Lack of belief...?

[ianb321red]

I was reading the below article recently..
Infants and Uninformed Children are Atheists: Atheism is the Default Position; Theism Must Be Indoctrinated

The reason for reading this was because I realised 2 things recently: (1) the vast majority of people I know are not Christians, and (2) the vast majority of people that I know who are not Christians are also not atheists

What are they then?
We often get pre-occupied with discussions of religious theistic belief versus no belief/ atheism and actually forget that the vast majority of people actually fall in to neither definition.

I read the above article because it seems to think that atheism/ lack of belief is the default position

I disagree – I think the default position is “couldn’t really care less either way”! This isn’t atheism or agnosticism – 99% of people wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between either of these.
The reality is that you actually chose to identify with and label yourself as a “Christian” (or Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Anglican or whatever) or you actively chose to describe yourself as an “atheist” or “agnostic”.
None of these are “defaults” – these are active and conscious processes of group identification.

The challenge for Christians is that the vast majority of people in the country haven’t really heard the gospel and certainly haven’t reached the point of fundamental rejection or atheistic disbelief.
In a secular society such as ours, and the attempts to remove religious activity from public life, don’t for one minute conclude that this is indicative in anyway of reality. It isn’t!

I would say that although there are now more atheists than Christians living in the UK, that the remainder of people (non-religious) simply have not had sufficient interaction and engagement with the church in this country to stimulate any lasting involvement, commitment or understanding of the gospel message.

 

[Robban]

I was reading the below article recently..
Infants and Uninformed Children are Atheists: Atheism is the Default Position; Theism Must Be Indoctrinated

The reason for reading this was because I realised 2 things recently: (1) the vast majority of people I know are not Christians, and (2) the vast majority of people that I know who are not Christians are also not atheists

What are they then?
We often get pre-occupied with discussions of religious theistic belief versus no belief/ atheism and actually forget that the vast majority of people actually fall in to neither definition.

I read the above article because it seems to think that atheism/ lack of belief is the default position

I disagree – I think the default position is “couldn’t really care less either way”! This isn’t atheism or agnosticism – 99% of people wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between either of these.
The reality is that you actually chose to identify with and label yourself as a “Christian” (or Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Anglican or whatever) or you actively chose to describe yourself as an “atheist” or “agnostic”.
None of these are “defaults” – these are active and conscious processes of group identification.

The challenge for Christians is that the vast majority of people in the country haven’t really heard the gospel and certainly haven’t reached the point of fundamental rejection or atheistic disbelief.
In a secular society such as ours, and the attempts to remove religious activity from public life, don’t for one minute conclude that this is indicative in anyway of reality. It isn’t!

I would say that although there are now more atheists than Christians living in the UK, that the remainder of people (non-religious) simply have not had sufficient interaction and engagement with the church in this country to stimulate any lasting involvement, commitment or understanding of the gospel message.

It has not seemed to make any kind of impression or dent in how I try to get along with others, especially when they make a number of what they are,

Because what you are, (label) does not mean "who" you are.

If for example I should ask someone, "Who are you"
and they say for example, "I,m a lawyer"

They are describing what they do for a living, not who they are.

The number one enemy is "Skeptisism" (Amalek)
both within one self and outside of one self.

The skeptic, more than any other Challenger, wears out the believer and causes him to despair.

Amalek has the same value as doubt.

Amal=Labour, suffering, also distress and despair.

The skeptic can destroy, in an instant understandings and commitments that take years to establish.

They don,t counter your argument with reason, they dismantle it by making light of it.

The Amalekites have long since been dispersed into the World, but the spirit of skeptisism is alive and well.

Children are open, they say it how it is to them, which is why they can be so fun.

"If you do not become as small Children, you will not see the Kingdom of heaven,"

You will not be shown anything, oh, you may be shown, but you will not see it.

because Amalek tells you it is not true.

"Remember", to remember what the Lord your God has done for you,

Don,t really know if this is a reply to your op, or not but is relevent when logging in on CF for example.

Before coming on a forum, all the labels and titels did not enter my mind.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

I was reading the below article recently..
Infants and Uninformed Children are Atheists: Atheism is the Default Position; Theism Must Be Indoctrinated

The reason for reading this was because I realised 2 things recently: (1) the vast majority of people I know are not Christians, and (2) the vast majority of people that I know who are not Christians are also not atheists

What are they then?
We often get pre-occupied with discussions of religious theistic belief versus no belief/ atheism and actually forget that the vast majority of people actually fall in to neither definition.

I read the above article because it seems to think that atheism/ lack of belief is the default position

I disagree – I think the default position is “couldn’t really care less either way”! This isn’t atheism or agnosticism – 99% of people wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between either of these.
The reality is that you actually chose to identify with and label yourself as a “Christian” (or Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Anglican or whatever) or you actively chose to describe yourself as an “atheist” or “agnostic”.
None of these are “defaults” – these are active and conscious processes of group identification.

The challenge for Christians is that the vast majority of people in the country haven’t really heard the gospel and certainly haven’t reached the point of fundamental rejection or atheistic disbelief.
In a secular society such as ours, and the attempts to remove religious activity from public life, don’t for one minute conclude that this is indicative in anyway of reality. It isn’t!

I would say that although there are now more atheists than Christians living in the UK, that the remainder of people (non-religious) simply have not had sufficient interaction and engagement with the church in this country to stimulate any lasting involvement, commitment or understanding of the gospel message.

I agree with the above - most people are don't-care'-ists.. militant atheist gets everyone's backs up, and that ilk are lumped in with the political correctness humanist black shirts, who want to do away with Christmas and every other thing that is central to British culture - we all know Christmas has got nothing to do with Christianity - and no one cares about that - me included .. it's part of being British, and not being a militant crypto-marxist.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Before Christianity arrived there were no non Christians, or maybe no Christians or something like that

I hope this helps

 

[Robban]

Before Christianity arrived there were no non Christians, or maybe no Christians or something like that

I hope this helps

Before oranges reached your shores there was no orange marmelade either,

but there is nowhere God is not.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Before oranges reached your shores there was no orange marmelade either,

but there is nowhere God is not.

True but I now have a better idea of what I was trying to say.

There is such a thing as a non Rastafarian because there is such a thing as a Rastafarian.

There is no such thing as a non meep because 'meep' is a word that doesn't mean anything and can be used to mean anything, so nothing is excluded from it's meaning and nothing is included in it's meaning either.

.

 

[Robban]

True but I now have a better idea of what I was trying to say.

There is such a thing as a non Rastafarian because there is such a thing as a Rastafarian.

There is no such thing as a non meep because 'meep' is a word that doesn't mean anything and can be used to mean anything, so nothing is excluded from it's meaning and nothing is included in it's meaning either.

.

I like Bob Marley songs, now and again.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I

I disagree – I think the default position is “couldn’t really care less either way”! This isn’t atheism or agnosticism – 99% of people wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between either of these.
The reality is that you actually chose to identify with and label yourself as a “Christian” (or Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Anglican or whatever) or you actively chose to describe yourself as an “atheist” or “agnostic”.
None of these are “defaults” – these are active and conscious processes of group identification.

I have to side with you on that one.


The problem is there are various ideas of what atheism is.

In 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."

That is referred to as 'implicit atheism' whereas explicit atheism requires an active rejection of all Gods.

 

[Paradoxum]

The reason for reading this was because I realised 2 things recently: (1) the vast majority of people I know are not Christians, and (2) the vast majority of people that I know who are not Christians are also not atheists

What are they then?
We often get pre-occupied with discussions of religious theistic belief versus no belief/ atheism and actually forget that the vast majority of people actually fall in to neither definition.

I read the above article because it seems to think that atheism/ lack of belief is the default position

Atheism definitely is the default position. Fetus'/ Babies don't believe in anything at first.

By atheism I mean a lack of belief in God.

I disagree – I think the default position is “couldn’t really care less either way”! This isn’t atheism or agnosticism – 99% of people wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between either of these.

Not caring doesn't make a difference. If they don't believe in God, then they don't believe in God... atheism.

Not being able to tell the difference is also irrelevant. Someone might not know the difference between different blood types... that doesn't mean they don't have a blood type.

The reality is that you actually chose to identify with and label yourself as a “Christian” (or Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Anglican or whatever) or you actively chose to describe yourself as an “atheist” or “agnostic”.
None of these are “defaults” – these are active and conscious processes of group identification.

The default is lacking belief... just like babies don't believe China exists.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

Infants are pliable into religious indoctrination - I sometimes wonder why these people who go around stomping their religion, don't stand back and think to themselves why they believe in the religion that their parents taught them - same goes for my ilk, and our Roman Catholic indoctrination - seems to be a very tough programming, with its roots in deep.
In Ireland, the Catholic church is in decline, and some worry about religious charlatans filling the void - but it seems that when a cradle Catholic leaves the fold - there is nothing else considered - too culturally outside of it - too anti - Irish, me thinks.
They say that is why the Japanese have been so resistant to Christianity - coz it is foreign. For the Irish, Protestantism smacks of their historic oppressors.

 

[Robban]

I have to side with you on that one.


The problem is there are various ideas of what atheism is.

In 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."

That is referred to as 'implicit atheism' whereas explicit atheism requires an active rejection of all Gods.

I do not Think for one moment it is so simple

 

[Robban]

Freedom of choice, how generous,

Did anyone choose to be born?

Most of the choices are already made for us.

Before even starting out on this journey.

For example,

The case for being born homosexual goes out of the window,

If we are all born the same, without any inclinations at all.

 

[theFijian]

I was reading the below article recently..
Infants and Uninformed Children are Atheists: Atheism is the Default Position; Theism Must Be Indoctrinated

The reason for reading this was because I realised 2 things recently: (1) the vast majority of people I know are not Christians, and (2) the vast majority of people that I know who are not Christians are also not atheists

What are they then?
We often get pre-occupied with discussions of religious theistic belief versus no belief/ atheism and actually forget that the vast majority of people actually fall in to neither definition.

I read the above article because it seems to think that atheism/ lack of belief is the default position

I disagree – I think the default position is “couldn’t really care less either way”! This isn’t atheism or agnosticism – 99% of people wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between either of these.
The reality is that you actually chose to identify with and label yourself as a “Christian” (or Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, Anglican or whatever) or you actively chose to describe yourself as an “atheist” or “agnostic”.
None of these are “defaults” – these are active and conscious processes of group identification.

The challenge for Christians is that the vast majority of people in the country haven’t really heard the gospel and certainly haven’t reached the point of fundamental rejection or atheistic disbelief.
In a secular society such as ours, and the attempts to remove religious activity from public life, don’t for one minute conclude that this is indicative in anyway of reality. It isn’t!

I would say that although there are now more atheists than Christians living in the UK, that the remainder of people (non-religious) simply have not had sufficient interaction and engagement with the church in this country to stimulate any lasting involvement, commitment or understanding of the gospel message.

Note how these days atheists want to have their cake and eat it by redefining atheism to be a 'lack of belief in God', and the given example of children lacking belief is so laughable as to also define cats and dogs as atheists.

And in trying to claim it is the 'default position' this argument ultimately is hoisted by its own petard as the default position must be that they also lack belief in no Gods, so if you lack belief in no Gods, how can you be an atheist?

 

[theFijian]

Infants are pliable into religious indoctrination

They are pliable to any kind of indoctrination, so what was your point exactly?

They say that is why the Japanese have been so resistant to Christianity - coz it is foreign.

Japan is peculiar in that it is one of the most homogenous countries by ethnic group with it's population being 98.5%[sup][link][/sup] ethnic Japanese. Yet South Korea is even more homogeneous yet 31% of the population is Christian[sup][link][/sup]. Must be because it's foreign yes?

For the Irish, Protestantism smacks of their historic oppressors.

So what you're saying is that Irish people are irrational, illogical and ruled by emotion, a bit of a sweeping generalisation but I assume you're speaking from experience.

 

[theFijian]

Atheism definitely is the default position. Fetus'/ Babies don't believe in anything at first.

Wait, you're the one who said we can kill babies, so you're actually sanctioning killing atheists.

By atheism I mean a lack of belief in God.
...
The default is lacking belief... just like babies don't believe China exists.

The problem with the redefinition of atheism as 'lacking belief in God', for the definition to be formulated as such and still be meaningful you have to have some knowledge of what God is or is defined as.

If it is a valid statement to say that the child's default position is lack belief in God then it is also valid to say that they lack belief in no Gods. Just as they lack belief in pink elephants orbiting Jupiter and also lack belief in normal elephants.

 

[Oafman]

Note how these days atheists want to have their cake and eat it by redefining atheism to be a 'lack of belief in God',

That's what it always meant. Nothing has been redefined.

and the given example of children lacking belief is so laughable as to also define cats and dogs as atheists.

It's simply illustrative of the fact that atheists consider religion to be a human construct. We're not born religious, we're taught it.

And in trying to claim it is the 'default position' this argument ultimately is hoisted by its own petard as the default position must be that they also lack belief in no Gods, so if you lack belief in no Gods, how can you be an atheist?

You appear to have tangled yourself up in a double negative.

 

[tonybeer]

The problem with the redefinition of atheism as 'lacking belief in God', for the definition to be formulated as such and still be meaningful you have to have some knowledge of what God is or is defined as.

If it is a valid statement to say that the child's default position is lack belief in God then it is also valid to say that they lack belief in no Gods. Just as they lack belief in pink elephants orbiting Jupiter and also lack belief in normal elephants.

This is true, many Agnostic Atheists disbelieve the claim "there are no Gods" as well as disbelieving the claim "A God exists". For many, this is just labelled Agnostic, even though they don't believe a God exists. I'm not sure it matters too much, people are free to label themselves whichever way they like.

Children under a certain age are unable to distinguish fiction and reality anyway, so the Atheist label perhaps isn't appropriate.

It would be nice to get some sort of consensus of what a God is, however there seems to be none. A way of testing whether it exists would be even better, but again there appears to be nothing that stands up to any kind of scrutiny. Even worse is that you are told not to test whether a God exists, but to just believe it.

 

[Paradoxum]

Wait, you're the one who said we can kill babies, so you're actually sanctioning killing atheists.

Cows are probably atheists too, and I eat beef.

The problem with the redefinition of atheism as 'lacking belief in God', for the definition to be formulated as such and still be meaningful you have to have some knowledge of what God is or is defined as.

I wouldn't say it is a redefinition... it's just the definition. I making the definition need to know what I mean by God, but the being the label applies to doesn't have to know anything.

If it is a valid statement to say that the child's default position is lack belief in God then it is also valid to say that they lack belief in no Gods. Just as they lack belief in pink elephants orbiting Jupiter and also lack belief in normal elephants.

I agree.

 

[OopsyDaisy]

They are pliable to any kind of indoctrination, so what was your point exactly?



Japan is peculiar in that it is one of the most homogenous countries by ethnic group with it's population being 98.5%[sup][link][/sup] ethnic Japanese. Yet South Korea is even more homogeneous yet 31% of the population is Christian[sup][link][/sup]. Must be because it's foreign yes?


So what you're saying is that Irish people are irrational, illogical and ruled by emotion, a bit of a sweeping generalisation but I assume you're speaking from experience.

Darwkin's says that teaching children God is child abuse - it's a tricky one - I tend to agree, as it is indoctrination, either way - Islam, atheism, Catholicism, whatever - all false IMO - so what do you do? Teach them to be open minded perhaps. If you teach them to be good protestants - you end up with little John Haggee's - with the exact same religious beliefs, an exact copy, like some sort of computer download - along with all the errors.
It did cross my mind about Korea, so yes, perhaps that explanation is wrong - and I have picked it up from someone else's opinion.
My parents/ancestors were all Irish, from both sides - Catholic/Protestant, and I was supposed to be 'the irish' at school, coz my parents were Irish - I'm not Irish - I don't share their religion, culture, allegiance or anything else Irish - Ireland is a nice place to go on holiday, and that's it. It might be a sweeping statement, but a true one, me thinks - religion in Ireland was always about resistance to the British, protection from people like Cromwell - a hardcore puritan'ish brute - too much for this country, let alone Ireland.

 

[Robban]

Freedom of choice, how generous,

Did anyone choose to be born?

Most of the choices are already made for us.

Before even starting out on this journey.

For example,

The case for being born homosexual goes out of the window,

If we are all born the same, without any inclinations at all.

A further pondering on this, so to say,

If we don,t choose to be born,
there is this wonderful alternative,

no one is chosen over Another,
we are all chosen.

Predestination at it,s best, would Think.

Cos God don,t make no junk.