Thread: Athiesm is a faith

> Come back a couple of days later
> Three pages of arguing about words
> In 2011

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Correct me if I'm wrong, but agnosticism to me has always been defined as "a belief that the existence of a deity can not be proven or disproven." This sort of reasoning would have to come after comprehending both sides of the theism-atheism argument.
Ergo, I would hesitantly say that babies are implicit atheists, but honestly I don't think there is a word for babies or people who lack the knowledge to believe or not believe in a god. Perhaps "atheognosis" would be the correct (albeit imaginary) term, "a lack of knowledge of the concept of a deity".

Agnostic[ism] The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition,

agnostic: a. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

This is why Agnostic's fall under the realm of knowledge because if the term is misrepresented as "to a belief" it makes it appear as if Agnostics falls somewhere in-between Theist and Atheist as some kind of neutral ground when this is not the case.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Agnostic[ism] The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition,

agnostic: a. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

This is why Agnostic's fall under the realm of knowledge because if the term is misrepresented as "to a belief" it makes it appear as if Agnostics falls somewhere in-between Theist and Atheist as some kind of neutral ground when this is not the case.

I should have been more careful with my wording, but I still hold that agnosticism is a position rather than a lack of one due to the thought that "the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is... unknowable". If babies have never heard of the concept, they couldn't decide that the existence of a deity is unknowable.

Also, Xei, sorry about debating semantics.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I should have been more careful with my wording, but I still hold that agnosticism is a position rather than a lack of one due to the thought that "the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is... unknowable". If babies have never heard of the concept, they couldn't decide that the existence of a deity is unknowable.

I can see how it can very well be confusing and mostly it's because you're looking at agnosticism to be placed within the realm of belief/disbelief and it doesn't belong there. A lack of anything means that a person has the inability to make an intellectual commitment to something, because something is essentially unknown. It can be unknown as a state of non-awareness (babies) meaning belief or disbelief is actually in a pending state following further action and or exposure. In short, the position is basically a position of being "deficient of knowing/unsure". Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get. The reason why, is because we realize that [Acceptance] belief in a concept is possible and [Rejection] disbelief in a concept is equally possible.

If babies never heard of the concept then the concept is essentially unknown to them, i.e.,- knowledge in said concept is lacking or a deficiency in knowledge.

You are using a lot of work just to try to avoid saying babies are atheist. If you believe in god then you believe in god. If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in god. Those are you two choices. So if you ask someone who never heard of god, "Do you believe in god?" If they do not say yes, then by default they don't believe in god. And of course they are not going to say yes, because they never heard of it. If you are not sure, then you don't believe there is a god. If you think god is impossible to know, then you do believe there is a kind of god. If you don't think there is a god, but think if there is he would be unknowable, then you don't believe in god.

Agnostic are in most cases also atheists, though some times they can be doubting theists and stuff.

Agnostic lies in the realm of knowledge i.e., without knowledge can this "lack of knowledge" refer to the absence of available knowledge?

That didn't make any sense. If you lack knowledge, then yes you lack knowledge, but that is totally irreverent to the conversation.

I don't see how it's irrelevant to the conversation when the focus of our general discussion appears to be "the lack of something".

A baby is without knowledge in a concept, having a "lack of knowledge/absence of available knowledge" in a concept. Can you explain to me why a baby is not labeled as Agnostic?

ok, so babies are agnostic atheists. Happy?

(though some would say that "agnostic" doesn't juts mean "I don't know" but rather, "I can't know" and so you have to know ABOUT the question you claim you can't ever know the answer to - but we can argue pointlessly about that in a separate, equally-pointless thread)

Babies exist in the state of blissful ignorance that's characterized by pure innocence and absence of knowledge. Ie they live in the garden of eden. Upon learning human language and beginning to collect knowledge they eat of the fruit of that cursed tree and are cast out by God. Because let's not forget it was God himself who forbade us knowledge - let's face it, a happy Christian is a Christian who doesn't think too deeply and follows orders well. This is why they tend to be so willing and eager to twist words and meanings to support their belief system.

Because that's what the story of the Garden really is - it teaches that Man began in an animalistic state of blissful ignorance, but when he sought knowledge (became human) God was angry and filled him with the thought that knowledge is somehow innately evil and to be avoided. This is original sin - this idea. The idea planted by God. He sinned against Man by denying him knowledge and growth. Then he punished Man for that sin by giving him a religion that rewards ignorance and punishes thinking.

Agnostic is basically, "I don't know." Or "Maybe", or "It is impossible to know." "I don't understand the question." Is not agnostic. The only time agnostic means lack of knowledge is when taken in the philosophical sense , when you believe that we humans can't really understand god. Though a baby doesn't know philosophy and isn't thinking of things on that level. Agnostic requires knowledge on the subject a baby isn't going to know. It requires you taking the stance that you think its to hard to understand god, and if you never heard you god you can not take that stance.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm curious as to what this lack of belief is based on. I know every Atheist is different but whichever Atheist responds to this, I'm curious as to what you're basing your lack of belief off of.

I know it's a bit late, but figured I'd answer this:
When I was 8 years old, I realised that an all powerful immortal eternal being could not exist and there was no evidence. I basically realised that the Bible was just a fairy tale. That's what started it all. When I was 11, I learned of the term "atheist" on the internet.
So basically, I was brought up to believe it, but realised that it was just a credible as Santa Claus/the Easter Bunny/ghosts, so I stopped believing. My "lack of belief" in a god is comparable to my lack of belief in aforementioned supernatural beings.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I can understand your point BLUELINE thanks for clearing that up. This sounds more like Agnosticism to me, in which to be honest, is where I believe babies are rightfully categorized. So in short, Implicit Atheism lacks the positive belief in a God thus, does not believe in a God. Can we conclude that this position would equally lack the opposite belief, that there is NOT a God?

I'm pretty sure you've answered this already but just to confirm, feel free to entertain it.

I think Alric's post provides a sufficient reply for your first statement(s) regarding agnosticism. Choosing agnosticism is indeed too advanced for a baby for they don't even have a concept to work with and decide if the truth or existence of it is unknown/unknowable. It's unknown to them, but that does not necessarily make them agnostic.

As for your second point, yes we can, and I said that in what you quoted:

Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God.

I basically realised that the Bible was just a fairy tale.

Well, that's overstating it a bit. Even as an avowed atheist I concede this - there are lies, there are fables and fairy tales, then there are myths. And then there are religions. This is a spectrum of profoundness. Religions hold the most profound truths about mankind and the universe, but they must be understood metaphorically and not literally.

Take a look at Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down and look at the origins of myth section. It lists 4 main ways for myths to come to be. The first Euhemerism, which they explain are tales of real events that are distorted until they become mystical in nature. Allegory, which they are said are used to explain natural phenomenon. Personification. Personification of inanimate objects and natural forces and making them into gods. The myth-ritual theory, where people make up reasons for rituals they do but forgot the original reason for doing.

If you go over it, you realize that the bible uses all of them. The bible is packed with allegory, and personification of natural events, with god being things like fire and lightning. And real events are often distorted until like a single man is doing impossible tasks. And Christianity is filled with strange rituals that are explain by stories.

Then you scroll down to the function of mythology section. It lists the main reason for myths is to establish models for behavior, exactly what the bible does.

Religion and myths are both the same thing. Of course as someone who can appreciate literature, there is a lot of learn about early man from the literature and myths of the time. Stories, even made up ones, help explain the human condition. Like you said, you just can't take them literally.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, that's overstating it a bit. Even as an avowed atheist I concede this - there are lies, there are fables and fairy tales, then there are myths. And then there are religions. This is a spectrum of profoundness. Religions hold the most profound truths about mankind and the universe, but they must be understood metaphorically and not literally.

The same can be said about nearly all fairy tales (the ones before the 20th century anyway). They all hold very obscure metaphors, meanings and can be incredibly profound. Holy books just consolidate them.

What I meant in my post is that the Bible has no more foundation in reality than your average fairytale, except for maybe a few of the non-supernatural stories that can be confirmed through other texts and historic evidence.

Originally Posted by Replicon

ok, so babies are agnostic atheists. Happy?

(though some would say that "agnostic" doesn't juts mean "I don't know" but rather, "I can't know" and so you have to know ABOUT the question you claim you can't ever know the answer to - but we can argue pointlessly about that in a separate, equally-pointless thread)

Agnostic and atheist are two independent concepts so why tack on the word atheist? A baby doesn't have a belief and atheism lies in the realm of belief. Can you see how silly it is when you try to manipulate the words to fit your own ulterior motive?

Originally Posted by Marvo

I know it's a bit late, but figured I'd answer this:
When I was 8 years old, I realised that an all powerful immortal eternal being could not exist and there was no evidence. I basically realised that the Bible was just a fairy tale. That's what started it all. When I was 11, I learned of the term "atheist" on the internet.
So basically, I was brought up to believe it, but realised that it was just a credible as Santa Claus/the Easter Bunny/ghosts, so I stopped believing. My "lack of belief" in a god is comparable to my lack of belief in aforementioned supernatural beings.

Thanks Marvo for answering, I appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Alric

The only time agnostic means lack of knowledge is when taken in the philosophical sense , when you believe that we humans can't really understand god.

Unknown is unknown it doesn't require philosophy. Based off the general understanding of Agnostic the following are all within the definition of agnostic as you yourself mentioned.

• I don't know.
• Maybe
• It is impossible to know

None of these are required relations toward a philosophical thought process in order for them to work under agnostic. They're all automatically supported by agnostic[ism] if by nothing else but mere definition alone. You can be agnostic toward a variety of things.

Originally Posted by Alric

Though a baby doesn't know philosophy and isn't thinking of things on that level. Agnostic requires knowledge on the subject a baby isn't going to know. It requires you taking the stance that you think its to hard to understand god, and if you never heard you god you can not take that stance.

If you've never heard of God you cannot take a position of disbelief either which is of Atheism. Agnostic doesn't exist in the realm of belief's which is why it works much better for babies.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think Alric's post provides a sufficient reply for your first statement(s) regarding agnosticism. Choosing agnosticism is indeed too advanced for a baby for they don't even have a concept to work with and decide if the truth or existence of it is unknown/unknowable. It's unknown to them, but that does not necessarily make them agnostic.

A baby cannot have any sort of disbelief either so how can they be labeled as any type of Atheist? When atheism as a whole lies in the realm of beliefs?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

As for your second point, yes we can, and I said that in what you quoted:

Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God.

Ok then, it can equally be said that you do not believe that God does not exist.

You see what I did there? Let me ask you something, are you familiar with raising exceptional-case marker-Neg verbs from the subordinate clause (where it rightfully belongs) and shifting it to the main clause of the sentence? Because that's what you're doing and people normally do things like that in hopes of controlling an argument.

If you're unaware that you're doing this then you should probably read this.

web.mit.edu/linguistics

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

A baby cannot have any sort of disbelief either so how can they be labeled as any type of Atheist? When atheism as a whole lies in the realm of beliefs?

Implicit disbelief. I just explained it...

Ok then, it can equally be said that you do not believe that God does not exist.

Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God.

The red-colored part is a positive statement. You must have heard of the concept of God if you say you believe God does not exist. This is not so for the blue-colored part.

There is no 'realm of belief'. You either believe you or don't believe. It is like you either have a chair or you do not have a chair. You have a computer or you do not have a computer. You have a left hand or you do not have a left hand. If you don't believe in a god, then regardless of the reason your an atheist. If you don't believe in god because you never heard of him, you are still an atheist.

Let me repeat that, if you do not believe in god, then regardless of the reason you are an atheist. By the definition of the word atheist, if you do not believe in a god, then you are an atheist. Do babies believe in god? No, they are atheist. Does it matter if they lack understanding in god or not? No, because the reason doesn't matter. If you don't believe in god you are an atheist, by the definition of the word.

So I ask you, do babies believe in god? If not, then they don't believe in god, and if they don't believe in god they are atheists. End of story.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Implicit disbelief. I just explained it...

Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God.

The red-colored part is a positive statement. You must have heard of the concept of God if you say you believe God does not exist. This is not so for the blue-colored part.

But you're still raising, why? Let me show you something.

BLUELINE does not believe in God -means- BLUELINE believes God does not exist,

-it does not mean that BLUELINE doesn't have any beliefs about God. This is why Atheism, rather you want to admit it or not lies in the realm of beliefs.

Originally Posted by Alric

There is no 'realm of belief'. You either believe you or don't believe. It is like you either have a chair or you do not have a chair. You have a computer or you do not have a computer. You have a left hand or you do not have a left hand. If you don't believe in a god, then regardless of the reason your an atheist. If you don't believe in god because you never heard of him, you are still an atheist.

Let me repeat that, if you do not believe in god, then regardless of the reason you are an atheist. By the definition of the word atheist, if you do not believe in a god, then you are an atheist. Do babies believe in god? No, they are atheist. Does it matter if they lack understanding in god or not? No, because the reason doesn't matter. If you don't believe in god you are an atheist, by the definition of the word.

So I ask you, do babies believe in god? If not, then they don't believe in god, and if they don't believe in god they are atheists. End of story.

A - Belief with X is true - theos - theist <---This is [acceptance]
B - Belief without X is true - a-theos - atheist <---This is [rejection]
C - Unsure -pending A or B <---this is the true lack of belief. -[A]gnostic

Atheisim is a belief -its a belief that a concept is false bottom line.

For one to be atheist a conclusion
Drawn for them must be

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

But you're still raising, why? Let me show you something.

BLUELINE does not believe in God -means- BLUELINE believes God does not exist.

No it doesn't. You're combining strong an weak atheism into a single concept there, even though they are different.

X says, "I do not believe that aliens exist". This means that X has a lack of a belief that aliens exist. X concedes that aliens could exist, but X finds no reason to believe that they do exist.
Y says, "I believe that aliens do not exist". This means that Y has a positive belief that aliens do not exist. Y concedes that he does not even think aliens even could exist.

The former is weak atheism, the latter is strong. There is a difference, and semantics-debating losers like me consider it to be significant.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

But you're still raising, why? Let me show you something.

BLUELINE does not believe in God -means- BLUELINE believes God does not exist,

-it does not mean that BLUELINE doesn't have any beliefs about God. This is why Atheism, rather you want to admit it or not lies in the realm of beliefs.

Why does it not make sense to say: "A person who has never heard of God does not believe in God?"

Is Atheism based on Faith?

Check it out