Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

...in which case the atheist does not necessarily believe in their non-belief...

Self-referential states create a paradox.
Self-Reference (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You hear a lot of people call babies atheists "on the ground?"

I've never heard it outside of the semantic gymnastics on RF.

I hear a lot of people use the term "atheist" in ways that would imply that a baby is an atheist.

I'd say I hear people describe babies as atheists slightly more often than I hear them described as citizens or bipeds. Are you going to argue that babies aren't citizens of the country where they're born or that babies don't have two legs?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, but until the day comes when the world's infants are able to proudly and publicly claim their atheism, we have a lot of work to do, both societally and semantically.

Let my (baby atheist) people go!!

Uh-oh. Now I've got "Go Down, Moses" in my head. The Louis Armstrong version, of course.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I hear a lot of people use the term "atheist" in ways that would imply that a baby is an atheist.

I suppose the problem is rooted in silly implications. That's where some well-placed common sense comes into play.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And "on the ground", the term is used in different ways by different people.

Yep. And the more the merrier, so far as I'm concerned. I look forward to the day when we have no more use for such words.

I love to inject ambiguity and confusion into theological label-making.

 

[idav]

You hear a lot of people call babies atheists "on the ground?"

I've never heard it outside of the semantic gymnastics on RF.

I've heard on RF that babies being heathen atheists is a matter of salvation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was thinking the same thing when Penguin made the comment about logic. Language isn't necessarily logical, not at all.

An example is the statement, "I could care less."

Over the past few years, this statement has come to mean the same thing as, "I couldn't care less." It's just the way language works. People make mistakes and those mistakes propagate until the error becomes correct usage.

So my friend says to me, "I could care less about the Dodgers. Baseball bores me."

Let's say I have laryingitis and no handy pen-and-paper and so cannot argue with my friend about the illogicality of it. Well, I'll still understand perfectly well what my friend means, as illogical as the words themselves may appear.

I find that many people are confused about atheism because they see the a- prefix and can't help thinking that an atheist must be the opposite of a theist, no matter what. After all, there is the negating prefix! Of course language doesn't work that way. Words mean what they mean and logic be damned.

In my experience, coders and mathematicians are expecially enamored with the notion of logic-in-language, but others often seem of the same persuasion.

BTW: my post about logic wasn't about some notion that the etymology of atheism implies that it should mean "without theism"; it was about statements like this:

It would be better to say they are neither fans nor not fans of Keanu Reeves in the same way it would be better to say they are neither theists nor atheists.

Statements like this are subject to the rules of logic, and talking about people who are "neither fans nor not fans of Keanu Reeves" as if this is a real category of people is contradicted by the law of the excluded middle:

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Either P or not P. A person is either a fan of Keanu Reeves or not. If not, then he is not a fan of Keanu Reeves. This is basic logic.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

BTW: my post about logic wasn't about some notion that the etymology of atheism implies that it should mean "without theism";

Yeah, I know. It just reminded me; I wasn't aiming my comment at you.

it was about statements like this:

Forgive me if I abstain. You guys are making my head hurt with all the logic and words and stuff. I am only a lowly poet.

Statements like this are subject to the rules of logic, and talking about people who are "neither fans nor not fans of Keanu Reeves" as if this is a real category of people is contradicted by the law of the excluded middle:

It's hard for me to agree with you. If you are talking merely about words, then Yes. There are fans and there are non-fans. A thing and a not-that-thing.

But I'm sure there are people in the world who are neither fans nor non-fans of Keanu. That's because I see the words as incapable of equalling the human being. They're merely descriptors, labels, which we apply to people. In real life, a guy might like Keanu when he's drunk but not when sober. He might kinda like Keanu and kinda not.

Is he a fan? Or not-a-fan? Well I'm happy with thinking of him as being neither.

Either P or not P. A person is either a fan of Keanu Reeves or not. If not, then he is not a fan of Keanu Reeves. This is basic logic.

Right. But logic only works with symbols, so it seems to me. And while words are symbols, people are not.

Here's the thing: I am both an atheist and a prophet of God. Simultaneously. I know this to be true because 1) I know myself and 2) I can argue my position compellingly.

A logician might see my claim like this: AmbigGuy believes in God and AmbigGuy disbelieves in God.

Impossible, yes?

And so he might reject my claim. But I would see him as being distracted by the map (the language) and losing sight of the territory (my nature and beliefs).

 

[Willamena]

It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true... Either P or not P

...is true.

Either P is true, or not P is true.

P is required for both propositions.

Not P is the negation of P, not the elimination of P.

 

[Willamena]

P

does not imply

P is true

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

P

does not imply

P is true

No, it implies that P is either true ("he's a fan") or false ("he's not a fan"). There is no third option.

Even in AmbiguousGuy's example of the guy who likes Keanu when he's drunk but not when he's sober, at any moment in time, he's either a fan or not. The question "is this guy a Keanu Reeves fan?" always has a single answer that's either "yes" or "no"... even if the answer will be different if you ask the question later.

 

[Willamena]

No, it implies that P is either true ("he's a fan") or false ("he's not a fan"). There is no third option.

P is true or not P is true. P is required before the law of excluded middle comes into effect. No P, no law of excluded middle.

"It's true he's a fan," or "it's true he's not a fan." Both are propositions about him being a fan, but it can also be the case that there is no proposition at all about him being a fan.

Even in AmbiguousGuy's example of the guy who likes Keanu when he's drunk but not when he's sober, at any moment in time, he's either a fan or not. The question "is this guy a Keanu Reeves fan?" always has a single answer that's either "yes" or "no"... even if the answer will be different if you ask the question later.

There's no magical propositions floating around (objectively) "at any moment" in the universe. Making a proposition involves consciousness, an observer.

 

[Willamena]

No, it implies that P is either true ("he's a fan") or false ("he's not a fan"). There is no third option.

No P is not an optional P, it's the elimination of P.

The law of excluded middle requires P.

Take away P and the law of excluded middle cannot apply to P.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Even in AmbiguousGuy's example of the guy who likes Keanu when he's drunk but not when he's sober, at any moment in time, he's either a fan or not. The question "is this guy a Keanu Reeves fan?" always has a single answer that's either "yes" or "no"... even if the answer will be different if you ask the question later.

But if you ask me whether I'm a fan of Keanu, I can answer Yes or No or I-don't-know --all with perfect truth and sincerity. There are various bouquets of answers out there, and I pick a nice one and offer it to you. But I could have picked another.

Same with God belief. Do I believe in God? Hey, who knows. I can give any number of apparently contradictory replies. Yes, I believe in God; there sits the word right there in front of us. Yes, I believe in God; I've spent my life wrestling with Him. No, of course I don't believe in God; there's no good evidence of a supernatural Being.

How about this situation: Bob and Peng both question me for hours about my belief in God. At the end of the Q&A, Bob says that AmbigGuy believes in God and is therefore a solid theist, but Peng says that Ambigguy doesn't really believe in any legitimate God and insists that I am an atheist.

Am I a theist or am I an atheist?

Me, I'm fine with thinking of myself as both and neither. They're just words.

 

[Willamena]

But if you ask me whether I'm a fan of Keanu, I can answer Yes or No or I-don't-know --all with perfect truth and sincerity. There are various bouquets of answers out there, and I pick a nice one and offer it to you. But I could have picked another.

The law of excluded middle and the logic that Mostly Penguin and I are discussing though is about an ontologically true state. You may pick any sort of vagueness to represent yourself sincerely, but apart from that there is only one ontologically true state.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The law of excluded middle and the logic that Mostly Penguin and I are discussing though is about an ontologically true state. You may pick any sort of vagueness to represent yourself sincerely, but apart from that there is only one ontologically true state.

Phrases like 'ontologically true state' give me the heebie jeebies, so I'll just bow out of this branch of the conversation and let you guys hash it out.

 

[Willamena]

Phrases like 'ontologically true state' give me the heebie jeebies, so I'll just bow out of this branch of the conversation and let you guys hash it out.

It's just logics.

It's not like we're talking about something objectively true (well, we are, but we're not).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No P is not an optional P, it's the elimination of P.

The law of excluded middle requires P.

Take away P and the law of excluded middle cannot apply to P.

AFAICT, your "elimination of P" really just amounts to ignoring what other people are saying.

 

[Willamena]

AFAICT, your "elimination of P" really just amounts to ignoring what other people are saying.

In what way? I can hardly be said to be ignoring it when I've argued against it.

Edit: When I said "No P is not an optional P" I wasn't talking about Not P. They are not the same thing.

Not P equals the negation of P. It acknowledges the unambiguous "true" or "false" state for P.
No P equals the elimination of P. A P that doesn't exist cannot have an ontologically true state. There are no "non-existent" things. "Non-existence doesn't exist."

 

[ArtieE]

You see a meaningful distinction between absence of belief (not holding a belief) and non-belief (not holding a belief)? Is this what I haven't been "paying attention to?"

Of course. Absence of belief (not holding a belief) and non-belief (holding the belief that the first belief is wrong) are two completely different things.

1. I believe.
2. I am not holding a belief and I'm not holding a disbelief. I'm undecided. I don't care. I have never thought seriously about it.
3. I disbelieve.

You really don't understand the difference?

An elevator goes up (theism), the elevator stands still (atheism), the elevator goes down ("strong atheism"). You really don't understand the difference between those and find it meaningful?