Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
***Rolling my eyes***
-
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!
Atheism is not a default position
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
"
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
"
Introduction to Atheism, Infidels.org. 1997
So no, in this debate, I agree with Matthew, it's not just simply "lack of belief in God", but it's a position held after deliberation of the mind. The simply idea of just lack of belief without a consideration, is not a settled idea at all, and we can all have different views on it. My view is that it's not atheism when we talk about people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god'.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
"
Introduction to Atheism, Infidels.org. 1997
So no, in this debate, I agree with Matthew, it's not just simply "lack of belief in God", but it's a position held after deliberation of the mind. The simply idea of just lack of belief without a consideration, is not a settled idea at all, and we can all have different views on it. My view is that it's not atheism when we talk about people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god'.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Not settled for you and your choir perhaps, but settled for plenty of other people.
I do find it comical the extreme extent you go to in order to reinforce your beliefs.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's fine. So why is there a problem that it's not settled for me?
I find it comical that it bothers you. Perhaps my position is a threat to you beliefs?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Doing what you have to in order to protect your box is human nature.
why you assume I have a problem with your human nature is something you should probably work on.
Why do you assume your rejection of definitions you dislike bothers me?
Is this merely more of your box defense? Or perhaps a (failed) distraction technique?
I was merely pointing out that your ignoring of definitions does not make said definitions go away and that by ignoring definitions you only make things harder for yourself.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
My motivations are of no concern of you. Don't make this personal. Keep this about the issues, claims, topic, discussion and leave personal considerations and issues aside. If you can't, then stay out of this discussion.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
You would do well to follow your own advise.
No worries, I am used to blatant hypocrisy from those who so extremely defend their boxes.
Have a nice day.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
That's one of the better definitions. Unfortunately, the definition of the word becomes a very emotional--and political--issue for people on both sides of the theist-atheist debate. Much of the problem stems from a common definition that sounds relatively straightforward and unambiguous: An atheist is a person who does not believe that gods exist. Unfortunately, that sentence is ambiguous between two senses:
1) An atheist is a person who believes that no gods exist.
2) An atheist is a person who lacks a belief that gods exist.
That is, the scope of negation can either include "believe" or be inside the scope of "believe". This is a well-known ambiguity in linguistics, but it can be unfamiliar to people who have never studied syntactic theory.
If one chooses to interpret it in the second sense, then one arrives at the most favored version you find in internet discussion forums, particularly as expressed by atheists, i.e. the "lack of god belief" definition. And that interpretation leads some folks to take the absurd position that babies start out as bona fide atheists and only become theists by rejecting their original state of natural atheism. Hence, theists bear the original burden of proof to show that gods exist. As you can imagine, that appeals very strongly to atheists, and there are also some theists who have no trouble accepting such a definition. So emotions can run very high on this subject. The problem is that most people realize that there is more to it than just not having a belief. It is rejecting a belief that other people have. Indeed, theism is ubiquitous in human societies, so there is a lot of social pressure on atheists to explain their exceptionalism. I get that, but I am not sympathetic to the use of bad definitions to score debate points against theists, even though I am an unapologetic strong atheist.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sorry, but I didn't understand any of that.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What do you mean by saying that you don't believe in a definition?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I don't believe that definition to be accurate or complete.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
It is just how somebody is using the term - what do you even mean by saying you don't believe it is accurate or complete? It is accurate if it is describes the position the person using it is trying to explain, and why would any definition ever need to be 'complete'? What does that even mean?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's okay. Just think about it for some time.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Check the quote I posted from Infidels.org.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What is your point?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Maybe try to write better English.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Did I offend you? I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were incompetent, rather the opposite. With time you might understand what I was trying to say.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I think it's quite self-explanatory what my point is.