Atheism: What's the point?

[The Alma Mater]

Nope. They simply do not believe in God, but have no opinion on his nonexistence.
Which makes them implict atheists.

That's agnosticism.

No, agnosticism is a reasoned position. Merely "never having thought about it" is not enough to qualify as an agnost. It does hower implicitly leads to "does not actively belief in a deity" - hence implicit atheism.

Would the people hating the term "implicit atheism" be more comfortable with "nontheism" ?

[Ashmoria]

Nope. They simply do not believe in God, but have no opinion on his nonexistence.
Which makes them implict atheists.

That's agnosticism.

agnosticism implies that you have thought about it.

[Allanea]

Agnosticism is (roughly) the belief that it's impossible to know whether there is a god or not.

No, it is not. I am an agnostic, I know. [Ha! The great irony of that phrase does not escape me!]

Agnosticism is the lack of definite belief either way. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

[The Tofu Islands]

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

And you'd continue to be wrong. The minimal requirement to be atheist is not to believe in gods.

Also, atheist not athiest. It's in the title, you know.

No, it is not. I am an agnostic, I know. [Ha! The great irony of that phrase does not escape me!]

Agnosticism is the lack of definite belief either way. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Explicit atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
Implicit atheism is the lack of belief in any gods.
Agnosticism is the position that it's impossible to know (or that it isn't known) whether there are gods or not.

[Treznor]

Agnosticism is (roughly) the belief that it's impossible to know whether there is a god or not.

No, it is not. I am an agnostic, I know. [Ha! The great irony of that phrase does not escape me!]

Agnosticism is the lack of definite belief either way. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. You don't know if there are gods or not. Atheism is a statement of belief. You don't believe in gods. Put them together, an agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't know if there are gods or not, and doesn't believe there are. "Implicit atheist" is another name for agnostic atheist, not to be confused with an "explicit atheist," someone who believes there definitely are no gods.

[The Alma Mater]

Agnosticism is the lack of definite belief either way

So, are you an atheist agnost, or a theist agnost in daily life ?
Saying "I cannot know for sure" is all fine and dandy, but in practice you must still make a choice. Go to church or not ? Pray or not ?

[Gift-of-god]

Agnosticism is about whether or not is possible to know if god exists. Strong agnostics believe that it is impossible to know god.

This, like theism or explicit atheism, is a faith based belief about the divine.

Weak agnostics do not know if it is possible to know god, but understand that no scientific evidence of god has been shown to exist. This is the position of most of the implicit atheists on the board, as far as I can tell.

Gnostics (I only capitalised it because it's at the beginning of the sentence and as such I do not mean the Christian sects such as Catharism, etc.), such as myself, who believe that the divine is knowable.

Now, I have two beautiful little girls. I've talked to them about religion and god because people keep telling them all sorts of things and I like them to approach everything skeptically. But I noticed that before anyone told them anything about god, they didn't even understand the concept.

For those who wish to claim that babies are agnostic, I would like to know if they are strong agnostics, weak agnostics, or gnostics.

In my opinion, they do not actaully lie anywhere on the spectrum, as they have absolutely no beliefs about the knowability of god. Just like they have no beliefs about the existence of god. So, I would not say that they are agnostic at all.

[Grave_n_idle]

Another interesting point from the article .

I see no point in actually engaging anything you write if you're not going to reply to simple questions.

The only reply you will get from me, to any post you make, will be the same: "Do babies believe in gods"?

Once you answer that, I can perhaps consider indulging you as though you were an active participant.

[Grave_n_idle]

Agnosticism is about whether or not is possible to know if god exists. Strong agnostics believe that it is impossible to know god.

This, like theism or explicit atheism, is a faith based belief about the divine.

Weak agnostics do not know if it is possible to know god, but understand that no scientific evidence of god has been shown to exist. This is the position of most of the implicit atheists on the board, as far as I can tell.

Gnostics (I only capitalised it because it's at the beginning of the sentence and as such I do not mean the Christian sects such as Catharism, etc.), such as myself, who believe that the divine is knowable.

Now, I have two beautiful little girls. I've talked to them about religion and god because people keep telling them all sorts of things and I like them to approach everything skeptically. But I noticed that before anyone told them anything about god, they didn't even understand the concept.

For those who wish to claim that babies are agnostic, I would like to know if they are strong agnostics, weak agnostics, or gnostics.

In my opinion, they do not actaully lie anywhere on the spectrum, as they have absolutely no beliefs about the knowability of god. Just like they have no beliefs about the existence of god. So, I would not say that they are agnostic at all.

This. All of it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Agnosticism is (roughly) the belief that it's impossible to know whether there is a god or not.

No, it is not. I am an agnostic, I know. [Ha! The great irony of that phrase does not escape me!]

Agnosticism is the lack of definite belief either way. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

I'm Agnostic, also. It modifies my Atheism, it doesn't replace it.

Here - take a look at this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

[Canuck Utopia]

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

And you'd continue to be wrong. The minimal requirement to be atheist is not to believe in gods.

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

[The Tofu Islands]

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

Whaa?
Where did I try to argue that white is black?

[Grave_n_idle]

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

Your mis-definition aside, your constant ad hominems grow tiresome. The question remains: "Do babies believe in god"?

[Treznor]

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

And you'd continue to be wrong. The minimal requirement to be atheist is not to believe in gods.

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

You have utterly failed to make your case. You are insisting on a strict definition of a concept as if it were static instead of evolving. That doesn't make you right, it makes you reactionary. Just because you're not willing to join the Twenty-First Century in your thinking doesn't make you right.

[Canuck Utopia]

For those who wish to claim that babies are agnostic, I would like to know if they are strong agnostics, weak agnostics, or gnostics.

In my opinion, they do not actaully lie anywhere on the spectrum, as they have absolutely no beliefs about the knowability of god. Just like they have no beliefs about the existence of god. So, I would not say that they are agnostic at all.

Would you say that they are atheists?

[Phenia]

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

And you'd continue to be wrong. The minimal requirement to be atheist is not to believe in gods.

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

No, he's arguing what atheism is and what it entails, while you are coyly implying atheism is founded on infantile minds, devoid of logic and reason.

He is correct (atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods) and you are merely obnoxious (lol, atheists r dumb lol!)

[Grave_n_idle]

Would you say that they are atheists?

Given that you have lacked the intellectual honesty to answer related questions, yourself - I'm not sure how you justify asking other people such questions.

[Canuck Utopia]

Another interesting point from the article .

I see no point in actually engaging anything you write if you're not going to reply to simple questions.

The only reply you will get from me, to any post you make, will be the same: "Do babies believe in gods"?

Once you answer that, I can perhaps consider indulging you as though you were an active participant.

If you don't like the numerous answers that I have supplied to your question, then I cannot help you. If you do not wish to indulge me any more, that is your choice.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you don't like the numerous answers that I have supplied to your question, then I cannot help you. If you do not wish to indulge me any more, that is your choice.

You have yet to answer the question.

Evasions are not answering it. All it requires is a 'yes' or a 'no', although you can qualify it is you see fit, provided you respond with one of those.

Your constant pretence that you've already answered isn't convincing anyone - there is a search function, and anyone who cares can look back thorugh your post history and see you repeatedly NOT answering it.

But, in order to give you a bit of an out - let's pretend you HAVE answered it, and I've just missed it... and you'll do me the courtesy of answering again now, to cover my blushes.

So - yes or no - 'do babies believe in gods'?

[Canuck Utopia]

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

And you'd continue to be wrong. The minimal requirement to be atheist is not to believe in gods.

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

You have utterly failed to make your case. You are insisting on a strict definition of a concept as if it were static instead of evolving. That doesn't make you right, it makes you reactionary. Just because you're not willing to join the Twenty-First Century in your thinking doesn't make you right.

When all else fails, attack the poster?

I have posted several links to many of your "Twenty-First Century" crusaders, who actually disagree with much of what has been posted by the atheists here, especially in regards to the definition of atheism and also the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

If anyone is in a state of flux, it would appear to be the atheists on this board.

[Grave_n_idle]

When all else fails, attack the poster?

This from the poster that said "the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason"?

Are you KIDDING?

I have posted several links to many of your "Twenty-First Century" crusaders,

And ignored more than that number posted in response.

...who actually disagree with much of what has been posted by the atheists here,

Which is okay. Catholics disagree with Southern Baptists.

... especially in regards to the definition of atheism and also the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

A suggestion so 'absurd' you have yet to actually come right down to it and deal with it.

If anyone is in a state of flux, it would appear to be the atheists on this board.

Atheism is in a state of flux. It is moving from historical perceptions as 'wickedness' to a more mainstream understanding.

This is not a bad thing - and your refusal to update you own perception says more about you, than it does about Atheism.

[The Alma Mater]

the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

[Grave_n_idle]

the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

Canuck apparently wants to rubbish the idea of 'atheist babies' without actually having to defend his/her assertions.

It's an intellectually bankrupt technique, and very poor debate practise.

[Canuck Utopia]

the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

Canuck apparently wants to rubbish the idea of 'atheist babies' without actually having to defend his/her assertions.

It's an intellectually bankrupt technique, and very poor debate practise.

Just to stop your constant trolling, this post best sums up my feeling on the matter. The link to the article is at the bottom.

The key component of that article:

It’s an awesome display of honesty; no child is born with a knowledge of God. At the same time, no child is born with Atheism as their philosophy–and all freethinkers must and do submit to this truth readily.

And the conclusion is rather explicit to the point that I have continually put forward:

So, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews and everyone in between (inlcuding me): how about we educate our babies instead of slapping them with labels. How about we broaden their perspective instead of boxing them into a worldview that worked for us, but may not work for them? Just a thought?

I think that should suffice.

[Dyakovo]

Nope. They simply do not believe in God, but have no opinion on his nonexistence.
Which makes them implict atheists.

That's agnosticism.

No it isn't, agnostic says nothing about belief, it is a statement about knowledge.