Religion question?
- Thread starter squarehead94
- Start date
Like I said it depends on the context. Which is why it is pointless to attribute a singular position as you appear to be trying to do.
A baby doesn't lack a belief as that requires knowlege that the baby has any awareness of the concepts to which you are trying to apply to them. A baby is simply unable to express a position. They are neither atheist or theist or anything inbetween practically speaking. Practically we can only really assume with any certainty that a baby has no knowledge of God(s), what philosophical position a baby might choose once that concept is known to them who knows, it is unknowable and therefore is more akin to an agnostic position than an atheist one. However, like I said...you cannot really attribute any such label to a baby, you may as well attribute it to a rock.
It shouldn't be too difficult, given the things that children accept until told otherwise.
Atheism is a philosophical position that can be part of or the basis of a belief system. Many atheists do have a personal belief system that is based on their atheism.
In that case, as Atheism was originally a pejorative to express the position of being abandoned by the gods or being ungodly as its basic term, for example the Romans called the Christians atheists before they converted to Christianity as they were as far as the Romans were concerned Godless. You have to ask yourself then where does that leave the various arguments since the 18th Century that have created an entire philosophical debate within the topic itself. The reason why the term agnosticism came about is largely due to the ever broadening of the term atheism to the point of meaningless.
In which case you are effectively agnostic, as you do not attribute a truth value to either position. If however you attribute this lack of evidence to suppose a negation of the theist position then you are an atheist and remaining agnostic.
Which is a default agnostic position, you do not have any belief, you are neutral (or ambivalent perhaps) to the claims either for or against a God(s), the reason the term was defined by Huxley was to separate the theological context of atheism from the general scepticism inherent in agnosticism. For it to be an atheist position, some form of value would be attributed to one position or another..such as Dawkins and his spectrum device. An agnostic doesn't attribute values to either position. (That doesn't imply equality of position either as some like to say and I addressed that earlier)
The trouble is that agnosticism and atheism have what Wittgenstein called 'family resemblance' and therefore an atheist may in fact be an agnostic and vice versa...this is part of the reason we end up debating the definitions rather than the claims themselves...no one can agree what constitutes what.
For this reason I generally let people define themselves how they want and just address the claims they make instead.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Eh? No it doesn't.
Lack of belief is a lack of belief, it doesn't require an understanding of the concept then a conscious rejection of it.
I disagree. Your position is that atheism requires some kind proclamation, I don't think it does.
The default position is atheism, only once they start to understand the concept of God can they then become a theist.
The way you describe atheism is how would describe anti-theism (the conscious rejection of a god or gods after understanding them conceptually).
Again, atheism simply means "without god", you don't have to fully understand or know about something to be 'without' it, you just have to lack it.
I am not on board with your argument. But the default position is also one of not walking or talking. Whats relevance does this have? Once you are developed you can perform maths calculations or have an input as to the nature of our existence. The semantics of your argument detract from its intention.
Atheism is a stated position...not a default position. Ask a baby if they believe in God and (assuming they could communicate effectively) they would almost certainly ask, what is a God?....(you could substitute God for Atheist for all the difference it would make) define the term and then the baby may be in a position to determine whether they are an atheist or a theist...if we simply say that the baby is an atheist because it cannot articulate or comprehend such a complex philosophical position then you may as well say that Animals are atheist, Dead People are atheists, plants are atheists, Rocks are atheists.....it undermines the position into ridicule and is pointless. People are free to determine their labels themselves, but it requires some form of conscious choice.
Personally I feel that It requires an understanding of the position to have any meaning. A baby is simply ignorant of the concepts of both Theism and Atheism. It is neither one or the other. Trying to ascribe atheism or any -ism to a baby is simply an exercise in semantics and has no practical use or impact on the debate.
I have addressed this. It doesn't need repeating.
Last edited:
I agree, which is why I pointed out that atheism has a number of different sub-groups, negative/positive & explicit/implicit.
A baby doesn't hold any belief systems at all, that includes theistic ones.
That's the only point I'm making, because a baby is incapable of comprehending them.
I never said a baby was a positive explicit atheist (that would be absurd) - I said a baby is on the same level as a remote isolated community (Which had no god/gods) or somebody who simply never encountered the concept at all.
A baby is an implicit atheist - "atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"
Since when was born with a belief = being indoctrinated into a belief? - I fail to see how this addresses what I actually said in response to the below.
Key words - can & many.
Not all.
Atheism in the view of the people who have considered intricacies of the issue is the rejection of theistic assertions.
This is why we have the implicit/explicit/strong/weak/positive/negative sub-groups, the broad term is too vague to extract any meaning from it.
The historical meaning has little bearing to the modern meaning with the additional sub-groups.
Yes I'm agnostic for the popular god concepts, but agnosticism says nothing about if the person believes in a god, actively believes a god doesn't exist - or rejects both as neither has any evidence.
I simply reject the claim due to a lack of evidence, as I would with claims that bigfoot exists.
I'm neutral on my stance (either stance would require evidence) - but I'm not neutral to theistic claims (as I reject them).
It's very simple, so I'm not sure why at this stage in the world should atheists have to argue what they believe - I don't insist on telling theists what they believe (As I could never say as I'm not one of them) - I find it odd that many theists can't afford atheists the same respect.
That we can agree on.
You cannot say that a baby is even an implicit atheist...even the atheist writer Smith didn't go so far as that...and that doesn't consider the criticism of such a broad definitions of Atheism as being synonymous with sheer unbelief from several philosophers including the philosopher of science Ernest Nagel. It is in not nearly as clearly defined as you seem to be portraying.
With regard to a remote isolated community...has there ever been one that had no concept of some kind of theism?
where did I mention indoctrination or being taught anything....Children believe all kinds of things all on their own. We have no way of knowing whether a baby is born with an inherent belief or not, and that's the point.....you cannot attribute philosophical positions without knowing whether that are valid.
Not sure why you reiterated what I essentially said here. The idea that some atheists hold and use atheism as a belief system is not logically flawed.....particularly in the context we see most often shoved about here.
You referred to the changing of the basic term......I was pointing out what that basic term was.
The latter would require a burden of proof however....insofar that you need to show your reasoning why you reject them.
It seems that it is non-theists that are just as likely to argue about it tbh. As well as telling each other what they should or should not believe or how they should or should not define or name that belief or non belief.....in recent years there seems more debate within this sphere than between the Theists and the Atheists and every other definition inbetween.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
And this is where we differ. You think atheism is a label, one must apply to themselves, I maintain it is an adjective.
I find your argument similar to saying a baby that is born black, isn't actually black until it fully understands the nature of race and can then define itself.
And as I keep saying my position is that theism and atheism is a dichotomy, you can either be one or the other but you cannot be both or neither.
It is on the basis that a view (or lack of view) on one subject (i.e the existence of a god or gods) cannot be described as a 'system', as that would require a number of beliefs that intertwine to create one world view.
Likewise, theism isn't a belief system either. It is an opinion on one subject and only one subject.
Atheism is the opposite of theism, it is not the opposite of religion (which is a belief system).
As I stated earlier your defintion of athiest is a lot closer to this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
...than to what I and most atheists would consider 'atheism'. If you disagree, please kindly point out the difference between your description of atheism and your description of anti-theism.
Last edited:
Atheism and Atheist are nouns.....atheistic is the adjective. In any case Atheism is a position attributed to an individual, and so I don't think that is where we differ..I suspect we differ in the same way as elmarko and I do, and that is in the acceptance of Smith's implicit atheism definition and its veracity.
Really, you think they are the same?
There we disagree....you can be neither, one or both. (Or a bunch of other definitions that people use to describe their philosophical positions).
I did not say atheism was a belief system...I said it was the basis for some belief systems (earlier in an unrelated post) and many atheists use atheism as if it were a belief system insofar that they hold a series of mutual supported beliefs defined solely by their atheism. The later used to be very rare, but it seems to be a growth industry unfortunately.
Its good to have a reasoned conversation with you estebanrey (it usually gets too adversarial), however I will have to cut it short for now as I have an early start again tomorrow and a ton of work to finish before the weekend and my week off.
Last edited:
Are you a purist atheist?, in the sense that you believe (like Prof Richard Dawkins-britains leading atheist) that there is no hope, there is no purpose in anything really, you are here because you are here, you live some, grow old then die, that's it, basically. Or are you really an evolutionist who does not allow a divine foot in the door?. i have tried to understand and take on the atheist worldview and the only way i could maintain this worldview is to ignore the information all around us, therefore pure atheism is a position of ignorance. But the question still remains, no matter what position an individual holds, and there is no esacaping from it, that question is "how did we get to be here". Sure, yeah you can choose to say that you don't care or turn your back on that question but only by ignorance. To say that it is unimportant or who really cares is a cop out. That's the position i would have had to have been in if i chose to be an atheist.
Yeah that's because their best lines of defence is attack
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,279
- Location
- Woking
I think one of the issues is that many atheists, like myself, want to be entirely disassociated from a belief system that we wish to have no part in, and which (often) feel is ridiculous, which is one of the reasons that we argue to vehemently when someone accuses us of having faith.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,279
- Location
- Woking
Many of us are against something which encourages mass stupidity in the form of belief in things which are purely ridiculous. As such, we club together because we feel that without us joining our voices no one would ever realise that people are actively in opposition to religion.
They may seem ridiculous to you, but they are not to a good portion of the population. Are you really that superior to them that your opinion means so much more than theirs? Or is it just another kind of prejudice?
If you are really going to oppose religion, then I would choose something a little more substantial than 'they are all stupid with stupid beliefs' as the basis for your reasoning. Religions are pretty complex things, with complex beliefs and philosophical positions, they have influenced and shaped the world, both positively and negatively....to simply say they are encouraging mass stupidity and belief in ridiculous things seems to indicate that you don't know too much about religion(s) other than the superficial.
Also, anti-clericalism and opposition to religion are hardly subjects that have been ignored over the centuries....creating your own little belief system seems to be counter to what you say your aims are and in direct contradiction to your post above the one I quoted and the one that follows.
Which belief system? Is that any belief system? You admit to a actively opposing religion because you believe they are all stupid and believe in stupid things, is this not a belief system in itself....is the phrase Belief System really that offensive to you that you would vehemently argue just because someone considers the basis that Atheism when used to oppose religion, needs to be a position with presuppositions which are able to logically, positively and actively support itself in opposition to theistic counter arguments and that is best served by creating an opposing belief system (as many atheists effectively do). For many people Atheism is a effectively a belief, particularly where the persons atheism is defined as a rejection of belief in God(s) or more significantly that there are no such thing as God(s)..which seems to be your position judging by your reference to stupidity and ridiculous beliefs......
The problem you have with disputing the 'belief' label is that even amongst Atheists there is no agreement on whether Atheism is or is not a belief system. Ultimately it depends, both on the individual and how they utilise atheism in their worldview as to whether it can be called a belief system or not. It is largely perceived as a form of belief nonetheless, whether it is a system or not depends on the type and individual manifestation that atheism takes.
The best way to be disassociated with something is not to engage it or associate with it....I also know many people who oppose religion who are theists and many atheists who support their local churches in various things in their communities. There are as many forms of atheism as there are people who believe in its philosophy, including those who use it as the basis of a complex belief system and those who don't really care, they simply don't believe in God.
Last edited:
Well, I'm leaving the thread now anyway as i've pretty much covered everything i want to say on the matter, so you can make it as interesting as you want by adding your own contributions.......unless the quoted part is the limit of your involvement.
I'm a "purist" atheist in the sense that I do not believe in the existence of any gods. That's it. That's all that atheism is. What you are describing is existential nihilism, not atheism.
There's no such thing as an evolutionist. It's a word made up by people who either don't understand or want to suppress understanding by other people.
Rubbish. Atheism is a position of not believing in one specific thing for which there is no evidence - the existence of gods. Either you have no idea what atheism is or you're seeing information that doesn't exist. Or, of course, both.
And there's a key difference. When I am ignorant of something, I will admit it. Unlike you, I've no need to pretend that I know by making up something that doesn't even answer the question anyway. Your faith doesn't answer the question because it only moves the question from "how did we get to be here?" to "how did my god(s) get to be here?" You're not even providing a made-up answer - you're just hiding the question and pretending it doesn't exist. You're doing the very thing you claim atheists are doing - you're turning your back on the question. I'm looking at the question and acknowledging that the only truthful answer I can give is "I don't know yet".
It's a valid position. It's of some academic interest, but it's of no real importance. Maybe life has existed since the beginning of time. Maybe life began at some point as a natural result of a combination of circumstances. Maybe your god did it and faked all the evidence that exists because it amused them to do so. Who knows? Why care? Seriously, why do you care?
Not a good finishing line in a post that combines ignorance and attack. It makes you look bad.That's the position i would have had to have been in if i chose to be an atheist.
Yeah that's because their best lines of defence is attack
Last edited:
I did not attack anyone nor am i ignorant. So you're saying there is no such belief as evolution? How did life get to be here on earth?, you see i don't ignore these types of questions, i research it and see what others have to say about it, but atheists choose to ignore these questions, i think atheists know the reason why and it puts a dent in your worldview.