Are atheists allowed to be spiritual?

[Uverdore9]

Yes. You are an atheist(lol) to the watch in the sense that you didn't know it was there.

So I guess babies are 'atheist' to Antartica since they havent taken a geography class.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

So I guess babies are 'atheist' to Antartica since they havent taken a geography class.

? I seriously don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Uverdore9]

? I seriously don't get what you're trying to say.

Youve to know to decide whether to believe. I cannot decide to believe there is Australia if I'm illiterate and never visited a history/geographical class.

Belief is acceptance as the literal definition states. You cant accept 'nothingness'.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Youve to know to decide whether to believe. I cannot decide to believe there is Australia if I'm illiterate and never visited a history/geographical class.

Belief is acceptance as the literal definition states. You cant accept 'nothingness'.

You're speaking on the definition of belief rather than disbelief or lack of belief.

 

[Uverdore9]

You're speaking on the definition of belief rather than disbelief or lack of belief.

Bottom line is, to lack belief is different from lacking belief in god.

Lack of belief means youre not capable of believing in anything. Not sun, moon, stars, light, gravity, why even the floor you walk onto. You cant believe said substances exist when youre not aware whether it exists.

Lack of belief in gods is specific.

Youve to know god first.

If someone asks you 'do you believe in god', you; if yourr not aware of meaning behind word 'god' would reply something like this:

God?.....whats that? Do you mean 'goat'?

Specification cannot be equated with generalization.

Seeing words on a screen and actually understanding whats written is different.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Bottom line is, to lack belief is different from lacking belief in god.

Lack of belief means youre not capable of believing in anything. Not sun, moon, stars, light, gravity, why even the floor you walk onto. You cant believe said substances exist when youre not aware whether it exists.

Lack of belief in gods is specific.

Youve to know god first.

If someone asks you 'do you believe in god', you; if yourr not aware of meaning behind word 'god' would reply something like this:

God?.....whats that? Do you mean 'goat'?

Specification cannot be equated with generalization.

Seeing words on a screen and actually understanding whats written is different.

Including gods. Hence lack of belief in gods. .-.

 

[Uverdore9]

Including gods. Hence lack of belief in gods. .-.

Atheism is not lack of belief is it?


Someone incapable of processing thoughts to be able to believe, cannot go to the next step; which is not believing in something specifically.

Lack of belief dont equate to lack of intelligence to start processing thoughts to make a belief.

Babies lack said intelligence necessary to.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Atheism is not lack of belief is it?


Someone incapable of processing thoughts to be able to believe, cannot go to the next step; which is not believing in something specifically.

Lack of belief dont equate to lack of intelligence to start processing thoughts to make a belief.

Babies lack said intelligence necessary to.

You don't have to put effort into not believing in a god to lack belief in a god. If someone had never heard of God in their life of 30 years, they wouldn't have belief in it aka a lack of belief in god. @Bold, yes it is. Literally part of the definition.
What baffles me the most is that you don't realize why your reasoning requires refusal or denial in place of lack of belief.

Someone incapable of processing thoughts to be able to believe, cannot go to the next step; which is not believing in something specifically.

"Not believing in something specifically" is to say that you know of the concept but don't accept it. Refusal or denial. That's different from just lacking belief. So let me ask you this question.

You and I are sitting together in the living room. I go inside my room and get my rolex. You had never even known I had a rolex. When I return, do you(while still in the living room) believe I'll return with a rolex? The answer is no. Meaning, you lack belief in the assumption that I'd return with a rolex despite not having to consider the possibility. Just in case you decide to make another ridiculous statement, here's the definition of lack.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[Uverdore9]

You don't have to put effort into not believing in a god to lack belief in a god. If someone had never heard of God in their life of 30 years, they wouldn't have belief in it aka a lack of belief in god. @Bold, yes it is. Literally part of the definition.
What baffles me the most is that you don't realize why your reasoning requires refusal or denial in place of lack of belief.

Thats ignorance of god. Belief is acceptance of a known fact - Dictionary.

"Not believing in something specifically" is to say that you know of the concept but don't accept it. Refusal or denial. That's different from just lacking belief. So let me ask you this question.

You and I are sitting together in the living room. I go inside my room and get my rolex. You had never even known I had a rolex. When I return, do you(while still in the living room) believe I'll return with a rolex? The answer is no. Meaning, you lack belief in the assumption that I'd return with a rolex despite not having to consider the possibility. Just in case you decide to make another ridiculous statement, here's the definition of lack.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Yes. Babies lack beliefs. But do they lack belief in god specifically? No. Its like asking whether baby have belief in tree; when there is no need for that question when they dont comprehend belief in the first place. They cant believe. Its like asking a cripple to go to a mall to buy chips when everyone knows his legs are paralyzed.
Your analogy sums around the point@: I dont need to.I dont need to assume youve a rolex/not. There was no clue for me to think about said possibility.

Similarly babies have no clue about what happens in surroundings. If you dont have a clue on whether god exists or not how do you decide even, whether to believe in him?

Babies lack belief, not lack belief in god specifically. I repeat.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Thats ignorance of god. Belief is acceptance of a known fact - Dictionary.




Yes. Babies lack beliefs. But do they lack belief in god specifically? No. Its like asking whether baby have belief in tree; when there is no need for that question when they dont comprehend belief in the first place. They cant believe. Its like asking a cripple to go to a mall to buy chips when everyone knows his legs are paralyzed.
Your analogy sums around the point@: I dont need to.I dont need to assume youve a rolex/not. There was no clue for me to think about said possibility.

Similarly babies have no clue about what happens in surroundings. If you dont have a clue on whether god exists or not how do you decide even, whether to believe in him?

Babies lack belief, not lack belief in god specifically. I repeat.

You're making a distinction where there isn't one. Lacking belief is not having belief. Lacking belief in god is not having belief in god. Does a baby have belief in god? No, so it lacks belief in god. There is nothing more to it.

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

lol even some atheists can’t agree on “people are born atheists” and view “explicit atheism“ as the true atheism. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include those (children,newborns,etc) who doesn’t know anything about god,and not every atheists or anybody else can agree with Baron d'Holbach or George H. Smith redefinition on atheism.

So it seems anyone seeking an agreement from this debate on NB,won’t find it as not everyone will agree with the redefined word of atheism that includes “lack of belief”.
As people will go by this:

You must be registered for see links

While others will go by this:

You must be registered for see links

Might as well agree to disagree at this point and move on.

 

[Lightbringer]

lol even some atheists can’t agree on “people are born atheists” and view “explicit atheism“ as the true atheism. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include those (children,newborns,etc) who doesn’t know anything about god,and not every atheists or anybody else can agree with Baron d'Holbach or George H. Smith redefinition on atheism.

So it seems anyone seeking an agreement from this debate on NB,won’t find it as not everyone will agree with the redefined word of atheism that includes “lack of belief”.
As people will go by this:

You must be registered for see links

While others will go by this:

You must be registered for see links

Might as well agree to disagree at this point and move on.

Both of those definitions you linked said disbelief in the existence of a god.

Disbelief is synonymous with "lacking belief."

For someone to actively reject religion as an action first requires the lacking of belief before committing to the denial. Lacking faith is at the core what Atheism is.

You must be registered for see images

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

Both of those definitions you linked said disbelief in the existence of a god.

Disbelief is synonymous with "lacking belief."

For someone to actively reject religion as an action first requires the lacking of belief before committing to the denial. Lacking faith is at the core what Atheism is.

You must be registered for see images

Yeah I can see what disbelief means in the link I posted.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[Lightbringer]

Yeah I can see what disbelief means in the link I posted.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Babies are incapable of accepting something as true at birth. So even the linked definition of "disbelief" still applies to them.


Let me ask you 4 things:


1. Can words have multiple meanings which are defined by the context they are used in?


2. Is "lack of faith" in something a synonym of "disbelief?"


3. Is "lack of belief" a definition of Atheism?


4. Are babies born with a belief in a god or gods?

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

If you dismiss God but have some form of belief in the spiritual sure. But I think in most cases, there would be a contradiction making yout beliefs a bit nonsensical.

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

Babies are incapable of accepting something as true at birth. So even the linked definition of "disbelief" still applies to them.


Let me ask you 4 things:


1. Can words have multiple meanings which are defined by the context they are used in?


2. Is "lack of faith" in something not a synonym of "disbelief?"


3. Is "lack of belief" a definition of Atheism?


4. Are babies born with a belief in a god or gods?

1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No. Though if you had asked a person who is Muslim or Christian than you’re answer maybe Yes.

Did I pass?

 

[Lightbringer]

1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No. Though if you had asked a person who is Muslim or Christian than you’re answer maybe Yes.

Did I pass?

So based on those answers, you agree that babies are born atheist (without beliefs)?

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

So based on those answers, you agree that babies are born atheist (without beliefs)?

Ah. So that’s why you were questioning me lol
Did you assume my stance on the debate was in favor of “people are not born atheists”? I know my posts doesn’t always make sense but...

Anyways, I don’t have any issues with the definition,and yes I agree that babies are (implicit) atheists.

 

[Lightbringer]

Ah. So that’s why you were questioning me lol
Did you assume my stance on the debate was in favor of “people are not born atheists”? I know my posts doesn’t always make sense but...

Anyways, I don’t have any issues with the definition,and yes I agree that babies are (implicit) atheists.

My mistake then. I wasn't sure what your stance was.

But at least you understand why the definition applies to them. Those arguing against the definition are making something self-explanatory as a convoluted and controversial subject.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

he kinda has a point though. if babies can't have belief or disbelief but can be called atheist, can't we call inanimate objects and animals atheist too?

You say this...

But it does apply in the same manner. No one has to understand the concept of atheism or religion to be atheist. They don't even have to be aware of gods, and that'd put them in the same position as a baby.

Then proceed with this. And you're actually incorrect.

It does not apply in the same manner, and you've explained this yourself, in the first quote. God, you're two-faced.Jesus christ, get some serious help.

Always straddling the fence, looking confused. One minute you agree with this person, then next, you're disagreeing with that same person you said you agreed with, then co-sign with the other person that contradicts it.Stop straddling the fence.

Calling a baby an atheist, is as useless as calling an inanimate object or animal, an atheist. And I can't believe their point has been dragged on so long. It's obvious it was just an "asspull" made by the "self-entitlement boys".

And them supporting the "babies are athiest" stance, is just done out of retaliation, for being at a disadvantage. They aren't EVER considered "atheist" in society, nor do they need to be.It's super childish, and sort of inconsiderate of their circumstance.

Stop kissing each others buttcracks. The kissing has got to stop.