Babies going to hell...

[emprworm]

empr, are you suggesting that atheists are nothing more than rebels, fighting against god?

Dj, all of that is possible, but then again if he missed critical periods of learning, he could spend the rest of his life not able to think that critically.

no, I am suggesting that when atheists are confronted with arguments for God's existence, and then deny them, they are denying belief in God...just like TMA said.

You are not neutral, Acriku. You do not have "lack of belief in the Judeo Christian God" You pro-actively disbelieve in the Judeo Christian God.

[Acriku]

Denying has an effect that implies disagreeing without any consideration, like denying what your ex-girlfriend said about you to your current girlfriend. That's why I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't that.

I was not talking about myself, just a hypothetical man born and living on the island alone.

[DjCiD]

Dj, all of that is possible, but then again if he missed critical periods of learning, he could spend the rest of his life not able to think that critically.

In that case he would be blind but not by choice. Never giving the opportunity to see. According to the scriptures then he should be held unaccountable.

[Acriku]

Dj I am not talking about whether or not he will go to heaven, but whether or not he is denying god - which empr and tma state that it is a requirement to do so.

[emprworm]

Dj I am not talking about whether or not he will go to heaven, but whether or not he is denying god - which empr and tma state that it is a requirement to do so.

huh?

JUST WHAT DID I STATE AGAIN ACRIKU?

[Acriku]

it most certainly does if you are confronted with it....and then subsequently deny it.

hence the majority of atheists in the world.

I can take your name off and only put tma's if you want, but from what I gathered you say the same thing, with one exception.

[emprworm]

"it most certainly does if you are confronted with it....and then subsequently deny it.

hence the majority of atheists in the world. "

Those are my words, Acriku. And they were in reference to what?

[Acriku]

To... "DJ I was showing TMA that lacking a belief does not require a denial of that belief."

[emprworm]

To... "DJ I was showing TMA that lacking a belief does not require a denial of that belief."

correct.

now, how is that related to: "I am not talking about whether or not he will go to heaven, but whether or not he is denying god- which empr and tma state that it is a requirement to do so." ?

I fail to see the link in what I said, to what you just said.

[TMA_1]

how does it not? lacking a belief is a choice. so you choose to lack a belief in that thing which is a denial of that thing.

[emprworm]

not necessarily TMA.

2 minutes ago, you probably lacked belief in the existence of the Tripedal Esoteric Multiphase Astro Leprechaun- a false god that I just made up. Now that you have heard of this god, however, and I ask you to consider its existence, you will no longer lack belief, but you will actively disbelieve. However 2 minutes ago, before you even read my post, you had no knowledge of the postulation of such a deity- therefore you had a lack of belief in it....AND you also did not deny its existence either. So 2 minutes ago, not only did you lack belief in the Tripedal Esoteric Multiphase Astro Leprechaun, but you also did not disbelieve in it either.

So they are actually seperate things.

However, once I present to you the proposed Deity, and ask you to consider the Tripedal Esoteric Multiphase Astro Leprechaun...and THEN you reject it...well no longer do you just have a "lack of belief"...you now have disbelief.

So I agree with you that most atheists are in disbelief of God (like acriku is), but I also agree with acriku that lack of belief and disbelief are seperate things.

[Caid Ivik]

Lack of believe and disbelieve? You are playing with words, turning to a confusing mess now. Rejecting God's existence is a non-sense, they can believe or not believe, but not say "I've just stopped to believe".

[emprworm]

no, disbelieve is a conclusion you make when faced with a proposition.

lack of belief is not a conclusion and also lacks consideration.

once you consider something, and then dismiss it (whether you think it is false, or simply lacking evidence), then you no longer have a lack of belief, but you disbelieve- which simply means that you specifically do not believe the merits of the given thing in question. There really is a subtle difference- it is this subtle difference that atheists ferventy latch onto, however, they take it too far. They say that they "lack belief" even after they exhaustively consider God, weighing the evidence in their mental courtroom. Of course, once you consider God, you are then making a conclusion so no longer can you say you have a "lack of belief"

[Caid Ivik]

If you lack evidence, you don't understand it, not refuse.

[Acriku]

Empr if god showed himself, then most atheists would become theists. It is not disbelief, because if it is then those will not become theists and stay atheists. It is the lack of belief, and I lack a belief (i.e. I do not have a belief) in god. It is that simple. It may involve consideration, it may not. But the main point is that not having a belief is not having disbeliefs, but lacking a belief. There is a difference.

[emprworm]

It may involve consideration, it may not. But the main point is that not having a belief is not having disbeliefs, but lacking a belief. There is a difference.

i does involve consideration. there is no "may not" about it. you considered Him and rejected it. lack of belief only applies to something that has not been considered. If you define "disbelief" as making a full conclusion that the thing in question definately does not exist, then fine, i will grant you that point. Yet even though you lack enough evidence for your conclusions, that is not to say you "lack belief" anymore in the same way that you did before I told you about the Necromatic Neon Purple Galactic Sphincter Syphon. Even if you do not want to say "I disbelieve" in God ...at minimum there is no way for you to avoid "I considered it, and still refuse to believe"- in which case you have positive unbelief in the thing considered, even if you wont call it disbelief.

[Acriku]

I did not "consider" him, I believed in him. That is, until I did in fact reject him - being the teenager as I was and am - but looking at evidence now and for a while now, I find it hard to believe in such a god. So, you can say I refuse to believe in your god based on evidence examined and looked over. But I do not simply refuse to believe.

[emprworm]

bah, overly semantical. fine:

"I considered it, and still do not believe".

Once you consider something, you now have positive unbelief

[Acriku]

unbelief = lack of belief. The two are one and the same.

[emprworm]

but it is positive unbelief. that is different than a default lack of belief prior to consideration.

once you consider something and bring it into your "mental courtroom", then something changes. Your lack of belief is no longer holds a negative connotation, but a positive one.

[Caid Ivik]

Acriku, you haven't rejected Him. You've lost contact to Him.

Empr if god showed himself, then most atheists would become theists. It is not disbelief, because if it is then those will not become theists and stay atheists. It is the lack of belief, and I lack a belief (i.e. I do not have a belief) in god. It is that simple. It may involve consideration, it may not. But the main point is that not having a belief is not having disbeliefs, but lacking a belief. There is a difference.

He had showed Himself. Just you hadn't luck to be alive then. But he isn't Fidel Castro, He don't have to go on tribune everyday to cheer "I'm alive!". For us it was enough, and once He will show again. Somewhere you can see His influence. But sorry, crying to him let He shows us Himself, that is against his base: we cannot command Him.

[Acriku]

It says he showed himself a long time ago and never will, how convenient? You see God in everything, because you believe in it enough for it to make you a little schizophrenic - but hey I may be wrong, I am just observing and concluding.

[emprworm]

It says he showed himself a long time ago and never will, how convenient? You see God in everything, because you believe in it enough for it to make you a little schizophrenic - but hey I may be wrong, I am just observing and concluding.

"observing and concluding"

which is why you no longer have a simple "lack of belief" like a baby does.

[Acriku]

Empr do I have a belief in a god? No. Therefore, my brain is empty of this belief. Using this information, I can conclude that I have a lack of faith in a god. That simple. Anything else you put to it, is adding to the definition of atheism.

[emprworm]

you examined the claims for God, you rejected the claims for God.

You took positive PRO-ACTION in your unbelief. Your unbelief is a pro-active one. It is not default, it is not negative.

not the same as a baby.