Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[LuisDantas]

What do you mean by "implicit atheism"? Is an implicit (suggested though not directly expressed) atheist someone who hasn't come out and claimed atheist status? I've many times been in situations where I've not expressed my atheism and those I'm chatting with just assume I'm a Christian.

Implicit atheism, in a nutshell, is atheism as an implicit attribute of entities understood to be incapable of choosing to be theists.

 

[Marsh]

As is to be expected.

... so it is only natural for many to feel the need to point out that they are indeed atheists, but that atheists is not all that they are.

I understand your explanation, but when I see some of those descriptors attached to the word "atheist" it just confuses the heck out of me.

 

[Marsh]

Implicit atheism, in a nutshell, is atheism as an implicit attribute of entities understood to be incapable of choosing to be theists.

Doesn't help. What the heck does "implicit attribute of entities" mean?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Doesn't help. What the heck does "implicit attribute of entities" mean?

This might help as an overview of implicit/explicit atheism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

 

[Ouroboros]

Yup...put me in the 'Don't Care' bucket. I guess I see the same issue with agnostocism as with atheism. Agnostocism can be a considered philosophical position suggesting that knowledge of God is impossible. This is obviously not the babies view. But it's all good. I just figure we're a word short, or implicit atheism is the word. Either way. I get how 'Implicit atheism' can be seen as a means of 'winning' some sort of argument, although it's certainly not in my case.

The funny thing is... I used to be on that side myself. Just a few years ago, I would also argue that babies are atheists.

Works for me. Semantically, I think they are implicit atheists, actually, but I'd kinda prefer I didn't. The description holds no value, and simply leads to circular discussions that add nothing to my worldview. BTW, I'm a SQL geek...ahem...

Cool. Then you do know about nullable datatypes.

I remember when the old databases didn't have it, or when empty string was treated as a null-string. I think it was MS-SQL 6.0 or 6.5, and later, the null status was implemented. Actually, I did have some issues in some of my software with the empty string and null status missing. Some things just didn't work right.

I think it can be, truth be told. It's kinda the atheist equivalent of theists saying 'You can't hear God because you are closed to Him' or something.
But there are a number of people on here who see babies as implicit atheists, and also hold my respect, so I'd prefer to say in SOME cases it could be a recruitment drive.

Sure.

I think part of it is also shock value. Show a cute baby in a photo with the sub-title "Atheist", and wait for the reaction from theists. It's good debate starter, but when people disagree of the use of the label (since they're not just "atheists", that would suggest they're explicit/weak/strong as well, but it should be specific that it's the implicit atheist kind), the responses should be to reason and debate, not to berate them for having different opinion.

 

[Ouroboros]

In which meaningful sense would implicit atheism be any different from non-theism? The former is a subset of the later, perhaps?

It used to be explained on Wikipedia that Non-theism was the umbrella term which included atheism, pantheism, and other non-theistic views. Atheism was a subset of non-theism. Now, atheism and non-theism have become a united term, and also, agnosticism is essentially atheism, while pantheism is more of "word play" and a form of atheism as well, and Buddhism is some kind of theism without God, or maybe it's an spiritual atheism, ... not sure. The classifications got a little bit more tricky.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The funny thing is... I used to be on that side myself. Just a few years ago, I would also argue that babies are atheists.

God help me if I'm on 'that side'. It's the most useless argument we have around here, imho, and THAT is saying something.

Cool. Then you do know about nullable datatypes.

I remember when the old databases didn't have it, or when empty string was treated as a null-string. I think it was MS-SQL 6.0 or 6.5, and later, the null status was implemented. Actually, I did have some issues in some of my software with the empty string and null status missing. Some things just didn't work right.

Yeah. I get to work with some proprietary reporting solutions that either crack it when a null is included in a dataset and does weird things to grouping and filtering, or else decides it's a zero, and treats it as such.

I think part of it is also shock value. Show a cute baby in a photo with the sub-title "Atheist", and wait for the reaction from theists. It's good debate starter, but when people disagree of the use of the label (since they're not just "atheists", that would suggest they're explicit/weak/strong as well, but it should be specific that it's the implicit atheist kind), the responses should be to reason and debate, not to berate them for having different opinion.

Agreed. To add a different take, I was christened when I was young. Given the God, or whatever. Perhaps there is some level of pushback from atheists on issues such as that? A stand, in a sense, to say that the baby should remain without theism until they are of a sufficient age to choose?
Dunno, I'm freelancing there. It's kinda hard to imagine why people care, to be honest.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed. To add a different take, I was christened when I was young. Given the God, or whatever.

And I "gave myself" to Jesus at the age of 7, on my own accord and will. I was actually alone in the kitchen, my parents at church. On a summer Sunday morning. I think I was home for some cold or flu. Not sure. So perhaps I just was delirious. And I made my own eucharist procedure and prayed.

Perhaps there is some level of pushback from atheists on issues such as that?

Absolutely. It is. It's the Newtonian 3rd law or whatever of equal but opposite force kind'a thing. Religion and philosophical theists have pushed hard for millennia, and now we have a huge push-back.

A stand, in a sense, to say that the baby should remain without theism until they are of a sufficient age to choose?

Kind'a. There are so many problems with these categories and identities, in my opinion. It's like the argument I got a couple of weeks ago that American babies are born American, the same way as babies are born atheists. And the problem here is that a Christian family, when they have a baby, the baby is born not only into a theism, but a religion, and are in most cases assigned in some countries to the religion the family has. So the babies are essentially atheistic Christians. Culturally Christians, but regarding belief-state, they're full fledged atheists. It becomes a bit weird.

In reality, at least to me nowadays, is that belief and atheism-theism dichotomy, is more of a spectrum. It's an analogue scale of uncertainty rather than binary status. We hold a belief, and we hold unbelief, and we can lack belief, and the labels and identities only help guiding where we stand, but they shouldn't replace what we hold.

Dunno, I'm freelancing there. It's kinda hard to imagine why people care, to be honest.

Well, we're on a debate forum because we want to discuss things. Some people want to discuss these things because for whatever reasons. One of the worst offenses is the debate stoppers. The reason why there's a forum is because it's a place where the opinions should flow and be shared and discussed. 99% of this site has discussions I haven't even looked at or even care for, but I wouldn't dream of going into any of them and tell everyone to stop only because I don't care for the topic. It's their debate and their interests driving it. Not my place to interfere.

Here's some food for thought. The different God(s) concepts and definitions made by theists can be confusing to atheists, or at least nonsensical (and the theists are called out on it and told how stupid they are for believing this or that), but the implicit vs explicit atheism is equally confusing to theists consider that both implicit and explicit atheism are defined exactly the same. The only difference is that implicit atheism is someone lacking belief based on not having the capacity to believe, while explicit atheism is someone lacking belief regardless of the capacity to believe. Atheism as a whole might be defined as lack of belief in God(s), but the issue is rather if the capacity of believing should or shouldn't be part of the definition. If capacity is unimportant, then yes, babies are atheists, but if the capacity is important, then babies are not. Or something like that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand your explanation, but when I see some of those descriptors attached to the word "atheist" it just confuses the heck out of me.

I can't say it is any different with me, for what it is worth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Doesn't help. What the heck does "implicit attribute of entities" mean?

That a rock (or an infant) can't really understand either theism or atheism and therefore ought to be assumed atheistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

It used to be explained on Wikipedia that Non-theism was the umbrella term which included atheism, pantheism, and other non-theistic views. Atheism was a subset of non-theism. Now, atheism and non-theism have become a united term, and also, agnosticism is essentially atheism, while pantheism is more of "word play" and a form of atheism as well, and Buddhism is some kind of theism without God, or maybe it's an spiritual atheism, ... not sure. The classifications got a little bit more tricky.

It seems to me that the core concept "deity" is vague and arbitrary enough to begin with, so it is only natural for derived terms to be subject to the ebb and flow of cultural trends.

 

[Ouroboros]

It seems to me that the core concept "deity" is vague and arbitrary enough to begin with, so it is only natural for derived terms to be subject to the ebb and flow of cultural trends.

As long as we don't create the counter-point terms to be just as vague. In the attempt of sharpening the definitions, we can sometimes introduce unwanted effects, so instead of achieving more clarity, we might have more confusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

As long as we don't create the counter-point terms to be just as vague. In the attempt of sharpening the definitions, we can sometimes introduce unwanted effects, so instead of achieving more clarity, we might have more confusion.

Is it even reasonable to expect a counter-point to a vague term to be less vague?

 

[Ouroboros]

Is it even reasonable to expect a counter-point to a vague term to be less vague?

Probably not.

Here are some of my concerns regarding the vague definition of "God(s)".

1) The atheist says, "I lack belief in God(s) whatever definition they might have."
2) The theist says, "My carved wood figure is God." (replace carved wood figure with banana, rock, universe, mystical supernatural magician, or whatever)
3) The atheist says, "I don't believe that's God. That's ridiculous."

Now, at that point, the atheist is making a positive claim about the definition of what God is supposed to be. He/she's rejecting the definition more than the usage or concept. The atheist of course believes in the rock to exist, but doesn't believe the "God" definition of the rock to be useful or meaningful, which is something completely different than just lacking belief.

 

[Acim]

You know exactly what I meant.

I didn't know what you meant and is why I asked. I consider humans to be intelligent and divine. Thus, hearing what you said struck me as a way to challenge what you were getting across.

no - on a universal scale we humans administrate nothing, and I wouldn't dare call what we do on Earth "maintenance". The best we achieve is stewardship of anything - and we even suck at that - pretty hard.

So, you change the goal posts. Going from:
- "no self-aware/intelligent entity or entities responsible for any part of the creation, maintenance or administration of the universe."
to
- on a universal scale we humans administrate nothing

Cause "any part" would include things much smaller than the entire planet. It would even include the human body. And your stating that we are not responsible for maintaining / administrating the earth. If I'm reading your reasoning correctly, whatever I come up with would also not apply to anything we think we might have a right to administrate or maintain.

Given the lack of objectivity for existence of a physical universe, I'm so far going easy on what it is you are trying to convey but so far not doing a very good job at it. Without our intellect and consciousness, I find it not possible to establish existence of this universe. And without beliefs relying on circular reasoning for physical perception of said universe, there is plausibly no physical universe. There is no scale to the universe without us (currently existing intelligent beings).

 

[Willamena]

Hmm...survival of the fittest doesn't work that way though?

Hence 'Darwinian' as metaphor.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hence 'Darwinian' as metaphor.

Perhaps a problem today is that we tend to think literal and not read the meaning behind the words of metaphors? Poor flavored neutrinos. I wonder if the flavors are salty, sweet, or bitter?

 

[Acim]

That a rock (or an infant) can't really understand either theism or atheism and therefore ought to be assumed atheistic.

Even while a baby observably has influential beings watching over them, that were their creator(s)?

Seems this thread is suggesting that if we observed actual God watching over/influencing actual Creation, and we had actual knowledge of God creating Creation, that if the creation itself was, at any moment unaware of this (lacking a belief), that all observers ought to consider that an actual form of atheism.

Let us all worship at the altar of ignorance and call ourselves knowledgable / intelligent / rational.

 

[Curious George]

I'll try and answer, but honestly I'm not sure if I've understood your meaning. So apologies if I miss the mark, but I'm trying here...!! Just restate what you mean if I have misunderstood I guess.

Let's say you worship Earth, as some sort of Gaea type figure. To me, Earth is Earth, worthy of awe in some ways, but not something I would worship.
You would refer to yourself as a theist ( in this example, at least...). And so I would be fine with that. You worship Earth, you're a theist. Nevermind what MY opinion about Earth is.
A Christian is a theist, nevermind that I'm not 100% sure Jesus even existed, much less was both God and the Son of God. It is the person's belief and their worship which establishes them as theists, in simple terms.

But atheism is not theism. To me, that holds true in 2 different ways, actually;
1) The meaning of atheism, in a modern sense, is the absence of theism. More traditionally, it was related to the absence of certain forms of theism, but language evolves, as someone else here has mentioned.
2) There is a false equivalency in treating theism and atheism the same. If atheism is the lack of theism in people, then babies (by that definition) are atheists. To be a theist, I lay claim to some particular God belief. No atheist on Earth would think they have considered and rebutted every God belief.

Ultimately, this argument is (in my opinion) meaningless. I have seen it had on RF many times, and whilst I reluctantly would think babies are (in a purely semantic sense) atheists (ie. without theism) the simple fact is the argument is a complete sidetrack from anything that holds substance, meaning or worth. Babies are babies. They poo, they wee, they feed, they scream, they sleep and they don't give 2 hoots what we all think they technically are. They're babies. Overthinking it is completely redundant.

Alright, so what I am reading here is that it is okay to define someone else's atheism, because if you believe someone has an absence of a god belief, such as we do with any implicit atheist, then that is enough to seem that person an atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Probably not.

Here are some of my concerns regarding the vague definition of "God(s)".

1) The atheist says, "I lack belief in God(s) whatever definition they might have."
2) The theist says, "My carved wood figure is God." (replace carved wood figure with banana, rock, universe, mystical supernatural magician, or whatever)
3) The atheist says, "I don't believe that's God. That's ridiculous."

Now, at that point, the atheist is making a positive claim about the definition of what God is supposed to be. He/she's rejecting the definition more than the usage or concept. The atheist of course believes in the rock to exist, but doesn't believe the "God" definition of the rock to be useful or meaningful, which is something completely different than just lacking belief.

That is certainly a less than ideal situation. I am not too troubled by it because it seems clear to me that the purpose is to reject presumptions of "deep-down belief" and similar abuses, but sure, it should be handled better.