Question for the Atheist

[_Ceeboo]

Ohhhh Dear!

I can't believe I am typing this but..............maybe we ought to extend the atheists an offer of a time out (3-4 hours?) to huddle and collect their thoughts.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



:)


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

dis·be·lieve/ˌdisbəˈlēv/Verb:
Be unable to believe (someone or something).
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.

To you, rocks are atheists?

I think it is safe to assume rocks do not have a belief in god.

[_Morley]

To you, rocks are atheists?

I think it is safe to assume rocks do not have a belief in god.

I'd certainly agree. But I wouldn't argue that they're atheists. Are rocks, by your definition, atheists?

[_Quasimodo]

Are rocks, by your definition, atheists?

Here's a rock with a God carved into it. Maybe this is a theist rock.

[_just me]

I'm pretty sure that Mormon's believe that all the elements recognize their Master and obey Him (that's what I was taught). So, rocks aren't atheists.

[_honorentheos]

The author of the Lectures on Faith taught that all children have to be ignorant of God at a minimum. One could argue a person who is ignorant of God could not be an atheist. Maybe not a bad argument, either. Not sure it's what Ceeboo has in mind. Maybe what Mak does. It does raise a question about the status of a person lacking belief in something of which they have no concept? It would, by nature, be a universal characteristic in general, if not in detail since we all have no belief in certain things that no one has yet defined or conceived of.

Anyway, Joseph Smith takes sides on children's belief in God, and it isn't on the side of pre-knowledge.

Source -

Lecture Second

Q. How did men first come to the knowledge of the existence of a God, so as to exercise faith in him?
A. In order to answer this question, it will be necessary to go back and examine man at his creation; the circumstances in which he was placed, and the knowledge which he had of God. (2:3-11.)
First, When man was created he stood in the presence of God. Gen. 1:27,28. From this we learn that man, at his creation, stood in the presence of his God, and had most perfect knowledge of his existence.
Secondly, God conversed with him after his transgression. Gen. 3: from the 8th to the 22nd. (2:13-17.)
From this we learn, that, though man did transgress, he was not deprived of the previous knowledge which he had of the existence of God. (2:19.)
Thirdly, God conversed with man after he cast him out of the garden. (2:22-25.)
Fourthly, God also conversed with Cain after he had slain Abel. Gen. 4: from the 4th to the 6th. (2:26-29.)

Q. What is the object of the foregoing quotation?
A. It is that it may be clearly seen how it was that the first thoughts were suggested to the minds of men, of the existence of God, and how extensively this knowledge was spread among the immediate descendants of Adam. (2:30-33.)

Q. What testimony had the immediate descendants of Adam, in proof of the existence of a God?
A. The testimony of their father. And after they were made acquainted with his existence, by the testimony of their father, they were dependant upon the exercise of their own faith, for a knowledge of his character, perfections and attributes. (2:23-26.)

Q. Had any others of the human family, beside Adam, a knowledge of the existence of God, in the first instance, by any other means than human testimony?
A. They had not. For previous to the time that they could have power to obtain a manifestation for themselves, the all-important fact had been communicated to them by their common father: and so, from father to child, the knowledge was communicated as extensively, as the knowledge of his existence was known; for it was by this means, in the first instance, that men had a knowledge of his existence. (2:35, 36.) (my emphasis added)

ETA: since when did the board automatically change J-S together to Joseph Smith?

[_Tarski]

Nothing much turns on the answer to the question of whether babies should be considered atheists or not.

And yet, watch how fiercely atheists will argue that the word needs to be understood that way despite its usage over millennia. If everyone is born an atheist then atheism is natural and theism is unnatural. That's the whole point.

Even if so, we don't want to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good or desirable.

By the way, rocks and toads are not atheists in any important sense.
(edit: I see someone beat me to this point)

[_MrStakhanovite]

Even if so, we don't want to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good or desirable.

Thank you for getting that right, most people seem to think that is the Ought-Is gap. G.E. Moore always gets the shaft

[_maklelan]

Even if so, we don't want to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good or desirable.

By the way, rocks and toads are not atheists in any important sense.
(edit: I see someone beat me to this point)

I'm well aware of the problems with their approach, I'm just pointing out that many of them are quite committed to it anyway.

[_Buffalo]

The definition I'm using is a legitimate one - albeit the most inclusive of possible definitions.

Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion (2002) page 18

Yes, that's one definition. Let's not get all DCP "insider."