megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 02:43 am
CerealKiller wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
What about a person who has never heard about the concept of God ? Are they atheist or agnostic ?


"All children are atheists, they have no idea of God." (Baron d'Holbach in Good Sense 1772)


Rather a sweeping statement.

Doesn't seem to apply to people who know there is a god or people who do not know there are no gods.


Those who know of the concept of gods but do not believe them are atheists. If they merely lack belief then they are negative atheists. If they actively, positively, reject the idea then they are positive atheists. Those that have no idea of God cannot be positive atheists because they cannot actively reject the idea but they are certainly negative atheists because they lack belief in the idea.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 02:46 am
We've been down this road before.

It turns out there are no definitions of the word "atheist" that everyone is prepared to agree on.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 02:52 am
megamanXplosion wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
What about a person who has never heard about the concept of God ? Are they atheist or agnostic ?


"All children are atheists, they have no idea of God." (Baron d'Holbach in Good Sense 1772)


Rather a sweeping statement.

Doesn't seem to apply to people who know there is a god or people who do not know there are no gods.


Those who know of the concept of gods but do not believe them are atheists. If they merely lack belief then they are negative atheists. If they actively, positively, reject the idea then they are positive atheists. Those that have no idea of God cannot be positive atheists because they cannot actively reject the idea but they are certainly negative atheists because they lack belief in the idea.


I understand all that from your previous post.

What I am questioning was the quote you posted:

"All children are atheists, they have no idea of God."

My question is: How can this be true to people who know there is a god ?

And how can that be true to people to people like Frank and myself who do not know there are no gods ?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 06:56 am
Eorl wrote:
We've been down this road before.

It turns out there are no definitions of the word "atheist" that everyone is prepared to agree on.

Unremarkable; consider the vast and virulent disagreements pertaining to theology.
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 08:22 am
CerealKiller wrote:
My question is: How can this be true to people who know there is a god ?

And how can that be true to people to people like Frank and myself who do not know there are no gods ?


Because theist's and atheist's are "Know it alls"
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 09:00 am
BDV wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
My question is: How can this be true to people who know there is a god ?

And how can that be true to people to people like Frank and myself who do not know there are no gods ?


Because theist's and atheist's are "Know it alls"


ROFL Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Dark knight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 11:57 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I log in as an atheist. I don't consider agnosticism viable, any more than religion.


Theism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there is a God.

Atheism is pretty much a belief (or guess) that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is acknowledgement that we do not know...and further acknowledges that we do not have enough unambiguous evidence about the nature of REALITY specifically to include or exclude the notion of gods.

Atheists and theists are essentially the same thing...except that the guesses made are in different directions.



http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2193/atheistreligionms9.gif
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 08:29 am
Very good, Dark knight (and welcome to the asylum which is A2K).
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2006 04:46 pm
ROFL
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 01:19 am
edgarblythe wrote:
When I open infrablue's link, I get a web site, but a box pops up, advising me to install an active x control. Then the internet shuts down and I have to go online all over again.


Ok. It seems that the animation page doesn't work with Windows IE. Try using Firefox, and then follow the directions.

http://escherdroste.math.leidenuniv.nl/index.php?menu=animation

The 10 MB files are very high-quality, and the animations look the best.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:06 pm
megamanXplosion wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
What about a person who has never heard about the concept of God ? Are they atheist or agnostic ?


"All children are atheists, they have no idea of God." (Baron d'Holbach in Good Sense 1772)


Rather a sweeping statement.

Doesn't seem to apply to people who know there is a god or people who do not know there are no gods.


Those who know of the concept of gods but do not believe them are atheists. If they merely lack belief then they are negative atheists. If they actively, positively, reject the idea then they are positive atheists. Those that have no idea of God cannot be positive atheists because they cannot actively reject the idea but they are certainly negative atheists because they lack belief in the idea.


What?
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:27 pm
Jason Proudmore wrote:
What?


One who does not believe in gods is an atheist. One who knows of the idea of gods and claims for certain that such beings do not exist is a positive atheist. One who knows of the idea of gods but makes no claim as to their existence or nonexistence because one merely lacks belief is a negative atheist. One who is unaware of the idea of gods must also lack belief in gods so they are also negative atheists. All children are born unaware of the idea of gods so they are all born as negative atheists. A sweeping statement, sure, but true nonetheless.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:31 pm
I think it fair to state that these are particularist and idiosyncratic definitions which you have provided yourself. You cannot well expect others to discuss a topic on your terms if they don't know what those terms are. By the way, you have, since the post in which you first made your exposition, expanded those whom you would include in your definition of "negative atheists."
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:31 pm
megamanXplosion wrote:
Jason Proudmore wrote:
What?


One who does not believe in gods is an atheist. One who knows of the idea of gods and claims for certain that such beings do not exist is a positive atheist. One who knows of the idea of gods but makes no claim as to their existence or nonexistence because one merely lacks belief is a negative atheist. One who is unaware of the idea of gods must also lack belief in gods so they are also negative atheists. All children are born unaware of the idea of gods so they are all born as negative atheists. A sweeping statement, sure, but true nonetheless.


Where are you getting all this?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:44 pm
The concepts offered here of negative and positive atheism closely parallels the distinction I've offered many times: passive and active (aggressive?) atheism.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 06:54 pm
JLNobody wrote:
The concepts offered here of negative and positive atheism closely parallels the distinction I've offered many times: passive and active (aggressive?) atheism.


Passive and active atheism? Is there any other way to explain this?
0 Replies
 
Dark knight
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:00 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Very good, Dark knight (and welcome to the asylum which is A2K).


Thank you.

You are indeed an interesting bunch.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
I think it fair to state that these are particularist and idiosyncratic definitions which you have provided yourself. You cannot well expect others to discuss a topic on your terms if they don't know what those terms are. By the way, you have, since the post in which you first made your exposition, expanded those whom you would include in your definition of "negative atheists."


I have not expanded my definition of negative atheist. Nowhere did I ever state "one can only become a negative atheist through study" or "only those who are aware of the idea of gods" or something similar that limited the amount of people that the "lacks belief in gods" definition would apply to. I have explicitly stated in this discussion that one is either a theist, one who believes in gods, or an atheist, one who does not believe in gods. From the very start I have included newly born children in my definition because each newly born child "lacks belief in gods." (Obviously, they are not born with belief in gods.) You are clearly imagining a broadening of the definition I gave because no such broadening has occurred.

And my definition is not an idiosyncratic one. It is the same definition that has been in use for around 419 years ago in France and then adopted into the English language. This was the same definition used by Baron d'Holbach, arguably one of the most famous atheists of all time, around 224 years ago. It is the same definition used by the vast majority of atheist and secular organizations today, including the vast majority of atheistic web sites out there. Go ahead and do a search on google for "weak atheism" (which is the same thing as "negative atheism"), which has 35,300 results, and you can confirm for yourself that my definition is accurate and not idiosyncratic. Do a general search for atheist web sites and you'll see that the vast majority of them define atheism as I have. The other definition, that atheists are those who know for certain gods do not exist, is the idiosyncratic definition.

While you're at it, look up atheism in Wikipedia and you'll see that the word atheism, which includes negative and positive atheists like the definition I have given, predates the very creation of the word theism.

JLNobody wrote:
The concepts offered here of negative and positive atheism closely parallels the distinction I've offered many times: passive and active (aggressive?) atheism.


Negative, weak, and passive are all defined the same. Positive, strong, and active also share the same definition. The only difference is the words used in the label.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Passive and active atheism? Is there any other way to explain this?


A person that lacks belief in gods is an atheist. There are two kinds of atheists. (1) Some make the assertion that gods do not exist. This is a positive claim of having knowledge about whether gods exist or not. (2) Then there are those that make no claim to knowledge on the subject but are not convinced that gods really do exist. Both groups lack belief in the existence of gods but there is a distinction between the two groups in how certain they are. As such, different labels are applied to people of each group. The first group (1) are called positive atheists, strong atheists, or active atheists--think "positive" as in having a positive claim to knowledge, or "strong" as in the strength of their convictions. The second group (2) are called negative atheists, weak atheists, or passive atheists--think "negative" as in having a negative claim to knowledge (they don't know), or "weak" as in the strength of their convictions.

With regard to newly born children, they have no idea of what gods are. As such, they cannot have a belief in gods. It would be impossible to believe something you've never heard of--for example, a preschool student cannot possibly believe such things as superstrings exist (superstring theory) because they have no idea what superstrings are. It is in the negative, weak, or passive sense that newly born children are atheists. They lack belief in gods because they have no idea what gods are. To put it more bluntly: all children are born atheists.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:18 pm
Tried to call on my cell phone and asked God if I'm an atheist or agnostic. I lost the signal and disconnected...so now I don't know what I don't know.
or...

better still ..

I'm an insomniac, dyslexic agnostic who...

stayed up all night
wondering
if there truly was a Dog!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2006 08:53 pm
Jason, I put it as follows just a few pages back (with some editing):
"... a meaningful distinction can be made between "hard" [active or positi ve?] atheism, a definite DISbelief in God and "soft" [passive or negative?] atheism like mine in that I simply turn away from what appears to be a meaningless concept....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Agnostic vs Atheist
  3. » Page 25
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 08:30:27