Lack of belief...?

[Paradoxum]

That's a separate question.

One I asked you.

Seeing colour is only obvious if you haven't been blinded.
I don't see why a real awareness can't be lost.
A child raised in a disfunctional family can lose their awareness of love and affection.
Our school systems train the creativity out of children on mass very efficiently.

Is God a poor communicator of his existence? I've been a Christian, and I've felt what some people would call God's presence... but it could just as easily be a feeling my brain made up based on my state of mind.

You don't sense love or affection, they are interpretations. You'd claim God is a thing that actually exists though, as a separate entity. So it would make sense to me that sensing God would be better compared to sight.

Anyway, we probably wont agree on this. So shall we just agree to disagree?

I do find it strange that God doesn't say 'hi' and tap me on the shoulder, like a friend would. If he did it in a way which is just as real as human interaction, I could ignore it.

(I don't want to be annoying. )

 

[theFijian]

It has everything to do with lack of belief - Why would you believe something if you can't test whether it is true?

The evidence required and test would depend on the God claim. I'd need to know what about the God hypothesis is testable, before coming up with a test.

As an aside, a god would know how much evidence it would take to convince me, and it would also know that it had not yet met this threshold.

Wait, do you mean empirical testing? I have to ask but do you actually know anything about the traditional philosophical definitions and attributes ascribed to God? Otherwise I fail to see how anyone can seriously ask this question.

 

[theFijian]

That neutral position, of lacking belief, is called atheism.

My point is that atheism isn't a belief that 'there is no God'.

Let's put it this way. If babies can be labelled one thing that consists of "lacking belief in x", then they can be labelled absolutely anything which consists of lack of belief in a particular something, even things which are logical opposites. It makes this whole labelling of babies as x, y or z an exercise in semantics and does nothing to establish the truth of that labelling.

 

[theFijian]

They don't believe in God or China because they can't.

If a baby is born in China to Chinese parents, is that baby chinese?

That makes them atheists, because they don't believe in God.

Which is exactly what makes them theists because they lack belief in no God.

 

[tonybeer]

Which is exactly what makes them theists because they lack belief in no God.

No. Atheism/Theism are the two positions to take on the claim "A God exists".

The claim "No God exists" is a different claim.


I (as you put it) lack belief in no God. I'm certainly not a Theist.

 

[lismore]

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

I think people are by nature curious and remain so throughout life. The default position is uncertainty mixed with curiosity and learning from experience.

But complete honesty is difficult because of peer pressure.

I think an athiest or a person of faith who has 100% certainty and commitment is very rare indeed. Most are somewhere in between.

In my time in the church I have seen many who would be classified as seekers, even long-term or lifelong. And I have met many atheists or agnostics open to things that have no natural explanation.

 

[Nige55]

I think people are by nature curious and remain so throughout life. The default position is uncertainty mixed with curiosity and learning from experience.

But complete honesty is difficult because of peer pressure.

I think an athiest or a person of faith who has 100% certainty and commitment is very rare indeed. Most are somewhere in between.

In my time in the church I have seen many who would be classified as seekers, even long-term or lifelong. And I have met many atheists or agnostics open to things that have no natural explanation.

This.

 

[Nige55]

Does it really matter ? Are we really trying to label babies now ? Babies are babies, children are children, they have their whole lives ahead of them, to discover, or not, in their own reasoning, understanding and experiences. All of us are a million miles away from where we were as babies and children, I just don't understand the need for debate here. We may be steered along one direction, but for the Humanists & athiests here, I've known kids grow to adulthood, from a pastor/church leading parentage into disbelief. And, vice-versa. To assume that the teaching children receive at an early age shapes them beyond their own reasoning, belittles the individual. We are ALL learning ! God taught us to use our minds too !

 

[theFijian]

No. Atheism/Theism are the two positions to take on the claim "A God exists".

The claim "No God exists" is a different claim.


I (as you put it) lack belief in no God. I'm certainly not a Theist.

So are you an atheist then?

 

[Paradoxum]

Let's put it this way. If babies can be labelled one thing that consists of "lacking belief in x", then they can be labelled absolutely anything which consists of lack of belief in a particular something, even things which are logical opposites. It makes this whole labelling of babies as x, y or z an exercise in semantics and does nothing to establish the truth of that labelling.

Yes, it would be true to say that babies don't believe in God, and that they don't believe there is no God.

What is you're problem with that?

If a baby is born in China to Chinese parents, is that baby chinese?

Biologically and legally yes.

Which is exactly what makes them theists because they lack belief in no God.

Not believing there is no God doesn't make you a theist. Children not believing there is no Yugoslavia doesn't mean they believe in Yugoslavia... they probably just have no opinion on the subject at all.

 

[lismore]

Human society seems to approach everything from a very blinkered perspective these days.

It's interesting how many believe what, but ultimately not important.

The only thing of importance is what is actually true.

If 99.9% of the population believed the world was a hamster, this would not make it true.

If 100% of people were atheists this would be irrelevant to everything if indeed God did exist. The only thing of any importance is what is real.

We cannot deify the human opinion, it's just a sandcastle.

 

[theFijian]

Yes, it would be true to say that babies don't believe in God, and that they don't believe there is no God.

What is you're problem with that?

If I say that I believe 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3, is that any different to saying I don't believe 1 + 1 equals 3? We're dealing in binary logic here. As has been pointed out this definition of atheism is simply a game of semantics and is so loose as to label animals, furniture, weather systems, the London Underground as being atheists and clearly carries no useful meaning. If you you think labelling a packet of chewing gum as atheist has any validity then its hard to know whether any serious discussion can be had.

 

[Paradoxum]

If I say that I believe 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3, is that any different to saying I don't believe 1 + 1 equals 3?

Yes, because the second means that it's possible that 1+1=3.

Put another way... I don't believe that 1342*1584= 4830482... but it might, I just haven't tried to figure it out.

We're dealing in binary logic here. As has been pointed out this definition of atheism is simply a game of semantics and is so loose as to label animals, furniture, weather systems, the London Underground as being atheists and clearly carries no useful meaning. If you you think labelling a packet of chewing gum as atheist has any validity then its hard to know whether any serious discussion can be had.

I'd say it only applies to things with minds.

Shall we just agree to disagree? I know I might be wrong, I'm just not convinced of your position at the moment.