Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 05-03-2002, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Foxhole Atheist:
A default position is that position taken as an initial position prior to any other options being available or presented.

When we are born, we have no belief system whatsoever. The only form of a system may be the comfort attained by a newborn with the continued, rhythmic beating of the mother’s heart. In the absence of all other sensory input, the heartbeat is a known condition upon which all the experience of the newborn has shown to be free from discomfort. Of course, there are exceptions. But, we’re considering the norm here.

When we are born, we have no understanding of religion or gods. These concepts are instilled in our minds by others during the maturation process. Some of us accept these concepts completely while others do not. To get into how this conditioning occurs in the young mind is a whole ‘nother topic. I’m sure someone may be willing to pick that topic up in another thread.

Atheism is not a proof to be offered vis a vis, the existence of a god. It is simply a non-belief in a deity; any deity. In this sense, I believe it is the “default” position that we all come into the world with.

BibleBelted, you seem bored. Or, perhaps you’ve heard it all before. In any event, your comment is well taken.

Excacly.

Atheism means "lack of godbelief". A newborn child knows not the meaning nor the concept of the word "god", so how can he be a theist?

Theli · 05-03-2002, 12:29 PM

free12thinker...

Quote:

Atheism is a default system? By default do you mean that if we don't believe in a deity, than we are Atheists by default?

Going on...

Quote:

If I have an income of 5 million dollars a year than I am a millionairre by default. (No: I am a millionairre by definition)

This is a bad example. Money isn't something you are born with (you might recieve money shortly after your birth, but that's beside the point).

People are not millionairees by default, because they have to become millionairees.
People doesn't have to become atheists, they are born atheists.
To be theists they will have to become theists after their birth, that's why atheism is default.

Radcliffe Emerson · 05-03-2002, 12:32 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WJ:
[QB]...and as such, does not prove that which it is intended to prove, by asserting/conferring this belief system onto others.

(* This is what has been said by some atheist's on this board.)

true or false?

I think theism is the side that has to go to great lenghts in attempts to prove its case.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Tyr Anasazi ]

BibleBelted · 05-03-2002, 12:43 PM

Foxhole Atheist posted:

Quote:

BibleBelted, you seem bored. Or, perhaps you�ve heard it all before. In any event, your comment is well taken.

I've just been exposed to enough of WJ's (and anonymousj's) posting to know what road this thread is heading down. If you haven't experienced it yet, you will soon see what I mean.

Theli · 05-03-2002, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BibleBelted:
I've just been exposed to enough of WJ's (and anonymousj's) posting to know what road this thread is heading down. If you haven't experienced it yet, you will soon see what I mean.[/QB]

Stone Throwing?

BibleBelted · 05-03-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Theli originally posted:
Stone Throwing?

Actually I though it was more of a nerfball.

In any event, I apologize to anyone who was offended by my comments and will restrain myself from posting any more.

Goliath · 05-03-2002, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
...and as such, does not prove that which it is intended to prove, by asserting/conferring this belief system onto others.

(* This is what has been said by some atheist's on this board.)

true or false?

Walrus

....huh?

Atheism is a lack of belief. "Atheism" does not set out to prove anything.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying.

Sincerely,

Goliath

05-03-2002, 08:53 PM

Some define X as Y. Is this definition true or false?

Mu.

Adrian Selby · 05-03-2002, 11:13 PM

"It is simply a non-belief in a deity; any deity. In this sense, I believe it is the �default� position that we all come into the world with. "

I'm interested in this because the baby, while not denying God exists, one aspect of being an atheist, is not affirming it either, the baby has no position on the matter, which seems agnostic.

Also however, and with reference to that essay in the library here, could the baby be said to be non cognitivist, the issue is simply without meaning for that baby. My concern is that animals could be atheists as much as babies, simply because they lack a God belief, ditto bacteria, insofar as all these things are living.

Adrian

Theli · 05-04-2002, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:
"It is simply a non-belief in a deity; any deity. In this sense, I believe it is the “default” position that we all come into the world with. "

I'm interested in this because the baby, while not denying God exists, one aspect of being an atheist, is not affirming it either, the baby has no position on the matter, which seems agnostic.

Also however, and with reference to that essay in the library here, could the baby be said to be non cognitivist, the issue is simply without meaning for that baby. My concern is that animals could be atheists as much as babies, simply because they lack a God belief, ditto bacteria, insofar as all these things are living.

Adrian

Excacly. Noncognitivists can also be called "weak atheists".

Since they don't belive in god, it's only reasonable to call them atheists.

05-03-2002, 12:32 PM	#13
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	[QUOTE]Originally posted by WJ: [QB]...and as such, does not prove that which it is intended to prove, by asserting/conferring this belief system onto others. (* This is what has been said by some atheist's on this board.) true or false? I think theism is the side that has to go to great lenghts in attempts to prove its case. [ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Tyr Anasazi ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2002, 08:53 PM	#18
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Some define X as Y. Is this definition true or false? Mu.

05-03-2002, 11:13 PM	#19
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"It is simply a non-belief in a deity; any deity. In this sense, I believe it is the �default� position that we all come into the world with. " I'm interested in this because the baby, while not denying God exists, one aspect of being an atheist, is not affirming it either, the baby has no position on the matter, which seems agnostic. Also however, and with reference to that essay in the library here, could the baby be said to be non cognitivist, the issue is simply without meaning for that baby. My concern is that animals could be atheists as much as babies, simply because they lack a God belief, ditto bacteria, insofar as all these things are living. Adrian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.