Excited Penguin Wrote:Alasdair Ham Wrote:Ignostics believe gods are undefinable though. Another name for ignosticism is theological noncognitvism.
If gods are undefinable, then there is no belief to be had in them. There is a lack of belief there. There is atheism. Ignostics are atheists, just as new born babies are atheists for failing to believe in Gods because they don't yet understand the concept.
This is why I call you people dishonest. Every one of you would agree and would say that we are all born atheists. And yet you give this all up and contradict yourselves just to defend a fallacious position. Why is that? Do you hate me so much you have to disagree with everything I say on principle and take the side of everyone else but me in a debate?
I disagree that we are all born atheists. the construction of 'atheist' isn't 'a-theist' or 'not a theist', it's 'athe-ist', a person concerned with 'athe', no god. Rocks, babies, and dogs aren't atheists; because they are not people capable of concerning themselves with the existence or nonexistence of God(s). A baby truly has no opinion one way or the other, and both atheism and theism are opinions on the reality of supernatural deities. In other words, I don't believe 'implicit atheism', absence of theism without conscious rejection of it, is a useful or accurate term. May as well call it implicit theism because the person has no conscious rejection of atheism. Such a person is a blank slate on the matter until they've been exposed to the idea. Implicit nontheism would be a better term, they're not a theist, but as I said, 'not a theist' is not all there is to atheism. There's a little bit more: not accepting theism.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.