and all of my beliefs.
I don't experience mood swings, or at least I haven't yet.
Emotions don't control me in the slightest.
I am not impulsive and I realize exactly what my limits are.

The only thing I conform to unwillingly are the laws of nature.
I will decide whether or not I follow any other form of law.

You don't have the position to say "You are either belong to God or to Satan" without it being an opinion.
Such opinions do not effect me.

Nor do your two thousand year old desert fairy tales, they are disintresting and mindfully harmful to many people.

No, I am not 100% free, however, I am much closer than you will ever be - considering that you are a willing slave.

[Edit] Ah, I forgot about my parents.

I do literally nothing of what they say.
I pay my own rent and for my own food and college.
They have disowned me so this upcoming Monday they can finally kick me out.
It's my 18th birthday after all, I think it will be the 8th time I've been kicked out too

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The problem is that you end up using the same label for some one who merely has no belief either way, / and for some one who actively dis-believes in the idea of a deity. These are two very different positions, not just in semantics, but in format. It simply doesn't work.

Sure, but polytheism is a very different position from monotheism, but they are both still theistic positions. I fail to see why there being lots of different, non-mutually exclusive positions under the heading of atheism "doesn't work" any more than that does. If someone has "no belief either way" then surely they qualify under the heading "lacks belief in X".

 

[Thief]

Babies are atheist, they are not theist. Challenging such a simple fact by appealing to ridicule is fallacious.
I want a dialogue where the other party engages meaningfully on the topic, rather than infantile dismissals.
The critical point is that I was not offering a definition, nor was I arguing about or trying to discuss definitions - I am interested in discussing beliefs. Ridiculing me for the definition of atheism I offered was dishonest and deceptive - I wasn't offering one.

You may want dialogue all you care to want.....

Atheism is not for children.
Let's stop tossing the baby back and forth.

and if you ask them about God.....oooops!......

 

[lstan135]

I control 90% of my thoughts and all of my beliefs.
I don't experience mood swings, or at least I haven't yet.
Emotions don't control me in the slightest.
I am not impulsive and I realize exactly what my limits are.

The only thing I conform to unwillingly are the laws of nature.
I will decide whether or not I follow any other form of law.

You don't have the position to say "You are either belong to God or to Satan" without it being an opinion.
Such opinions do not effect me.

Nor do your two thousand year old desert fairy tales, they are disintresting and mindfully harmful to many people.

No, I am not 100% free, however, I am much closer than you will ever be - considering that you are a willing slave.

[Edit] Ah, I forgot about my parents.

I do literally nothing of what they say.
I pay my own rent and for my own food and college.
They have disowned me so this upcoming Monday they can finally kick me out.
It's my 18th birthday after all, I think it will be the 8th time I've been kicked out too

Haha. All the things you've just said is untrue and you know it. Embrace the truth my friend and the truth shall set you free. [emoji56]

 

[jonathan180iq]

Just in case you all do not know, faith is a gift from God for those who are destined to become a believer in Him.

Ah, a Calvinist!

Faith also comes from hearing for those are believers to increase in faith and for the chosen pre-believers to receive faith.

Is this really true, since faith comes only to those pre-selected by god?

So, if you are not chosen, most likely ynu are an athesist. Got the picture?

Or you're faking your faith to fit in with the cool kids that god liked better.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I am assuming such. That one believes the cat is alive and also believes the cat is not alive does not assume that both happen simultaneously.

To violate the rule of non contradiction I would have to believe God exists and not believe God exists.

As believing God does not exist is =/= not believing God exists there is no contradiction.

"That one believes the cat is alive and also believes the cat is not alive"

Explain how both of these can happen simultaneously, please.

 

[leibowde84]

My reductio ad absurdum counter stands. Rocks, cats, dogs, birds, etc are atheists since atheism is a lack of belief.



Given the above you can not infer it only involves people. You can only infer it involves objects and things which lack a belief. Reductio ad absurdum

Give both of the above comments/replies consider the rejection view. Rejection is a judgement thus personhood/people can be inferred and supported in both terms. Strong/weak atheism are positions of confidence thus justification. Justification requires arguments and reasons for or against a position. The reductio ad absurdum argument for rocks, cats, etc fails.




The above is grounds for rejecting the layman's understanding due to it's flaws. The definition is flawed.

We'll have to agree to disagree about your last point, I guess.

 

[leibowde84]

Haha. All the things you've just said is untrue and you know it. Embrace the truth my friend and the truth shall set you free. [emoji56]

LOL

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is that you end up using the same label for some one who merely has no belief either way, / and for some one who actively dis-believes in the idea of a deity. These are two very different positions, not just in semantics, but in format. It simply doesn't work.

This is an absurd argument. "Theism" is a general term too. Under "theism" there is monotheism, polytheism, deism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. Why would anyone expect "atheism" to be so specific, when "theism" is anything but.