atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by apathist
What is atheism? By D. E Krueger, copyright 1998.

Atheism may be defined as the view that there are no gods.
Broad version: (that of not assenting to the theistic view)
Narrow version: (the claim that the theistic view is false)

Googlefudge, your view says that atheists are dumb as rocks. Thankfully, it happens that actual atheism requires a bit mo ...[text shortened]... are of no use nor value. Hell, your definitions allow rocks to be atheists. Epitome of stupide.

Atheism may be defined as the view that there are no gods.
Broad version: (that of not assenting to the theistic view)
Narrow version: (the claim that the theistic view is false)

This confirms what LJ and others of us have been saying.

Kruger’s “broad view” is equivalent to “weak (or agnostic) atheism”—that is, where one does not believe (or assent to a belief) that G.

Kruger’s “narrow view” is equivalent to “strong atheism”—that is, where one believes that not-G.

(1) Not believing that G, and (2) believing that not-G are two different logical positions, as LJ has cogently pointed out. “Strong agnosticism”, which asserts that one must withhold judgment precisely because there is not sufficient knowledge to form either a belief that G or a belief that not-G, would be a third—and one that I agree entails consideration of the question (the “god meme” ). I seem to recall some discussion in the past on here, where it was suggested that so-called “weak agnosticism” (don’t know, don’t care) is equivalent to apathism.

You seem to deny the possibility of, or at least the validity of the term, “implicit atheism” on the part of anyone that has not yet developed the cognitive capacity to consider the question, or on the part of someone who has not (for whatever reason) been exposed to the “god meme”. What better descriptive term would you suggest?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
would you really call all the fossils and shared dna as faith? are the missing ape chromosomes that science predicted humans should have that were later found fused together in humans a matter of faith?

I believe as soon as someone starts to connect dots while talking about the
what the fossils and DNA show they have moved into the realm of beliefs.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe as soon as someone starts to connect dots while talking about the
what the fossils and DNA show they have moved into the realm of beliefs.
Kelly

"they have moved into the realm of beliefs"


and do all beliefs hold the same value?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe as soon as someone starts to connect dots while talking about the
what the fossils and DNA show they have moved into the realm of beliefs.
Kelly

I recall that when we discussed this in the past, you did not consider it 'the realm of beliefs' when someone connected the dots and concluded that a fossil shaped like a bone, was the fossilized remains of a formerly living animal. In other words its OK to connect the dots if it doesn't contradict the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I recall that when we discussed this in the past, you did not consider it 'the realm of beliefs' when someone connected the dots and concluded that a fossil shaped like a bone, was the fossilized remains of a formerly living animal. In other words its OK to connect the dots if it doesn't contradict the Bible.

If it contradicts the Holy Bible, then that is a clue that something is wrong.

The Instrictor

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"they have moved into the realm of beliefs"


and do all beliefs hold the same value?[/b]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are some beliefs closer to something
we can show is true, or are they all just beyond our reach? What are
you asking?
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
If it contradicts the Holy Bible, then that is a clue that something is wrong.

The Instrictor

That may be so, but then you must be honest and give that as your objection. If you make up and objection to something because you know it contradicts the Bible, then you are being dishonest.

Originally posted by vistesd
Atheism may be defined as the view that there are no gods.
Broad version: (that of not assenting to the theistic view)
Narrow version: (the claim that the theistic view is false)

This confirms what LJ and others of us have been saying.

Kruger’s “broad view” is equivalent to “weak (or agnostic) atheism”—that is, where one does not believe (or ...[text shortened]... ggested that so-called “weak agnosticism” (don’t know, don’t care) is equivalent to apathism.[quote]

My computer time is limited, so apologies if it seems I don't attend to the issues.

You think your definition for "weak atheism" excludes babies? I don't see how. I appreciate that it does exclude rocks, so kudos for that.

You seem to deny the possibility of, or at least the validity of the term, “implicit atheism” on the part of anyone that has not yet developed the cognitive capacity to consider the question, or on the part of someone who has not (for whatever reason) been exposed to the “god meme”. What better descriptive term would you suggest?

Good question. Non-theist, I suppose. Babies are also non-atheist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That may be so, but then you must be honest and give that as your objection. If you make up and objection to something because you know it contradicts the Bible, then you are being dishonest.

I am not being dishonest. I just don't know any better. I can't do things your way. I only know my way.

The Instructor 😏

Originally posted by apathist
My computer time is limited, so apologies if it seems I don't attend to the issues.

You think your definition for "weak atheism" excludes babies? I don't see how. I appreciate that it does exclude rocks, so kudos for that.

You seem to deny the possibility of, or at least the validity of the term, “implicit atheism” on the part of anyone ...[text shortened]... uld you suggest?

Good question. Non-theist, I suppose. Babies are also non-atheist.

You are wrong to ascribe a derogatory title to someone without just cause. To say that someone's innocent baby is an atheist is very disrepectful. You should be ashamed. However, it appears that most atheists have no respect for another persons beliefs.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong to ascribe a derogatory title to someone without just cause. To say that someone's innocent baby is an atheist is very disrepectful. You should be ashamed. However, it appears that most atheists have no respect for another persons beliefs.

The Instructor

Well, when I was baptized as a presbyterian all those years ago no one asked me my opinion. They couldn't. I hadn't learned to talk. To ascribe theism, atheism or even agnosticism to a new born is ludicrous - they don't have the language to ask those questions or understand the answers.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, when I was baptized as a presbyterian all those years ago no one asked me my opinion. They couldn't. I hadn't learned to talk. To ascribe theism, atheism or even agnosticism to a new born is ludicrous - they don't have the language to ask those questions or understand the answers.

I was not raised in a Christian denomination that believed in baptizing babies. However, I am not saying that is wrong. Most of the time those baptism are considered dedications to the Lord as a promise of the parents to raise their baby in that faith. So the way I believe is that you are not a Christian until you make that decision of your own free well.

The Instructor

Originally posted by apathist
Good question. Non-theist, I suppose. Babies are also non-atheist.

non-theist IS what atheist means.

non-atheist means non-non-theist... which is a double negative and means theist.

Babies are not theists, they are non-theists... they are atheists.

Thank you for making my point.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, when I was baptized as a presbyterian all those years ago no one asked me my opinion. They couldn't. I hadn't learned to talk. To ascribe theism, atheism or even agnosticism to a new born is ludicrous - they don't have the language to ask those questions or understand the answers.

Well I agree that it's not a particularly relevant label.

But if (as you correctly say) babies have not, and indeed cannot, consider
the issue of gods existing then they are by default atheists.

As is anyone else who has no beliefs on the issue.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I agree that it's not a particularly relevant label.

But if (as you correctly say) babies have not, and indeed cannot, consider
the issue of gods existing then they are by default atheists.

As is anyone else who has no beliefs on the issue.

But you have a belief on the issue, so what does that make you?

The Instructor