My Shortest Possible Replies

Originally posted by sonship
I think the genetic fallacy may be worth some attention but not be taken too far.

"Oh you just believe that because you were born here or there ..."

It can apply just as easily to atheism on the level of country, family, school, peers, pop culture, neighborhood etc.

Yeah but that is an argument in atheism's favour...

If your belief in a particular deity is (and it is) very strongly influenced by the culture
you grow up in then that strongly indicates a human origin for the belief in those deities.


Because while that observation is explainable in both the scenario where one or some of
those deities exist and the scenario where none of them exist...
It is far more likely to occur where there are no gods and is thus evidence for the non-existence
of gods.


Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. (evidence but not proof)

The world we observe is far more probable in the scenario where gods don't exist than the one
in which they do. And even within the different scenarios where gods DO exist... This evidence
favours poly, and not mono, theism.


The fact that peoples religious beliefs are heavily influenced by their culture and parents religion
is one of the many observations of this world that are more probable in a world without a god.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"I think the genetic fallacy may be worth some attention but not be taken too far."

what do you mean by 'not taken too far'?

"Oh you just believe that because you were born here or there ..."

thats the essence of what im saying. its correct isnt it? thats why religious demographics are bunched together rather than random. what o ...[text shortened]... er reason is there?

i agree that some atheists are atheist because of their upbringing.[/b]

Everyone is born an atheist.

Atheism doesn't need explaining.

It's the beliefs people adopt after that that require explanation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Everyone is born an atheist.

Atheism doesn't need explaining.

It's the beliefs people adopt after that that require explanation.

'Atheism doesn't need explaining.'

i think 'atheism shouldn't need explaining' would be better.

Everyone is born an atheist.

Atheism doesn't need explaining.

It's the beliefs people adopt after that that require explanation.

Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth.

Originally posted by sonship

Everyone is born an atheist.

Atheism doesn't need explaining.

It's the beliefs people adopt after that that require explanation.

Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth.

There is no claim that a newborn believes to be true concerning the existence or nonexistence of deity, either way. The newborn doesn't even introspect to look for one. It's busy with other things. At least, this is what is meant.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Everyone is born an atheist.
...

Actually, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of gods. Babies haven't rejected gods, and neither have rocks. That is why babies and rocks are not atheists.

Its nice to know that atheism requires more thought than the babies and rocks have put into the subject, yes?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Haha, buckling under the pressure already, are we? 😀

Candor's uncomfortably disarming.

Originally posted by apathist
Actually, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of gods. Babies haven't rejected gods, and neither have rocks. That is why babies and rocks are not atheists.

Its nice to know that atheism requires more thought than the babies and rocks have put into the subject, yes?

You can define atheism any way you want.

Originally posted by apathist
Actually, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of gods. Babies haven't rejected gods, and neither have rocks. That is why babies and rocks are not atheists.

Its nice to know that atheism requires more thought than the babies and rocks have put into the subject, yes?

No atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

If you don't have a belief in the existence of a god or gods then you are an atheist.

Babies don't have beliefs about the existence of gods and are thus atheists...

As is anyone who has never thought about the issue... Which for a long time would
have been a description of me.
I grew up in a post-theist household, the existence of gods didn't even come up.
I was still however an atheist.



Rocks are not atheists or theists because it's a question that only makes sense when
talking about sentient beings that can actually have beliefs.

Originally posted by sonship

Everyone is born an atheist.

Atheism doesn't need explaining.

It's the beliefs people adopt after that that require explanation.

Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth.

Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth.

No it doesn't.

The null hypothesis isn't always the truth... in fact it's often not the truth.


It's the position you [should] start from when you go off to search for the truth.

And you [should] only move from it when you have sufficient justification to do so.


In the case of theism/atheism the null hypothesis IS the correct one.

And it's certainly the default position we are born with.
People have to be taught about the gods they believe in, they are not born believing in
them.

No atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

It is absent because of the presence of an assertion that no God/s exist.

If you don't have a belief in the existence of a god or gods then you are an atheist.

That would make a new born baby an atheist. And as much as you'd like to cloak your philosophy as a default normality I reject that a new born baby is an atheist.

Neither is the stone outside my window or the tree in the yard an Atheist.

Babies don't have beliefs about the existence of gods and are thus atheists...

That doesn't make sense. This is like me saying a Democrat is a person who lacks belief in smaller government - including all new born babies.

This is a failed attempt to put a philosophy in some postion as far beyond criticism as possible. And I think it is a sign of one becoming aware of the weakness of other arguments.

A online theological and philosophical dictionary define Atheism as

" The denial of the existence of God. God does not exist. The idea of God is self-contradictory."

It is a point not worth spending too much time on.
Anyway, babies are neither theists or atheists.

Ooops. This was suppose to be my short answer thread.

Originally posted by sonship

No atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

It is absent because of the presence of an assertion that no God/s exist.

If you don't have a belief in the existence of a god or gods then you are an atheist.

That would make a new born baby an atheist. And as much as you'd like to cloak your philosophy as a defaul ...[text shortened]... re neither theists or atheists.

Ooops. This was suppose to be my short answer thread.

I really don't give a damn what your dictionary says.
Particularly as different dictionary's give differing definitions.
Heck the OED gives different definitions for atheist and atheism.

However every major atheist organisation on the planet gives (basically)
the same definition I use.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

It's simply not-theism... that's what the word means.
As theism is the belief in god or gods then atheism must be the lack of such belief.

There are many many atheists who call themselves such and are members of
atheist organisations who simply lack a belief in gods and don't have any active
disbelief in gods.

There are even some on this website.

There is no middle ground between atheism and theism.

atheism is ultimately limiting as it seeks to reduce everything to a purely material perspective. In failing to make room for the supernatural, nothing in scripture makes sense to them, how can it? yet for those who are prepared to make room for it, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to describe God in Biblical terms. It is the equivalent of looking at the ingredients and trying to determine why the cake was made, the most ludicrous truth claims being made on this basis. There is little rational basis to dismiss the inherent existence of intelligence in the universe, in fact, its inexcusable.

Originally posted by sonship

Everyone is born an atheist.

Atheism doesn't need explaining.

It's the beliefs people adopt after that that require explanation.

Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth.

"Even if we accepted Atheism as somehow the default and normal condition of all human beings from birth it still doesn't insist that it is the truth."


Anybody who spells "atheism" with a capital "A" isn't talking about atheism, they are talking about an imagined ideology. It's a set up.