Are people born inherently atheist?

[Sonofason]

Got it.

But, for communication's sake, you might want to change your phrasing to "Just as there is no doubt in my mind that I exist, there is also no doubt that God exists." It makes it more clear that certainty, and not contingency, is the message you are conveying.

People see what they want to see. So your right, it's good policy when debating those who don't want to see, to state what you want to say, as clearly as you can possibly say, the message you desire to convey.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Too wordy. The way he worded it was clear.

Plus, he never uses his words incorrectly. So Falvlun was mistaken from the getgo to question his wording.

 

[Sonofason]

Too wordy. The way he worded it was clear.

It puts a smile on my face when I see someone go into the rabbit hole and find their way out. Congratulations.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I mean that if we don't know that there is a King of France or if we know that there is no King of France, then any assertion of the King of France is proposed. (Am I now going to regret your introduction of "assertion"?)

If we don't know that there is a Sasquatch, or if we know that there is no Sasquatch, then any mention of Sasquatch is proposed.

But nobody said anything about knowledge, we were talking about the meaning or content of the proposition, "there is no King of France", or any other negative existential claim. Sure, if one claims to know there is no King of France, this is, in a sense, a proposal about the King of France- but in another sense, it is not, because what the knowledge claim is proposing is it there is no King of France; we are making a proposal about the world, or about the French government, and we are saying there is no such object as "the King of France" in it. Again, the difference between 1st and 2nd order claims.

And part of the problem here has to do with the the naive picture of language we worked under for a substantial portion of history- that in order to be meaningful, words must "pick out", or attach to, objects; so in order to make a claim about unicorns, or the King of France, even that they do not exist, is to pick out some object, the King of France for instance, and then predicate of it non-existence. But this doesn't work for the reasons already mentioned; this analysis is the opposite of what the claim is really saying. It also leaves us with an untenable Meinongian ontology- one with non-existent existents. But "the King of France" is a definite description, and one which can fail to refer- but even if it fails to refer (such as when "there is no King of France" is true), we still want to be able to talk coherently about it, which the PL/2nd order approach allows us to do; we are saying that the definite description "the King of France" is not satisfied by any object, or that there is no X such that "X is the King of France" is true. (the whole problem revolves around the ability for propositions with non-referring phrases to remain truth-apt)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If I were as certain that unicorns exist as I am that God exists, I would agree.

Actually no. You said that we exist ergo god exists. As if our existence was intrinsic upon god existing. There is no such reasoning. So either you simply believe in god and our existence is a side issue or you have some unseen qualifier that is not inherent to your argument

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To the question posed by MonkOfReason


Sonofason had written:


Falvlun writes:


If you don't experience God, and you are given no convincing reasons to believe in God, then I believe that one is justified to believe that he has not experienced God, and he is also justified in his belief that he has not been given convincing reasons to believe that God exists. That's it.

It is not justification to take the blind faith step of belief where he then asserts a belief that no God exists.

If I took a ton of shrooms and saw Spongebob would that be evidnece that Bikini Bottoms exist ?

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, but I've welded an iron plate to my butt so I'll feel safer when I turn my back to unicorns. (Pascal's Unicorn Wager)

Careful, apparently sunstone did something similar and is now in trouble.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Careful, apparently sunstone did something similar and is now in trouble.

Really? I should have conferred with him before choosing my plate thickness, I guess. Is he riding around on a unicorn horn now?

 

[Magic Man]

Before you mentioned Frank, I didn't know about Frank--there's a difference.

Ignorance is not atheism.

No, it is. That's the entire point. Atheism, at its core is a lack of belief in gods. If you are ignorant of gods, you don't believe in them, and are therefore an atheist. An atheist does not have to self identify as one. The atheist doesn't have to say "I don't believe in gods".

There is no "default negative" in my mind. I live in a positive world, a world of things that exist.

Of course. We all do. And we also talk about things that supposedly exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, the word is most commonly used to refer to people who believe that gods don't exist.

It's used that way by some people. It's used to refer to people who do not believe in gods by others. Some people use it to mean "an evil godless person who hates religion." If you want to reject that last definition, fine, but I'd be interested to hear why you think we can't use the "do not believe" definition; many do.

Wait. You think that the answer to a bad argument is to accept it, and change a definition of a word in order to avoid having to accept its conclusion?

Wouldn't it just be easier, and more informative, to simply state why it's a bad argument?

I was foreshadowing a bit in my last post. Until I've actually heard some new argument for God, I don't know for certain that it's bad. Now, based on the track record I've observed for arguments for God - every one I've ever seen has been fatally flawed - I'm not holding out much hope that the next argument I hear will be good, but I still haven't heard it yet.

Here's the argument, as you have phrased it: "you've never rejected or even heard my slightly different version of some worn-out argument for God so you can't call yourself 'atheist'" claim. The fact that I've never heard it means I haven't explicitly rejected it, but this also means I haven't accepted it."

It sounds like you actually accept this as a valid argument.

I accept that this is a problem for those who want to define atheism in terms of rejection of gods. Even the average theist rejects MOST gods.

Here are some responses you could give:
1. No, I do not need to know every specific god (or specific argument for god) in order to have a general god concept (or experience with enough arguments to know how they go) to come to the conclusion that nothing I would put in the category "god" does exist.

I don't have a "general god concept". Do you? If you do, can you tell me what qualifies as a god and what doesn't?

And the way you've phrased things there actually matches with my definition of "atheist", not yours: if someone has merely never accepted any gods, then it's true that nothing they have concluded exists would be put in the category "god".

Another way to think of the process you're describing is to imagine two sets inside a person's mind: "things he believes exists" and "things he considers gods". If there are any items that are common to both sets, then the person is a theist. If there are no items common to both sets, the person is an atheist. Do you agree that this matches with what you describe?

This is just like I do not need to eat every type of pear to know that I do not like pears, or to hear every ghost story to know that I do not believe in ghosts.

If I asked you "what do you mean by 'pear' or 'ghost'?" You could probably tell me.

What do you mean by "god"?

2. My current beliefs are not set in stone. They are subject to change and new information. If, at some point in the future, I discover a new god concept or argument or evidence that I find convincing, my beliefs may very well change. However, possibility of change does not negate my current set of beliefs.

For example, right now, I do not believe that intelligent alien life exists. But, if some time in the future, intelligent alien life makes itself known to humankind, then my belief will change. I do not have to consider myself agnostic in regards to intelligent-alien-life just on the off-chance that my beliefs will change in the future. Likewise, with gods.

Sure, but assuming that you will someday believe in this alien life, you probably haven't rejected the concept or argument that will one day convince you that they exist. You probably have not rejected that particular nuance of the "intelligent alien" concept even today, so we can't say that you've currently rejected this concept altogether. However, because you haven't accepted it yet, we can say you don't believe in intelligent aliens.

You don't believe in intelligent aliens until you do believe in them, just like you're an atheist until you become a theist.

 

[Willamena]

But nobody said anything about knowledge, we were talking about the meaning or content of the proposition, "there is no King of France", or any other negative existential claim. Sure, if one claims to know there is no King of France, this is, in a sense, a proposal about the King of France- but in another sense, it is not, because what the knowledge claim is proposing is it there is no King of France; we are making a proposal about the world, or about the French government, and we are saying there is no such object as "the King of France" in it. Again, the difference between 1st and 2nd order claims.

And part of the problem here has to do with the the naive picture of language we worked under for a substantial portion of history- that in order to be meaningful, words must "pick out", or attach to, objects; so in order to make a claim about unicorns, or the King of France, even that they do not exist, is to pick out some object, the King of France for instance, and then predicate of it non-existence. But this doesn't work for the reasons already mentioned; this analysis is the opposite of what the claim is really saying. It also leaves us with an untenable Meinongian ontology- one with non-existent existents. But "the King of France" is a definite description, and one which can fail to refer- but even if it fails to refer (such as when "there is no King of France" is true), we still want to be able to talk coherently about it, which the PL/2nd order approach allows us to do; we are saying that the definite description "the King of France" is not satisfied by any object, or that there is no X such that "X is the King of France" is true. (the whole problem revolves around the ability for propositions with non-referring phrases to remain truth-apt)

That "there is no King of France" requires a "King of France." That "there is no belief in god" requires "belief in god." I'm not talking existential claims--I don't intend that anyone take this to mean that a King of France is possible at the moment or that someone must believe in god in order to not believe. It's just meant as an example of a required object for negation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That "there is no King of France" requires a "King of France." That "there is no belief in god" requires "belief in god." I'm not talking existential claims--I don't intend that anyone take this to mean that a King of France is possible at the moment or that someone must believe in god in order to not believe. It's just meant as an example of a required object for negation.

As with any communication, the meaning of the statement resides in the heads of the sender and recipient of the message, not necessarily in the head of the person or thing being described. If I say "this dog is not the King of France", the dog doesn't need to know anything about France or monarchy.

 

[Willamena]

As with any communication, the meaning of the statement resides in the heads of the sender and recipient of the message, not necessarily in the head of the person or thing being described. If I say "this dog is not the King of France", the dog doesn't need to know anything about France or monarchy.

And if I say, "this dog lacks being King of France," I've spoken words that are interpretable. Utter nonsense, but interpretable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if I say, "this dog lacks being King of France," I've spoken words that are interpretable. Utter nonsense, but interpretable.

How about "this dog is free of fleas?" Would that be nonsense?

 

[Magic Man]

And if I say, "this dog lacks being King of France," I've spoken words that are interpretable. Utter nonsense, but interpretable.

True, because that's not the phrasing we use in that instance. There, we would say "This dog is not the King of France", but it means the same thing.

 

[Willamena]

How about "this dog is free of fleas?" Would that be nonsense?

How about, "this child is free of beliefs of god?"

What is the implication there?

Edit: What I mean is, that's not any better, and actually worse.

It's not just a matter of finding a nice way of saying it.

Dictionary entries capture a picture of what a word means. There is no "belief of god" lacking from the picture when it comes to calling someone else an atheist. "God" is not missing; the person claiming atheism on behalf of another is talking about a concept that they hold.

I don't lack a belief in "____" (something only in your head), and neither does that person over there. We each hold only as much as the things we know and believe, and we don't "lack" hold of things we don't know or believe--that's the nonsense. We, as mental entities, are not required to be composed of anything more than the thoughts at our disposal.

 

[Magic Man]

How about, "this child is free of beliefs of god?"

What is the implication there?

Edit: What I mean is, that's not any better, and actually worse.

It's not just a matter of finding a nice way of saying it.

Dictionary entries capture a picture of what a word means. There is no "belief of god" lacking from the picture when it comes to calling someone else an atheist. "God" is not missing; the person claiming atheism on behalf of another is talking about a concept that they hold.

I don't lack a belief in "____" (something only in your head), and neither does that person over there. We each hold only as much as the things we know and believe, and we don't "lack" hold of things we don't know or believe--that's the nonsense. We, as mental entities, are not required to be composed of anything more than the thoughts at our disposal.

Each person holds certain beliefs and doesn't hold others. It's like putting fruit on a table. Either there is a pear on the table or there isn't. Either a particular belief is present in someone's mind or it isn't. If you haven't heard of a particular god-concept, you don't hold the belief in that god in your mind, just like that pear isn't on the table. In other words, you lack that belief like the table lacks a pear.

 

[Willamena]

Each person holds certain beliefs and doesn't hold others. It's like putting fruit on a table. Either there is a pear on the table or there isn't. Either a particular belief is present in someone's mind or it isn't. If you haven't heard of a particular god-concept, you don't hold the belief in that god in your mind, just like that pear isn't on the table. In other words, you lack that belief like the table lacks a pear.

The problem with claiming for someone thoughts that they don't hold is that you claim for them every thought that anyone else has or has ever had.

I've no problem with "doesn't hold this belief" to mean "doesn't think this is so." That clearly says that this person has a thought.

 

[Willamena]

It's like putting fruit on a table. Either there is a pear on the table or there isn't. Either a particular belief is present in someone's mind or it isn't.

A belief isn't a proposition that one can put on the table, figuratively speaking. It's the thought or attitude that a particular proposition is true. It belongs to each of us, uniquely.

belief: definition of belief in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

 

[ArtieE]

A belief isn't a proposition that one can put on the table, figuratively speaking. It's the thought or attitude that a particular proposition is true. It belongs to each of us, uniquely.

belief: definition of belief in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

1. It's the thought or attitude that a particular proposition is true. (Theism).
2. It's the thought or attitude that a particular proposition is false. (Strong atheism.)
3. No thoughts or attitudes regarding that particular proposition for some reason or other. (Weak implicit atheism).