RootsBooster Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 I see what you're saying Cavegirl, hell i even understand it, I just don't go with it. In every case we've come up with a word to describe something because everything whether its animate or inanimate has to have a name or an identification, a mark, anything so we can say 'oh yeah that's what that is.' We cant have something without and in this case it's the babies religious or non religious beliefs. Atheism isn't a "non religeous belief" though, it's simply an absence of belief. Like a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 You've just agreed with me in your second line, which is the bare bones pure definition of atheism, why complicate it with the opinions of some other guy? No. I have shown a definition of atheism- which is also similar to what you used in post #27. However, this also shows that to suggest we are born atheists is flawed- as you would need to actively reject theism (belief in god)- which you cannot do at birth. There have been some studies (you can probably google and find some links) about brain patterns as well as work carried out by Professor Bruce Hood at Bristol University to show we may even be pre wired to believe in god. I am not arguing for or against here, but would be inclined to believe that slightly more (versus your views) based on life experiences and people who I have met. As Ford mentioned, there are some who 'find god' though I would use the term 'discover god'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't think it is. Atheism simply means absence of theism. It shouldn't need to be argued. I think the philosopher/humanist Paul Cliteur describes it correct in his book The Secular Outlook where he states: So I would argue your point that we are born atheist is incorrect- a baby has no concept of this (as has been mentioned by some posters) so cannot reject what it has not yet been shown or presented with. But an atheist doesn't reject God or theism, because an atheist just like a baby as no idea what a God is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Bjorn of Abba is quite outspoken on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 But an atheist doesn't reject God, because an atheist just like a baby as no idea what a God is. But it also could not be an atheist (lack of belief in god or gods) as he/she has not been presented with anything to make that decision. Hence why I use the definition given by Paul Cliteur- which simplifies for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Atheism isn't a "non religeous belief" though, it's simply an absence of belief. Like a baby. Tricky one aint it An absence of belief in something it's unaware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 But it also could not be an atheist (lack of belief in god or gods) as he/she has not been presented with anything to make that decision. Hence why I use the definition given by Paul Cliteur- which simplifies for me. Do you belief in the existance of an adfrithyremn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Do you belief in the existance of an adfrithyremn. Unless you can make some links or show that an 'adfrithyremn' may exist or some people actually hold this view based on some possibility, then no. You're using what appears to be a typical atheist cliche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't think it is. Atheism simply means absence of theism. It shouldn't need to be argued. Exactly, this is atheism (absence of belief) No. I have shown a definition of atheism- which is also similar to what you used in post #27. However, this also shows that to suggest we are born atheists is flawed- as you would need to actively reject theism (belief in god)- which you cannot do at birth. This is not atheism, you are now describing antitheism (rejection of belief) Tricky one aint it An absence of belief in something it's unaware of. No, it's extremely simple and your second line makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Unless you can make some links or show that an 'adfrithyremn' may exist or some people actually hold this view based on some possibility, then no. You're using what appears to be a typical atheist cliche. So what’s the difference between you and a baby, neither of you understand or have any concept of a adfrithyremn and neither of you believe it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.