Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 07:45 pm
I wrote this tonight and i do want an answer to any one of the consequent qestionings that came from the original and most important question 'what is an athiest?' you will see somewhat what my findings are as well as what my losses are. Thought of putting it in gereral but realised it is a matter of knowledge and although i still have little real true understanding small grasp about what epistemology is, i heard once it was to do with the nature of knowledge, the nature of knowing and this is a quest more than a base question, this is process over punctuality, projection over place which i do here tonight try to convey is the quest for understanding and of the knowledge and basis of the athiest, i hope you like it.

And i dont think it is even finished because i have not edited it either, this is my second draft, again i hope you at least enjoy it.

What is an athiest?
The dictionary says; person who does not believe in God.
Athiest is a person, a person who does not believe in God.
God is not believable.
God is not believed.
God is unbelieved.
Does an athiest still have belief?
Does an athiest only have disbelief?
Does this lack of belief in God still mean they can believe in other things?
First, what is God?
What is it that they do not hold trust or as truth?
What is God?
The dictionary says; noun, 1 in many beliefs, a devine or superhuman being with power over nature and the human race, and often an object of worship.
2 (God) in th eChristian and other religions, the supreme being and creator of the universe and the human race, an object of worship.
3 a man greatly admired especially for his fine physique or wide influence.
4 often derog. an object of excessive worship or influence, he made money his god-- the gods the area of the balcony or upper circle in a theatre [from Anglo Saxon god].
So what does the dictionary say God is or God is not?
God is devine.
(Does devinity exist?)
God is power.
Power that controls the universes, worlds and peoples or persons.
Power over.
(does this say God is the power under?)
(yes, under and over, creator and controllor)
God is worship.
But God is not the only thing worshipped?
Depends if you believe God is the only thing to be worshipped or is the only thing even besides that which is worshipped.
(Is God everything so anyhting that is worshipped is ultimately worshipping God?)
God is the object of recognition we do not control the universes, worlds and its peoples or persons.
(God is recognised, recognisable?)
(God is reasonable?)
(God is uncontrolable?)
(God is objectifyable?)
(Do we need to objectify God to be able to see IT?)
(Is an athiest without objectivity?)
(NO surely not, YES surly so?)
God is that which is supreme, that which must be first because It is above.
(God is better than the below?)
(No because we confirmed that God is the above as is the below)
(And yet Yes somehow?)
God is the image, is the class, the concept of prefection.
As close to perfect as perfect is possible.
(perfection may not exist?)
God may not exist?
Did i say or not that God was is will be perfect?
If perfection does not exist, the absence of this perfection does not preclude Gods existence.
Does the conclusion of prefection or imperfection exist?
Do you conclude that there is no God because there is no perfection?
Do you conclude that there is a God because ther eis perfection?
Do you conclude the existance or non existance have anyhting to do with perfection or imperfection?
God was is will be perfect?
Man was is will be perfect?
God was is will be Man?
Man was is will be God?
Did we conclude what God is or isn't?
Must you make a conclusion to know God is not?
Must you make a conclusion to know God is?

Back to the start which we have not finsihed with.
What is an athiest?
A man?
A position?
A mind?
Positionless?
What is a man?
Is a man an athiest?
Can something else be an athiest?
Can an animal be an athiest?
Can the dead be an athiest?
Can a god be an athiest?
Can a man not believe in man?
(Do you not believe in men if you dont cant wont believe in God?)
Do you not believe God if you dont cant wont believe in man?
But an athiest does not believe in God, not not believe in man?
What does an athiest not believe?
Is an athiest what is not more than what is?
Is an athiest what is more than what is not?
What is NOT God?
Is everything perfect?
Is everything imperfect?
Can everything become perfect?
Can everything become imperfect?
Is everything supreme? above?
Is everything supremeless? below?
Again to be above and below is to be both supreme or be both supremeless?
Is everything God?
Is everything not God?
(Can you believe not if the not is not believable?)
(Can you only believe what can be believed?)
Does belief make real?
Does real make belief?
Is God belief?
Is belief God?
And what is unreal if it is not believed?
Are you without God if you dont cant wont believe?
Is God still the unbelieved?
Can you not believe, can you believe not?
Can you believe?
And just because you can or cannot believe does this make any less real?
Can nothing or not be not believed?
(Can any other be real but that whcih is or not believed?)
(is real the unbelieved?)
Can believed be not or not nothing?
We still have not varified that God is belief or faith?
We have varified that God is whether belived and real or not belived and real.
Just as we have varified that God is not whether believed and not real or believed not and not real.
But we must take a look at this for a second.
For this proves that GOd even if not real or believed hold more purchase and is more believable than not believed.
God can still exist even if not real. Believed or not.
Not real exists less. Unbelievable.
Just as we have not varified an athiest is one without faith or belief.
Is God even if not believed?
Is an athiest even if believed?
Can you be and not believe?
Can you believe and not be?

If God is everything from whence It comes and to the fro;
To believe is to know?
To know is to believe?
Can you know and not believe? (it)
Can you not believe if you know? (it)
Can you not know and believe?
Can you believe and not know?
(Can you know and believe?)
(Can you know not and not believe?)
Off track;

What is an athiest but this belief?
What is an athiest but this belief less?
Can you unbelieve?
Can the belief be unbelievable?
Can the unbelievable be belief?

What is an athiest?
To know or be able to describe this you must answer what God is or isn't.
To answer what God is or isn't you must be able to know or describe this.
'This' being the is isn't.
To know what something is, a something that is based on or in that somethings belief. As well as isn't something.
(Isn't belief?)
You must know or describe the thing you know is not.
The thing you know is not must be indescribable?
Must you know or believe to be able to know or beleive what is not?
How can you know what soemthing is if you dont believe it exists?
How can you know something is not if you dont know what something is not?
To know and understand what something is, that is an isn't, that is knowing something is an absence, you must also know and understand what the absence is.
What is absence?
Is it lack?
Is it less?
Can there be more?
If we know we are without, does this mean that there is meant to be something there?
To feel less means we are less?
To be without means there is something to get?
Something to get means we can be more?
More or less? Less or more?

To not believe, means you need to know what it is that is unbelievable.
Just as to believe, means you need ot know what is believable?

To know what isn't means you need to know what is.

To know God is not, you need to know what God is.
And end and begin where we all end and begin, the self believed.
We believe our selves to not believe.
We believe ourselves to believe.
We dont believe ourselves to not believe?
We dont believe ourselves to believe?

But what if you dont know what that God is? how can you then know what that God is not?

I know it may not count but to me, but i believ God is everything, and everything is belief.
So i find it hard to think know believe an athiest even exists.
Because to exist is to believe.
Because to believe is to exist.
And if you dont cant wont believe you dont cant wont exist.

What is an athiest?
If thier existance is because of their not, what is their existance but their not?

What is not God?
What is God not?

What is not an athiest?
What is athiest an not?
(What is an not athiest?)
(What is athiest not an?)
(What athiest is an not?)
(What athiest not an is?)
(What athiest is not an?)
(What athiest not is an?)

What is God?

What is athiest?

(I really have no idea)
(what is a not?)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 6,634 • Replies: 81
No top replies

 
pshingle
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 08:41 pm
@sometime sun,
I, a devout athiest, consider myself someone who rejects the belief of divinity based not on any certain beliefs or principals, but rather by considering basic logical thought and philosophy. I consider "god" an entity that is related to divinity. I consider "God" a Abrahamic school of thought that focuses on a singlar being that is coherant with the Trinity.
Owen phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 04:12 am
@sometime sun,
A theist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is true.
An atheist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is false.
A non-theist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is true.
A non-atheist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is false.

Atheists are included in non-theists, but not all non-theists are atheists.

For example: a new born baby is a non-theist (and a non-atheist), but a baby cannot be an atheist.. nor can a baby be a theist.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:07 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;139513 wrote:
A theist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is true.
An atheist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is false.
A non-theist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is true.
A non-atheist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is false.

Atheists are included in non-theists, but not all non-theists are atheists.

For example: a new born baby is a non-theist (and a non-atheist), but a baby cannot be an atheist.. nor can a baby be a theist.


Your last line is something that most theists neglect to realize.

I would also like to add there are many things that theists do not believe in so in those cases they are atheists. For example if you are a christian, and you were asked, "Do you believe in the existence of Zeus?" If your answer is no, then you are atheist to the belief in Zeus.

So in a sense everyone is atheist or non-theists. You can go down the line of gods. This is something that most Christians also neglect to realize. They always assume when you talk about a god that you are referring directly to their god. But as as soon as you start to talk about other gods their eyes gloss over as if you are talking about something totally unrelated.

Most christians are atheists towards all other gods.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:21 am
@pshingle,
pshingle;139432 wrote:
I, a devout athiest, consider myself someone who rejects the belief of divinity based not on any certain beliefs or principals, but rather by considering basic logical thought and philosophy. I consider "god" an entity that is related to divinity. I consider "God" a Abrahamic school of thought that focuses on a singlar being that is coherant with the Trinity.

Part of my questioning is (and you illustrate it beautifully) can one be an athiest and hold any faith?
Is athiest the ultimate faithless?
You are a 'devout' athiest?
Please, please, please describe your devoutness?
Owen phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:37 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;139537 wrote:
Your last line is something that most theists neglect to realize.

I would also like to add there are many things that theists do not believe in so in those cases they are atheists. For example if you are a christian, and you were asked, "Do you believe in the existence of Zeus?" If your answer is no, then you are atheist to the belief in Zeus.

So in a sense everyone is atheist or non-theists. You can go down the line of gods. This is something that most Christians also neglect to realize. They always assume when you talk about a god that you are referring directly to their god. But as as soon as you start to talk about other gods their eyes gloss over as if you are talking about something totally unrelated.

Most christians are atheists towards all other gods.


Agreed. Most theists consider that other gods are merely myths.
I maintain that all gods, indeed all spiritual understandings are merely mythical.
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:47 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;139513 wrote:
A theist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is true.
An atheist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is false.
A non-theist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is true.
A non-atheist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is false.

Atheists are included in non-theists, but not all non-theists are atheists.

For example: a new born baby is a non-theist (and a non-atheist), but a baby cannot be an atheist.. nor can a baby be a theist.

A new born baby is just as much a theist as a non-theist.
A baby does not yet know what to believe, does not enduce the baby does not believe.
Just as what a baby knows what to believe enduces belief.
How do you know what keeps a baby still and quite and contented is not a total trust and belief in something that they may as well call God for it is their universe and what not just controls them but that which allows them to live at all? Sorry, allows them to trust at all? Not to mention growth.
They dont know what they trust, they may know mother and they may know father, they dont know that their mother and father are not God.
Infact if you want to take it that step more, to believe in God no matter what age you are is total infanthood, is totally childhood, is totally contented, totally controled and totally controlable, and the better off for it.
Christ was a child, Christ is a child. (for instance)
This just means i can be a child also.
I never need to grow up.
I am even the better for being ungrown.
I can always trust everything.
I can be happy.
I can just know i am not alone.
How is any of this different to what a child holds?
The difference is we forget to believe,
we remember to forget to trust.
we forget to remember to believe.
We just are and we just live without fear.
We are innocent again always, we can breath and take milk.
We know why the fountains flow.
We can know our crying will be ceased,
else why cry in the first place? (crying is not just for last place)
Unless we believe we know we will be solved, soothed and sanctuaried.?
Unless we have faith we will be saved,
we are not chilren anymore.

Think about that, a baby can be a thiest but certainly not athiest.
Owen phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:58 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;139550 wrote:
A new born baby is just as much a theist as a non-theist.
A baby does not yet know what to believe, does not enduce the baby does not believe.
Just as what a baby knows what to believe enduces belief.
How do you know what keeps a baby still and quite and contented is not a total trust and belief in something that they may as well call God for it is their universe and what not just controls them but that which allows them to live at all? Sorry, allows them to trust at all? Not to mention growth.
They dont know what they trust, they may know mother and they may know father, they dont know that their mother and father are not God.
Infact if you want to take it that step more, to believe in God no matter what age you are is total infanthood, is totally childhood, is totally contented, totally controled and totally controlable, and the better off for it.
Christ was a child, Christ is a child. (for instance)
This just means i can be a child also.
I never need to grow up.
I am even the better for being ungrown.
I can always trust everything.
I can be happy.
I can just know i am not alone.
How is any of this different to what a child holds?
The difference is we forget to believe,
we remember to forget to trust.
we forget to remember to believe.
We just are and we just live without fear.
We are innocent again always, we can breath and take milk.
We know why the fountains flow.
We can know our crying will be ceased,
else why cry in the first place? (crying is not just for last place)
Unless we believe we know we will be solved, soothed and sanctuaried.?
Unless we have faith we will be saved,
we are not chilren anymore.


"A new born baby is just as much a theist as a non-theist."

Nonsense, nobody can be theist and atheist about a particular god.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:58 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;139537 wrote:


So in a sense everyone is atheist or non-theists.

So in a sense everyone is thiest or theist-non.
ItMustBeKate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:59 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;139543 wrote:
Part of my questioning is (and you illustrate it beautifully) can one be an athiest and hold any faith?
Is athiest the ultimate faithless?


I wouldn't say atheism was ultimately faithless. It's about where you place your faith. It is possible for an atheist to have complete faith in humanity (difficult, as we can see its inherent flaws wherever we look). Faith in something that cannot be sensed, interacted with or questioned is an easy way out: when faith in ourselves and our peers has dwindled, something we cannot argue with to 'have faith in' gives us a hassle free angle on the world, easily a passive one. It is harder but more productive to place your faith in things that can come good (in this life), for you and others, from your hard work.

My question from that: how can one sustain faith in something one can't reliably test?
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 07:03 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;139554 wrote:
"A new born baby is just as much a theist as a non-theist."

Nonsense, nobody can be theist and atheist about a particular god.

I thought we concluded that to be a thesit or athiest is non God specific.
It is the nature of thieism atheism to have faith and belief something does or does not exist, not what exists, not what does not exist, what is, what is not, what you live and what you live not. What you exist, what you exist not. All existance is belief, the practicing and the ignoring.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 01:16 PM ----------

ItMustBeKate;139559 wrote:

My question from that: how can one sustain faith in something one can't reliably test?

Your question has earned some time, it is a good question, i just dont have the time right now or its my patience acting up.
But will just quickly say you describe faith as an exersise, exorcise an exclusion.
What i am prposing is that faith is actually a natural reflex, we naturally believe, we naturally trust, we naturally concieve, but the world as we grow 'old' beats this sense out of us. Beats the very truth and sense we are all born with.
We cry to let it be known we need to be saved.
Why would we cry at all if we did not believe this bleeting will solve our comfort safety?
Why would we cry if we did not think someone might answer? someone might care for us?
We dont know what our parents are as much as what we do not know God is when we scream to heaven, but we will always expect an answer from God heaven or earth.
We naturally trust, we naturally are theists.
If Christ taught us nothing it is that any man can be God and any God a man.
Born to cry, born to answer the call.
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 08:49 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;139560 wrote:
I thought we concluded that to be a thesit or athiest is non God specific.
It is the nature of thieism atheism to have faith and belief something does or does not exist, not what exists, not what does not exist, what is, what is not, what you live and what you live not. What you exist, what you exist not. All existance is belief, the practicing and the ignoring.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 01:16 PM ----------


Your question has earned some time, it is a good question, i just dont have the time right now or its my patience acting up.
But will just quickly say you describe faith as an exersise, exorcise an exclusion.
What i am prposing is that faith is actually a natural reflex, we naturally believe, we naturally trust, we naturally concieve, but the world as we grow 'old' beats this sense out of us. Beats the very truth and sense we are all born with.
We cry to let it be known we need to be saved.
Why would we cry at all if we did not believe this bleeting will solve our comfort safety?
Why would we cry if we did not think someone might answer? someone might care for us?
We dont know what our parents are as much as what we do not know God is when we scream to heaven, but we will always expect an answer from God heaven or earth.
We naturally trust, we naturally are theists.
If Christ taught us nothing it is that any man can be God and any God a man.
Born to cry, born to answer the call.


once i thought i was an atheist-for a decade or two. and i had no faith or belief in anything else either-not humanity, life, the cosmos, myself, not anything at all. or at least i didnt think i did then...but like you say, even when you believe you cannot cry any more and it is no use at all, something bad enough will happen to you that the cry is torn out of your soul. it is always answered unless it is fake.

and i think babies must be born with faith otherwise why would they have such happy little faces? it is when they cry and no one answers that the frowns begin, and the doubts and the questions.

do you know there are babies who are starving to death before they are born? they cry and learn that no one answers them because they are still hungry and by the time they are born they have stopped crying.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 09:00 am
@salima,
We make of man and child athiest.

All Born to cry, All born to answer the call.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:15 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;139556 wrote:
So in a sense everyone is thiest or theist-non.


Why are you taking out of context what I was saying? You are not even backing what makes everyone a theist? Just because you say something it doesn't make it a factual statement. I proved my statement but where is yours? Otherwise you just sound silly.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 01:17 pm
@Krumple,

Question;
Krumple;139632 wrote:
Why are you taking out of context what I was saying? You are not even backing what makes everyone a theist? Just because you say something it doesn't make it a factual statement. I proved my statement but where is yours? Otherwise you just sound silly.

Answer;
sometime sun;139550 wrote:
A new born baby is just as much a theist as a non-theist.
A baby does not yet know what to believe, does not enduce the baby does not believe.
Just as what a baby knows what to believe enduces belief.
How do you know what keeps a baby still and quite and contented is not a total trust and belief in something that they may as well call God for it is their universe and what not just controls them but that which allows them to live at all? Sorry, allows them to trust at all? Not to mention growth.
They dont know what they trust, they may know mother and they may know father, they dont know that their mother and father are not God.
Infact if you want to take it that step more, to believe in God no matter what age you are is total infanthood, is totally childhood, is totally contented, totally controled and totally controlable, and the better off for it.
Christ was a child, Christ is a child. (for instance)
This just means i can be a child also.
I never need to grow up.
I am even the better for being ungrown.
I can always trust everything.
I can be happy.
I can just know i am not alone.
How is any of this different to what a child holds?
The difference is we forget to believe,
we remember to forget to trust.
we forget to remember to believe.
We just are and we just live without fear.
We are innocent again always, we can breath and take milk.
We know why the fountains flow.
We can know our crying will be ceased,
else why cry in the first place? (crying is not just for last place)
Unless we believe we know we will be solved, soothed and sanctuaried.?
Unless we have faith we will be saved,
we are not chilren anymore.

Think about that, a baby can be a thiest but certainly not athiest.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 01:29 pm
@sometime sun,
There still is nothing there. You are tossing out statements left and right.

Show me how a baby has belief. I wouldn't call it belief. In child pyschology an infant tests the waters sort of speak for learning how to interact with it's environment. When a particular desire is not met, it attempts to complete the goal through another means. If that means fails it tries again using another method.

For example a baby actually learns that crying works because what typically happens is the parent shows up. So if the baby was hungry it might resort to crying as an attempt to solve the hunger problem. It doesn't always use this method. You can't say belief is at work because it does not always use the same method, until it learns that a particular method is effective. Only then does it rely on that method for success.

So the child isn't believing anything. There is no belief system there at all. It is nothing more than trial and error learning process. However basic that is what is happening.

So there are no babies that are theistic, it is impossible. Not to mention that god is imaginary anyways so why would a baby even care to begin with? I think what you are trying to do is cater to your belief as if it some how solidifies the existence of god if a baby can have a belief system. It is just not the case.
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:15 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple i will respectfully disagree, because to me you have not proved a baby is non-theistic at least no more or less than theistic.
It is all about trust, trust is faith, a baby does not know it is not God that answers just as it does not know it is God unanswering.
It sure is part of my belief, bu ti would say the same of you.
Both sides cannot be totaly discounted just as both cant be totaly reasoned.
We cant know what a baby does or does not hold faith in, what faith is even, but we can know that a baby is not conflicted, a baby doe snot have faith issues, it either has faith, which my point being is that to have faith in anything invisible is to have faith in the devine, God only come sinto it so much as to describe the blind faith one experiences when to doubt is only when doubt has been learned.
They have no way of distinguishing their parents are not God, but the trust and faith they hold is in my mind theistic.
Can you believe in something and not know what you are believing in?
Of course you can, all faith is unbelievable, it is the unbelievable believed.
Just because soemthing such as a parent is present and accountable doe snot mean what they are concieved as is any more or any the less thiestic and faithful.
It is about the invisible trust involved, God is not a requesite of theism, just as i would say Godless is not a requesite of atheism.
I see my flaw, but it is a mirrored flaw, if a theist has this then so does atheist, one will be the negative one the positive.

Thanks for your time, and i only mind if i am silly if you cant see the funny, which means i probably should be mindful, shouldn't i?
Shame i dont really want to care about this, but if it matters to you, it ought matter to me.
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 02:24 pm
@Owen phil,
Owen;139513 wrote:
A theist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is true.
An atheist is a person who does believe that 'God exists' is false.
A non-theist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is true.
A non-atheist is a person who does not believe that 'God exists' is false.

Atheists are included in non-theists, but not all non-theists are atheists.

For example: a new born baby is a non-theist (and a non-atheist), but a baby cannot be an atheist.. nor can a baby be a theist.


But doesn't "a" as a prefix have a definition? Something like "absence of, without, not". So a baby is an atheist; it is not a theist.

Atheist as someone who denies the existence of god is just connotation.
0 Replies
 
pshingle
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 06:34 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;139543 wrote:
Part of my questioning is (and you illustrate it beautifully) can one be an athiest and hold any faith?
Is athiest the ultimate faithless?
You are a 'devout' athiest?
Please, please, please describe your devoutness?


The faith that is present in my belief is my faith in the absence of what people consider to be "god". Faith is just as important to an atheist as it is to a theist, just that my faith is put in what I believe is most likely to exist. I am devout to my beliefs in the way that I have spent countless years searching for other answers and, while I am still searching, I have yet to find anything that would better explain our existence as a universe, world, and species.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 08:43 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;139665 wrote:
Krumple i will respectfully disagree, because to me you have not proved a baby is non-theistic at least no more or less than theistic.


It doesn't need to be proven, because the status of theology is a belief in it not the absence of it.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

It is all about trust, trust is faith,


This is where you are wrong. The baby is not acting on impulses of trust, it is using a very simplified trial and error method to obtain what it needs. We know this because later just before a child begins to speak, they can teach it a very simplified sign language. Does god exist in this simplified sign language? No. Only things that pertain to it's needs exist in that language. Therefore if it assumed god was somewhere, why wouldn't it request such a meaning? It doesn't because god is taught far later down the line.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

a baby does not know it is not God that answers just as it does not know it is God unanswering.


This has got to be one of the silliest things you have said so far. Because the concept itself is still not even known by you. You seem to change your definition on a daily basis of what god is so why would a baby have any preconceived notion of god is delivering it's needs? That is just absurd. It would be no different than the baby thinking the flying pink elephant is the thing that brings it milk.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

It sure is part of my belief, bu ti would say the same of you.
Both sides cannot be totaly discounted just as both cant be totaly reasoned.


I know you like to play this game of if it can't be seen from one side then just flip it around and then it will make sense. It doesn't work this way. I can point it out to you. Ever seen an infant put things into its mouth? This is a simplified way to determine if the thing is eatable or a way of classifying it in a simple way. How does a baby put god into it's mouth? It can't but you will insist that it just invents the concept. It doesn't do that only you do that after you were taught it by someone else. Just like later that infant will be taught concepts. If these concepts were already instilled then the baby would be telling it's parents to stop, because it already knows what stuff is. That doesn't happen.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

We cant know what a baby does or does not hold faith in, what faith is even, but we can know that a baby is not conflicted, a baby doe snot have faith issues, it either has faith, which my point being is that to have faith in anything invisible is to have faith in the devine, God only come sinto it so much as to describe the blind faith one experiences when to doubt is only when doubt has been learned.


All of that is purely you inventing it. There is no faith or trust in infancy. Like I have mentioned before in the previous post. The child learns by trial and error, that does not have any room for trust.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

They have no way of distinguishing their parents are not God, but the trust and faith they hold is in my mind theistic.


You are the only one who would make that attribute. You believe in the concept of god but a baby doesn't. It has to be taught the concept.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

Can you believe in something and not know what you are believing in?


No you can't. Or else everything imaginary exists.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

Of course you can, all faith is unbelievable, it is the unbelievable believed.


Made up without basis for itself.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

Just because soemthing such as a parent is present and accountable doe snot mean what they are concieved as is any more or any the less thiestic and faithful.


The part that you miss is that your concept of god was taught to you. It was not intrinsic as you would like to believe it was. This is why you assume that babies would have some god notion where as they have no notion for anything else yet. It is absurd to say that it would have a concept of god but no concept of parent.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

It is about the invisible trust involved, God is not a requesite of theism, just as i would say Godless is not a requesite of atheism.


No but the fact that god does not exist makes atheism a valid position. Because take the inverse of that. Just like I can't honestly say cats don't exist. Why? Because you can go grab a cat, hold it in front of me and have others tell me they confirm that what you are holding is indeed a cat. You can't do that with god at all because no one agrees to any of the traits. In fact you wouldn't even know where to begin to define it. All you have is a vague loose definition so as to protect it from criticism.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

I see my flaw, but it is a mirrored flaw, if a theist has this then so does atheist, one will be the negative one the positive.


Yeah here you are again trying to make everything equal or black and white. It's not. Just because theism has flaws does not mean that atheism would also have flaws. The only flaw that theism has is that it believes in something completely imaginary to be real and it ignores the fact that everything else imaginary is exactly on the same level as theology. How can you pick and choose that one god does not exists but your god does? You have exactly the same evidence for both, yet you think you can determine which does and does not. You are only picking and choosing what you want without any basis.

sometime sun;139665 wrote:

Thanks for your time, and i only mind if i am silly if you cant see the funny, which means i probably should be mindful, shouldn't i?
Shame i dont really want to care about this, but if it matters to you, it ought matter to me.


Why does everything have to be balanced? So if you cared and I did not then it is a lost cause because of it? That is the only silly thing about the conversation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is an athiest?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 09:06:23