Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[ignoramus]

Stim, you're a better man than I am.
He had me at "supernatural".

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You know what? I fucking give up. You wolves can have him. Raw meat for the balcony.

I don't understand.
Is it because my logic is faulty?
or 
Is it because i'm stubborn? 

-If you are saying that my argument is invalid due to faulty logic-

All i'm saying is that a person born without the knowing of the concept of a god will not be a Atheist by default.
Because to be a Atheist it first takes to know the concepts of theism and then reject the claims proposed by Theism.
Not knowing the concept of a god =/= Rejecting the concepts proposed by theism.Because to reject the claims you'd first have to know the claims.

A person can only be a(or know) theism first and only then be a Atheist next.
It cannot happen the other way around.

-If you are saying that i'm too stubborn-

I'm sorryyyy <333.I refrain from my argument.People are born atheists.
If a person is not fed the idea of a god,then it automatically means that that person is an atheist because belief is binary - you either believe in something or do not believe in something(agnotism etc would come in between but as far as Theism and Atheism is concerned belief is binary)so according to logic if a person is not 1 then he is 0,that is,if a person is not a theist then it obviously means he is an atheist,i can't believe i confused this.My bad.I admire you for trying with me and succeeding. <3

Edit: Check this out <SNIP!> i'm flabbergasted XD THAT IS ME

30 posts and 30 days before you get to post outside links. We are not a url farm. -- Stimbo

[Foxaèr]

That poll is rigged, thus I shall not answer it.

[Excited Penguin]

Notice how Pool finally agreed with us but only after one authority figure expressed his disinvolvement with the discussion and gave us a green light to pound on him. This is after he gained my support in a debate where he had none and subsequently lost it. That is, of course, only if he wasn't being purposefully misleading in his agreeing with us to avoid what he perceived as a threat(but my argument stands nonetheless). Anyway, the connection is there for you to make. At risk of repeating myself, this is just a kid, and he's a pretty naive one too, so there's no need to actually take him seriously. He will either grow out of it or not, but being too severe with him for not being smart enough to understand us is too mean on our parts. This is not some troll(unless he actually is) or bad person intentionally being obtuse so as to create further disagreement and chaos.
Am I seriously the only one seeing an innocent child here?...

[Whateverist]

I'm purely reasoning using logic and i suspect you're not - though you're welcome to prove me wrong.

[My bolding.]

I'm pretty sure that's already been done by any number of us to our satisfaction and I despair that you would ever realize it regardless.  So no thanks.  Why don't you just go ahead and prove me wrong in a way no one else on earth will find convincing and then chuckle madly to yourself some more.

[Cato]

-If you are saying that my argument is invalid due to faulty logic-

I destroyed your lack of logic. Now you attempt to justify your inanity with a standard result from a Myers-Briggs test? Fucking troll.

[Whateverist]

He might have flunked out of troll school. Not sure what you'd call this one besides obtuse, close minded and possibly manic.

[robvalue]

It is a tempting notion, the idea that we have a different understanding of things, a superior one that everyone else just can't grasp.

However, with experience comes humility. I remember when I came up with the idea of what I now call "determinism" on my own. I went through all the thought processes and came to my conclusions, and I wowed a few people who agreed with me that my logic was sound. It wasn't until years later I discovered this was already a well established philosophy, I just happened to have stumbled across it on my own.

New ideas will happen of course, things advance. But in general, people are going to have thought about whatever it is you come up with, and will have spent an awful lot of time doing so. Therefor it's important to "check in" with the work that has already been done before announcing yourself as some kind of completely original thinker; and also to help you correct any mistakes you may have made on your own.

Thinking on your own is fantastic and I encourage it, of course. I'm just warning about the dangers of becoming isolated from the general bank of knowledge in the hopes of being "different". It doesn't generally work out well. Of course you shouldn't assume all we have found out is true either; but neither should you discard things for no reason in your quest for originality.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The definition Atheism as disbelieving in a god is too vague - for me at least.
So you guys are basically telling me that Atheism is not rejecting the claims made by Theism?
But claiming the disbelief in god? - It doesn't make sense.

If i have a belief in a non-existent idea(god) then i am making the claim of god.
So people against have to reject my beliefs then it would be upon myself to prove the existence of god.
But what happens when people are not rejecting my beliefs but rather forming their own beliefs?
I honestly don't know.Aren't they also making a claim in doing so?
I'd be most appreciative if someone could explain what happens in this particular scenario!

[bennyboy]

All i'm saying is that a person born without the knowing of the concept of a god will not be a Atheist by default.
Because to be a Atheist it first takes to know the concepts of theism and then reject the claims proposed by Theism.

Your last statement is here referred to as "antitheism," not "atheism."

But I agree with your first point. If lacking a belief in God makes you atheist, then my beagle is an atheist, as is my big toe. But this is not how the word is normally used-- "-ist" implies a thinking agent that could potentially be atheist but happens not to be. I'd say this is impossible-- you only have the potential to be theist if you are a person AND you have been presented with the God idea. If you have not accepted this idea, then you have rejected this-- and are a "hard" atheist or an anti-theist.

I think people ACTUALLY are anti-theist. They're annoyed by shitty arguments, by social manipulation, by bias in the workplace, etc. It is only philosophically, where you can't prove a negative, that people take the softer position that they "lack a belief in God."