Atheist by birth?

[laffy_taffy]

So, basically, you're saying atheism doesn't even require the mental capacity of a rock?

Why would it necessitate ANY mental capacity to NOT have (i.e., lack, be without) a belief in something?

 

[Acim]

Atheism is not a lack of belief, its knowledge that ancient men in power had always created deities to match their specific needs, wants, and desires and hopes for life and a mythical afterlife.

Now atheism isn't lack of belief, but is knowledge of some sort.

I'm glad this term stays consistent, or as consistent as the United States congress on matters of principle.

 

[outhouse]

Now atheism isn't lack of belief, but is knowledge of some sort.

100% wrong

its not knowledge, its a lack of knowledge in a deity.

what part of theism is it that you do not understand??? Theism requires belief.



The only qualifier for atheism is that you have no concept of any deities, this includes the attached dogma of any religion attached.


theism is belief of deities within a religion. Atheism is the exact opposite.

I'm glad this term stays consistent, or as consistent as the United States congress on matters of principle.

your on a public forum with different views and opinions. If you want a example of different just take the 33,000 different branches of christianity and play with that.

 

[Me Myself]

Atheism is both.

If it was a lack of knowledge only then even if yuo don´t beleive in God you would still not be an atheist if you knew everything about religios doctrines about deities.

Now, being that an atheist is someone who doesn´t beleive in God, if he haven´t even conceived a concept such as god he could not beleive in him, because he hasn´t even thought about it. So that´s an atheist too.

 

[Valjean]

Inasmuch as my pet rock has no belief in any deity -- in fact, no beliefs at all -- it is, by definition, atheist.

 

[outhouse]

Inasmuch as my pet rock has no belief in any deity -- in fact, no beliefs at all -- it is, by definition, atheist.

I believe another qualifier might be, that one is homo sapien

 

[Me Myself]

Inasmuch as my pet rock has no belief in any deity -- in fact, no beliefs at all -- it is, by definition, atheist.

My rock is a virgin

 

[laffy_taffy]

Inasmuch as my pet rock has no belief in any deity -- in fact, no beliefs at all -- it is, by definition, atheist.

Is there such a thing as theist pet rock? Are rocks capable of ever having the potential to believe in god? If yes, then yes, they could be called atheist. If no, then what is the point of discussing something so irrelevant.

 

[Me Myself]

Is there such a thing as theist pet rock? Are rocks capable of ever having the potential to believe in god? If yes, then yes, they could be called atheist. If no, then what is the point of discussing something so irrelevant.

My rock is, as I said, a virgin.

But it also is a jehova´s witness.

I remember I told it "If you are a Jehova´s Witness, stay still"

And it did! I have no idea from where did it got those religious views

Would explain why it is a virgin though :sarcastic

 

[Willamena]

Atheism requires nothing at all.

Of course it does, it requires theism. There can be no "not theism" without "theism."

 

[Valjean]

Knowledge of God isn't required to lack a belief in God. Atheism need not be a denial of god. Atheism's not a concept or philosophical position, it's simple non-belief. Anything -- animal, mineral or vegetable -- that has no belief in God, conforms to the definition of atheist.

 

[Me Myself]

Knowledge of God isn't required to lack a belief in God. Atheism need not be a denial of god. Atheism's not a concept or philosophical position, it's simple non-belief. Anything -- animal, mineral or vegetable -- that has no belief in God, conforms to the definition of atheist.

Or in the case of my pet rock, a virgin.

 

[Acim]

Seems like many of you are confused about atheists' lack of belief. You do know that it only refers to one specific belief that we by definition, do not hold, right? We lack belief IN THE EXISTENCE OF GODS!

I get that this is, for at least some atheists, the fundamental position of atheism. To be clear, in my experience (dialogues on this topic) the position of atheists moves around, at least a little. In debates I engage, the position seems to move even more.

I still like to argue that if you lack belief in existence of anything, it becomes confusing or questionable to have discussion about that something as if you have idea on how that thing ought to behave. These ideas often show up to me as beliefs.

Like I don't believe hell exists. At same time, if I were to be more accurate, I would say a particular version of hell is something I believe doesn't exist. I don't lack a belief in the existence of hell, but in a particular version of hell. Because I will enter into discussions where I think 'hell' could be something akin to separation from God and/or is experience here on earth. But hell as place one goes to for eternal punishment after life on earth, is something I do not believe exists. I certainly do not believe hell is an eternal experience.

I don't know why so many theists seem to hold the mistaken notion that lacking belief in (the existence of) god should equate to not having an opinion about the claims about god put forth by its followers. Who says I don't/can't have an opinion?

Me. I'm the one saying that. I think others have said that.

Of course I do! I have a lot to say about your (general "you") claims about your god, and may tell you that your claims are not convincing or do not make sense, or whatever. So? Do you think god's existence is dependent on the claims that men make about him?

No, I think the claims of atheism are dependent on one's position on beliefs about deities. At a certain level (like say caring), why would it matter to me whether or not my claims about God are going to convince you who lack belief in existence of God? The plausible reason why I might care, and why an atheist may desire to engage in that discussion, is that position is flexible enough that one can be 'not atheist' while engaging in certain discussions. One can say, 'for sake of this discussion, I will accept it as possible that God(s) may exist, and in that vein, here are my opinions about what this being would maybe do or not do in relation to this topic (i.e. suffering).' Then, let's say at end of that discussion, the person scoots on back to position that says, at this time, outside of any debates, I am one who lacks a belief in existence of Gods, and right now that is a firm position I hold. That sort of processing would make more sense, even if it isn't entirely consistent.

Your god has revealed himself to others and many even claim to have a relationship with him. Who's to say whether or not this could happen to me?

One who is consistently atheist or one who is agnostic.

I may find your claims to be unconvincing, but if god himself revealed himself to me, I would then at least have some kind of evidence, and possibly be convinced to believe. So, I am not asserting that god does not exist. How should I know? But the concept that many theists put forth... is worth debating.

Okay, first you are clearly moving away from atheist position in first part. "If God revealed himself to me" is not a lack of belief in God's existence. It is an acknowledgment of lack of personal experience.

Secondly, more importantly, is the types of debates that atheist types may engage in are types that many theists will as well. At a certain level of theism, what is most often up for discussion is model of God, as something to understand and relate to in an intellectual way. Think of old school logic where minister claims to person who just had loved one pass away, "God works in mysterious ways." Well, someone like me, is going to debate that. Atheist type might raise similar points, but I think would at least try to bring it back to assertion that amounts to, "God (concept) has nothing to do with passing away of your loved one." Which would be positive belief, and what I think most would identify as strong atheism.

Also, even if I totally believed that your particular god did not exist, that would not mean that I believed that all gods did not exist.

This seems to be moving further away from atheism. For sure away from strong atheism.

I actually find it "believable" that there could be an impersonal, creator type deistic god that we cannot perceive and has no interaction with us.

That would be theism. Perhaps more accurately deism. I understand deism to be theistic.

I have not yet found any evidence to convince me to believe that such a god does in fact exist, but I do not hold the belief that such a god does NOT exist.

But convinced to believe is a higher standard than I think is accurate for belief. It is closer to conviction, and faith. I think, though hesitate to write this, that a great many theists don't have that strong of a conviction, and consider themselves more or less on a path that allows for that conviction to be experienced or manifest in their lives.

At a certain level (I think the intellectual) this comes down to understanding how we are identifying "any evidence." Unlike some theists, I'm highly interested in that discussion. I want to have that debate. To me, faith is about having experience that presents the 'lotta evidence' such that the conviction is strong and not just, "I kinda think God exists, and accept the idea as true, though not sure if I have any rigorous proof to convince others." That sort of position there is the belief, and is introductory to faith. Though for me, faith does and always will rest on knowledge. That knowledge is something that most theists / spiritual types I've ever met don't wish to claim at risk of coming off arrogant or unable to back up their knowledge. Even for those types, I think faith is derived from knowledge, though I think I understand why that will rarely, if ever be claimed.

You seem to be under the impression that if atheists have an opinion about your god, or argue with you about your unconvincing claims, that we hold the belief that all gods do not exist.

It actually isn't like that for me, and is instead almost opposite. I am under impression atheists hold the belief that all gods do not exist, and that they try to spin that into claim of 'lacking belief in existence of any gods.' But revert back to having fairly firm opinions about how any evidence one may claim is not, nor can it ever be, construed as existence of God. Instead, atheists seem to have pretty good idea on how that evidence will look to them, so that they will know that God exists. And is EXACT place where I observe beliefs enter the picture. Like God will do something in physical world, from up in the sky down on earth, and this will be 'evidence' that God exists.

And just like evolution has the clause that says if a frog came from a cow, that would be 'proof' against evolution; well for my brand of theism, if something akin to sky daddy did something in physical like say massive cloud coverage, and sky (clouds) open up with booming voice and magic light show speaking some holy mumbo jumbo, that would mean to me that theism as I understand it, may not exist. That would certainly challenge my convictions, even though like an atheist, I'd be very skeptical about that sort of experience, and be looking for every way to 'write it off.' If it turned out I was wrong, and that was Creator God revealing Herself to humanity, it would perhaps cause as much shock in me as it would an atheist. Perhaps I'd adapt easier, though maybe not. Anyway, point being, beliefs about what evidence would have to be for existence of God to be 'found convincing,' is aspect of this whole debate that continues to leave me with impression that atheists have some rather firm beliefs around the whole theological debates.

Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the world does not believe in your triune god (again, assuming you're christian). There are plenty of other gods out there besides just yours.

Not from my understanding. I see 'all others' as plausible extension(s) of the Creator. There is aspect of my theistic knowledge that holds ideas of polytheism, but not as entities that are in any way separate from Creator. Distinct, but not separate, and the distinction is more or less in vein of 'deities as we have made them out to be.'

Let's look at the following statements:

Statement A: God exists
Statement B: God does not exist

I lack belief in Statement A. Simply debating people about their claims about their various god concepts and the unconvincing evidence, does not change the fact that I still lack belief in Statement A. Have I suddenly started believing statement A just because I am debating you? No. It also does not mean that I believe Statement B.

I am saying if you engage in debate (kinda depends on contents of the debate) that you may very well be believing in Statement A. I think intention is to persuade ultimately yourself, but hopefully opponent into having some agreement with Statement B.

But to lack a belief in A, is like a baby. Babies are the true atheists. For they don't need to engage in debate to maintain consistent lack of belief. They don't need convincing, they don't need evidence one way or another. They perfectly lack the belief, and are essentially done with it.

Adult atheist types wanna have their metaphysical cake and eat it too.

 

[Willamena]

Why would it necessitate ANY mental capacity to NOT have (i.e., lack, be without) a belief in something?

Of course it would. It requires mental capacity to cognize "not" (and "have" and "any" and "something" and "lack" and...)

 

[Splarnst]

Knowledge of God isn't required to lack a belief in God. Atheism need not be a denial of god. Atheism's not a concept or philosophical position, it's simple non-belief. Anything -- animal, mineral or vegetable -- that has no belief in God, conforms to the definition of atheist.

Not if you define an atheist as a person who lacks belief in god. I don't know people find this so difficult.

 

[Me Myself]

Of course it would. It requires mental capacity to cognize "not" (and "have" and "any" and "something" and "lack" and...)

you don´t need to cognite "not" to be an atheist

The same way a plant doesn´t need to cognite "photosynthesis" to do photosynthesis, and atheist doesn´t need to cognite in God so he can not beleive in him

 

[Storm]

Atheism is not a lack of belief, its knowledge that ancient men in power had always created deities to match their specific needs, wants, and desires and hopes for life and a mythical afterlife.

And here I thought myths didn't count as knowledge.... :sarcastic

 

[Willamena]

Knowledge of God isn't required to lack a belief in God. Atheism need not be a denial of god.

Now that I can agree with, since "lack of belief" is a nonsensical proposition.

The world as we each know it is composed of beliefs, and it doesn't lack for anything.

Atheism's not a concept or philosophical position, it's simple non-belief. Anything -- animal, mineral or vegetable -- that has no belief in God, conforms to the definition of atheist.

*shrug* Tell it to the philosophers.

 

[Willamena]

you don´t need to cognite "not" to be an atheist

The same way a plant doesn´t need to cognite "photosynthesis" to do photosynthesis...

So, you're saying "atheism" is what an atheist does?

 

[Me Myself]

So, you're saying "atheism" is what an atheist does?

Or not do in this case, but YES! thats the idea exactly!