[Lorric]

[swashmebuckle]

Sorry, I afraid it's purgatory on account of presumed atheism for all dogs, cats, protists, and the keyboard I'm typing this on.

[Mr. Vega]

I'm willing to abandon the belief that I have an eternal soul, but I refuse to accept that my dog's soul won't go to heaven when she dies. That is where I draw the line. Annabelle is going to heaven, and that's that.

[AtomicClucker]

So you all assert that atheism is the default position of all of humanity, an unconscious position with no choice made that we all implicitly share from birth, unless we choose theism at some point in our lives?  Everyone is born an atheist whether they choose to identify as such or not?

yes.

I think this is dead wrong.

You are not born an atheist, because at that stage, we have no knowledge of what divinity is, even so, what is human. Newborns at that point have not developed a firm series of relationships we used to define and extrapolate meaning. This is a very flawed, dangerous question of knowledge pertaining to things the newborn has no scope of.

At that point, we have no real conception of advanced concepts of higher powers and even science. The problem is that from the atheistic standpoint, we trying to assign a state of meaning to a state of nothing, not even existing. You're trying to supply a solution at a point where no such question exists, nor matters from the viewpoint of newborn.

[Bobboau]

at that stage, we have no knowledge of what divinity is
...
At that point, we have no real conception of advanced concepts of higher powers

exactly.

[NGTM-1R]

at that stage, we have no knowledge of what divinity is
...
At that point, we have no real conception of advanced concepts of higher powers

exactly.

That's ignorance. You're equating it as the same as a choice you've made to not believe. The problem with this should be obvious.

[swashmebuckle]

If theists are sheeple and actual sheep are atheists, can man-sheep marriage equality be far behind?

[Herra Tohtori]

Why is it that when a child not yet has comprehension of the concept of "divinity" that would make them neither atheist or theist...


...when older people who do have a concept of "divinity" seem to usually equate it to "incomprehensible" anyway?


This is not just a cute word game, but something I'm actually interested in. I have never yet met anyone who would explain "divinity" in terms that don't include some form of "we cannot understand it" or "it is beyond our comprehension".


There are a lot of things that children can't comprehend, it's a natural state of existence to them. There's nothing strange or supernatural about things they don't understand, because MOST things appear just as strange to them.

When we get older, we learn about some things, either exactly how they work, or we learn that there is an explanation for them but don't yet fully understand them (but are told that we will learn about that later), and some questions we don't get certain answers to because there are none.

In many cases, we then adopt someone else's speculations about what might be the answer to that particular question. And often we assign a new name to those things that we deem un-answerable.


After all, a brief look into the etymology of the word "divine" tells us that it is

"to conjure, to guess," originally "to make out by supernatural insight," mid-14c., from Old French deviner, from Vulgar Latin *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from Latin divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant "soothsayer."

In this regard, I'm pretty sure that the base state of humanity is indeed atheistic, because theism is a learned thing.


However, I agree with MP-Ryan in that it makes very little sense to classify small children by the same words we use of ourselves, because the words "atheist" and "theist" would mean absolutely nothing to those children until they themselves can understand the meaning of the words.


In the end, people are what they are, and it is the greatest of follies to assume that you can label everyone and expect them to be the same as others you've marked with the same label. In the end, all these terms are fairly meaningless outside academic discussion about our world views; at best, they're a shortcut to giving some sort of briefing to another person's world view, but more often than not it's not even that useful because - as we've demonstrated - many of the terms are used with wildly varying definitions.

[BlackDove]

The base state of humanity is an idiot in need of protection and comfort in the face of death.

The brain is a vector for disease of insecurity and the desperate need for guidance, due to the natural state of a human being that of a moron. There are endless cures for this affliction, though the three main ones which satisfy the prerequisites are well known to us, because of their evolution throughout the hundreds and in some cases, thousands of years of propagation (and they are all one and the same technically speaking, thus not even three, but one idea branching ever outwards to satisfy the morphology of the disease as it changes with the times).

There are those however that can overcome their natural afflicted state. It requires foundations to be laid during the formative years which would provide insight potent enough to pierce the snake oil cures mentioned above, or a string of experiences to trigger the defense mechanism which would deal with the disease. Just the same, foundations can be laid so as to accelerate the gestation of the disease, making its effects more potent as the subject reaches adulthood.

I'm willing to abandon the belief that I have an eternal soul, but I refuse to accept that my dog's soul won't go to heaven when she dies. That is where I draw the line. Annabelle is going to heaven, and that's that.

I regret to inform you that Annabelle does not meet the prerequisites Heaven requires for admittance of entry. By all the rules which are not founded on interpretations, Annabelle is destined only for hell eternal or purgatory, due to the technical nature of her existence. The source literature on the topic is unfortunately quite clear that strict guidelines must be obeyed for admittance into Paradise, and any and all attempts to get around these facts are unfortunately based off of interpretation alone.

Personally, I wish her the best of luck in that place of sorrow and torment, and I do hope that you yourself meet the guidelines and regulations, so that you may enter Paradise and exist in eternal bliss, happiness and joy. One only hopes Annabelle's absence and your own cognizance of her failure to be with you will not dent your serene everlasting existence.

[karajorma]

That's ignorance. You're equating it as the same as a choice you've made to not believe. The problem with this should be obvious.

It's been explained about a dozen times that there is a difference between an implicit and an explicit atheist.

[NGTM-1R]

It's been explained about a dozen times that there is a difference between an implicit and an explicit atheist.

Yes, but it's never been explained why we should actually consider implicit atheism to be actually atheism, rather than merely ignorance of the question posed by atheism as it is commonly used. It seems more like trying to say "we've got lots of people like us, see!" rather than an actual reasoned approach to the question of what counts as atheism; a basic appeal to the crowd that lots of people totally believe this and so you should too.

[Bobboau]

because if you are ignorant to the concept of a god you cannot, and thus do not, have a belief in it. and as has been mentioned ad-nausium "atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."

it is lacking a belief, if it is from ignorance, inability to think, or a well thought out choice it does not matter. it is simply not believing in a god. it is literally not-a-theist.

why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

[NGTM-1R]

because if you are ignorant to the concept of a god you cannot, and thus do not, have a belief in it. and as has been mentioned ad-nausium "atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."

It is, in the same token, ignorance of the concept of not believing in a god, because you have no concept of what not believing in a god is. (Because you have no concept of what a god is. Or what believing is.)

Why is that a hard concept for you?

[Bobboau]

yes. it is also that. I do not see how that effects anything. atheism is not defined by any belief you do have or are capable of having, or beliefs you did or did not choose to believe or not belief, but rather simply by the beliefs (well, belief, there is only one that matters) you do not have. it is simply a word that describes your present status in regards to possessing that belief, how that status came about or if has been like that the whole time is not factored in.

[NGTM-1R]

So basically your argument is that someone who is incapable of any form of belief should be lumped into the category of something that is also a personal belief of your own. Because you have chosen to define your personal belief as a lack of belief.

And incapability is different from lack, by the way, this seems to be hard concept for you. You can be charged with a crime and get off because of a lack of criminal intent (usually involving an insanity defense, but not always), and you can be charged with a crime and get off because you are unable to commit it. These are very different things. So it is here, and you seem oddly eager to ignore that.

You can see why this is problematic, right? I'm not talking to a wall here? This argument isn't just suspect in that it rejects an non-involved position for someone who is utterly incapable of being involved in this discussion, it also comes across as ultimately self-serving by so doing.

[karajorma]

Why is the simple fact that the word atheist by definition means someone without faith so hard for some people to grasp?

[Bobboau]

one who is incapable of having any belief, yes, should be put into the category of people who do not have some specific belief.

it is not a personal belief of my own. it is a category I fit into.
how can a belief be a lack of belief? that doesn't even make sense.

I do not see what your criminal analogy is trying to convey, people also get acquitted from crimes because they didn't do the crime (they lack a history of having committed it I guess is how I can try to map your metaphor to the topic at hand), being unable to do the crime is one way to prove this.

there are other categories of people, for instance alive and dead, these are two mutually exhaustive groups of people and you don't become alive out of a choice (though there are steps one can take to change one's status if they so choose).

atheism is not a belief.

[karajorma]

The aquittal thing is also strange cause in both cases you'd say they were acquitted. The reasons might be different but you'd use the same word.

[AtomicClucker]

Why is it that when a child not yet has comprehension of the concept of "divinity" that would make them neither atheist or theist...


...when older people who do have a concept of "divinity" seem to usually equate it to "incomprehensible" anyway?


This is not just a cute word game, but something I'm actually interested in. I have never yet met anyone who would explain "divinity" in terms that don't include some form of "we cannot understand it" or "it is beyond our comprehension".


There are a lot of things that children can't comprehend, it's a natural state of existence to them. There's nothing strange or supernatural about things they don't understand, because MOST things appear just as strange to them.

When we get older, we learn about some things, either exactly how they work, or we learn that there is an explanation for them but don't yet fully understand them (but are told that we will learn about that later), and some questions we don't get certain answers to because there are none.

In many cases, we then adopt someone else's speculations about what might be the answer to that particular question. And often we assign a new name to those things that we deem un-answerable.


After all, a brief look into the etymology of the word "divine" tells us that it is

"to conjure, to guess," originally "to make out by supernatural insight," mid-14c., from Old French deviner, from Vulgar Latin *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from Latin divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant "soothsayer."

In this regard, I'm pretty sure that the base state of humanity is indeed atheistic, because theism is a learned thing.


However, I agree with MP-Ryan in that it makes very little sense to classify small children by the same words we use of ourselves, because the words "atheist" and "theist" would mean absolutely nothing to those children until they themselves can understand the meaning of the words.


In the end, people are what they are, and it is the greatest of follies to assume that you can label everyone and expect them to be the same as others you've marked with the same label. In the end, all these terms are fairly meaningless outside academic discussion about our world views; at best, they're a shortcut to giving some sort of briefing to another person's world view, but more often than not it's not even that useful because - as we've demonstrated - many of the terms are used with wildly varying definitions.

Atheism and Theism are learned positions through either personal curiosity, external sources or indoctrination. Newborns have no concept of either of these from their own periphery: it is not simply ignorance, they haven't developed long enough to build a vocabulary of language and interpretation. The natural atheism often deployed upon the beginning human state is not only a bad attempt at hindsight, but it is an attempt at assigning prior meaning and knowledge. The closest I dare to argue is an agnostic position, but based on the simplicity that no decisions and attempt to learn said positions has been made, but agnosticism isn't the appropriate state as well, in the newborn's POV, none of these positions exist. They exist solely within the realm of human consciousness after we learn to build a vocabulary of language and meaning. To crack a terrible joke on my own rantings: a newborn exists in a meta-state free of standard learned conventions, and knows nothing of atheism, agnosticism, and theism until exposed to external influences.

The point is that state can be described no less as a blank slate.

@Bobbau: I don't believe in classification based on boxes, we have these nifty things called tags, and they fit nicely into Venn diagrams. It is of my own opinion, but "boxes" is actually a terribly old fashioned idea to filter and sort information, where as "tags" while a larger threshold of connected ideas and more obtuse, are not only more specific, but chain information together in new ways that merely sorting in boxes.

[Mars]

Ateapotism and Teapotism are learned positions through either personal curiosity, external sources or indoctrination. Newborns have no concept of either of these from their own periphery: it is not simply ignorance, they haven't developed long enough to build a vocabulary of language and interpretation. The natural ateapotism often deployed upon the beginning human state is not only a bad attempt at hindsight, but it is an attempt at assigning prior meaning and knowledge. The closest I dare to argue is an teapot-agnostic position, but based on the simplicity that no decisions and attempt to learn said positions has been made, but teapot-agnosticism isn't the appropriate state as well, in the newborn's POV, none of these positions exist. They exist solely within the realm of human consciousness after we learn to build a vocabulary of language and meaning. To crack a terrible joke on my own rantings: a newborn exists in a meta-state free of standard learned conventions, and knows nothing of atheism, agnosticism, and theism until exposed to external influences.

The point is that state can be described no less as a blank slate.