"Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist"

Originally posted by rwingett
Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu.

The way I understand it, Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion with Ahura Mazda (light) pitted in an equal struggle against Angra Mainyu (darkness). Ahura Mazda gets credit for everything good, while Angra Mainyu takes the blame for everything bad. This contrasts with Christianity where God ultimately has to account for both and you have the problem of evil cropping up continuously. Zoroastrianism thus has the advantage of being much more internally consistent.

Originally posted by rwingett
The way I understand it, Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion with Ahura Mazda (light) pitted in an equal struggle against Angra Mainyu (darkness). Ahura Mazda gets credit for everything good, while Angra Mainyu takes the blame for everything bad. This contrasts with Christianity where God ultimately has to account for both and you have the problem of evi ...[text shortened]... up continuously. Zoroastrianism thus has the advantage of being much more internally consistent.

Thankyou... Some googling suggested to me that was what you were getting at.

It's a very common trope in religions.

The Greek gods vs the titans.

The Norse gods against the ice giants...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Thankyou... Some googling suggested to me that was what you were getting at.

It's a very common trope in religions.

The Greek gods vs the titans.

The Norse gods against the ice giants...

The other examples, though, are just different groups of gods, or fantastic beings, in competition without necessarily being polar opposites of one another. Angra Mainyu is not just in perpetual combat with Ahura Mazda, but is his antithesis. They are equally matched and unable to defeat one another on their own, but the actions of humans may help tip the cosmic scales one way or the other in the long run. There is your incentive for good behavior. At least that is my rudimentary understanding of Zoroastrianism.

Originally posted by rwingett
All infants are born as 'implicit atheists', which means that they are incapable of conceiving of a god. Which means that they do not believe in a god, and are therefore atheists. Once they gain the ability to conceptualize a god, they either become theists or 'explicit atheists', which means they are familiar with the concept of god, but do not believe it. ...[text shortened]... in complete isolation from any cultural influences would grow up ignorant of the concept of god.

All infants are born as 'implicit atheists', which means that they are incapable of conceiving of a god.
Wrong.
Your sentence contradicts itself.
In order to imply or contain the ability to be an atheist, one must be capable of perceiving the question.
If no ability to conceive exists, they certainly are not implicit anything other than what speaks of their potentials: potentially self-aware and etc.

If you're going to say they are born implicit atheist, they are just as equally implicit theists; the question, once raised in their own minds, will go either way.

An infant that was raised in complete isolation from any cultural influences would grow up ignorant of the concept of god.
Certainly you have some support for this claim?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]All infants are born as 'implicit atheists', which means that they are incapable of conceiving of a god.
Wrong.
Your sentence contradicts itself.
In order to imply or contain the ability to be an atheist, one must be capable of perceiving the question.
If no ability to conceive exists, they certainly are not implicit anything other than ...[text shortened]... uld grow up ignorant of the concept of god.[/b]
Certainly you have some support for this claim?[/b]

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. Explicit atheism requires that one be capable of conceptualizing a god. Implicit atheism does not.

Theism requires that one be capable of conceptualizing what a god is. Hence infants cannot be theists. And everyone who does not self-identify as a theist is, by default, an atheist. If they are capable of conceptualizing of a god then they would be an explicit atheist. If they are incapable, then they would be an implicit atheist.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If you're going to say they are born implicit atheist, they are just as equally implicit theists; the question, once raised in their own minds, will go either way.

This is equivalent to saying that everyone implicitly believes in everything until they make a decision not to.

Have you considered the possibility of a 7-legged 2-headed miniscule talking dog called Eric living under your finger-nail?

Originally posted by Soothfast

"Neutral" may not be an inapt descriptor of a newborn's mind, but it does not conflict with "atheist" as another descriptor. I take the definition of an atheist as being "A person who does not believe in gods." Notice how "atheist" suits an infant far better than "theist," which is defined to be a person who does believe in some god or another. No int ...[text shortened]... oung" is the watchword of the laity and clergy alike in every institutionalized religious Mafia.

Originally posted by Soothfast
"Neutral" may not be an inapt descriptor of a newborn's mind, but it does not conflict with "atheist" as another descriptor. I take the definition of an atheist as being "A person who does not believe in gods." Notice how "atheist" suits an infant far better than "theist," which is defined to be a person who does believe in some god or another. No interpretation of the term "theist" befits a newborn, whereas some interpretations of the term "atheist" can be made to fit.

I do find it endearing how passionately theists will fight the semantic fight to keep infants from being classified as anything resembling an atheist. The only other endeavor theists seem to take to with greater zeal is that of hammering every young, malleable mind in their custody with theist propaganda until they've fashioned identical spiritual clones of themselves.

"Get 'em while they're young" is the watchword of the laity and clergy alike in every institutionalized religious Mafia.

___________________________

Definition of TABULA RASA

"1. Noun: the mind in its hypothetical primary blank or empty state before receiving outside impressions. 2. something existing in its original pristine state. Origin of TABULA RASA: Latin, smoothed or erased tablet. First Known Use: 1535"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tabula%20rasa

TABULA RASA

tab•u•la ra•sa (t b y -l rä s , -z ) n. pl. tab•u•lae ra•sae (t b y -l rä s , -z )

"1. a. The mind before it receives the impressions gained from experience. b. The unformed, featureless mind in the philosophy of John Locke. 2. A need or an opportunity to start from the beginning. [Medieval Latin tabula r sa : Latin tabula, tablet + Latin r sa, feminine of r sus, erased.]"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tabula+rosa

Note: Like it or not, you and I were ignorant once upon a time. Yes, Grampy Bobby and Soothfast's minds as newborns were tabulae rasae: two blank tablets or pristine slates; millions of bits of information would subsequently be examined, processed and assimilated. Simultaneously, an untold number of inconsequential and significant, temporary and permanent decisions would follow each day of their lives right up to this conversation on Red Hot Pawn on January 13, 2014. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Soothfast
"Neutral" may not be an inapt descriptor of a newborn's mind, but it does not conflict with "atheist" as another descriptor. I take the definition of an atheist as being "A person who does not believe in gods." Notice how "atheist" suits an infant far better than "theist," which is defined to be a person who does ...[text shortened]... each day of their lives right up to this conversation on Red Hot Pawn on January 13, 2014. -Bob

The newborn, with its tabula rasa of a mind, has no knowledge of god. Therefore the newborn is an atheist, albeit an implicit atheist.

Originally posted by rwingett
The newborn, with its tabula rasa of a mind, has no knowledge of god. Therefore the newborn is an atheist, albeit an implicit atheist.

The newborn, rwingett, has neither the vocabulary nor categories nor constructs nor rationales nor a sufficiently developed rational process nor the curiosity nor the awareness to yet arrive at God consciousness... the point at which the toddler or teenager or young adult's volition makes a positive or negative decision regarding a desire to know. Atheism is a choice. All decisions regarding the supernatural or spiritual realm are active transitive rational actions not ipso facto defaults implied.

Note: For diapered newborn infants the options of conservative or liberal; theism, agnosticism or atheism are unexplored.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The newborn, rwingett, has neither the vocabulary nor categories nor constructs nor rationales nor a sufficiently developed rational process nor the curiosity nor the awareness to yet arrive at God consciousness... the point at which the toddler or teenager or young adult's volition makes a positive or negative decision regarding a desire to know. Athei ...[text shortened]... n infants the options of conservative or liberal; theism, agnosticism or atheism are unexplored.

Atheist is a label.

It's a word that points to a concept, a set.

It's the signifier for all people who do not have a belief in the existence of gods.

As babies do not and cannot conceive of, let alone believe in, gods. They are atheists.

Implicit atheists as rwingett would say.


To be an atheist doesn't require choosing anything, if you never hear about gods from others,
and the idea doesn't occur to you then you are still an atheist.

To say otherwise is to redefine atheist and have the word/label point to a different set.

In which case we are using the word to mean different things and are simply talking at
cross purposes.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The newborn, rwingett, has neither the vocabulary nor categories nor constructs nor rationales nor a sufficiently developed rational process nor the curiosity nor the awareness to yet arrive at God consciousness... the point at which the toddler or teenager or young adult's volition makes a positive or negative decision regarding a desire to know. Athei ...[text shortened]... n infants the options of conservative or liberal; theism, agnosticism or atheism are unexplored.

Explicit atheism is a choice. As is theism. Implicit atheism is the default position of all who have no knowledge of god.

I have absolutely no interest in whether you agree with that statement, but what troubles me is that I don't think you even understand it.

Originally posted by rwingett
Explicit atheism is a choice. As is theism. Implicit atheism is the default position of all who have no knowledge of god.

I have absolutely no interest in whether you agree with that statement, but what troubles me is that I don't think you even understand it.

"Implicit atheism is the default position of all who have no knowledge of god." -rwingett

What reasons do you have to think this statement is true?
Why can't their default position be ignorance; is atheism ignorance?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheist is a label.

It's a word that points to a concept, a set.

It's the signifier for all people who do not have a belief in the existence of gods.

As babies do not and cannot conceive of, let alone believe in, gods. They are atheists.

Implicit atheists as rwingett would say.


To be an atheist doesn't require choosing anything, if you n ...[text shortened]... case we are using the word to mean different things and are simply talking at
cross purposes.

"To be an atheist doesn't require choosing anything, if you never hear about gods from others,
and the idea doesn't occur to you then you are still an atheist." -googlefudge

If someone was considering becoming an atheist and open to personal suasion from you, what benefits would you describe?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Implicit atheism is the default position of all who have no knowledge of god." -rwingett

What reasons do you have to think this statement is true?
Why can't their default position be ignorance; is atheism ignorance?

It can be. An implicit atheist is ignorant of god.

An explicit atheist is one who has been made aware of the concept of god but finds it unconvincing.

Originally posted by rwingett
It can be. An implicit atheist is ignorant of god.

An explicit atheist is one who has been made aware of the concept of god but finds it unconvincing.

Your "explicit atheist" working definition contains a greater measure of clarity than I've seen in this forum.
__________________________________________

"If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him?" -JV

Revisited:

If God does exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him to those who don't?