Atheism does not exist

[Kilgore Trout]

I changed what you said because what you said was wrong. I corrected it. I hope that told you something? Do you now understand that what you said was wrong? Do you now understand the difference between what you said and what is right?

I understand that your dogmatic and rigid need to stick to a misguided sense of logic, expressing as semantic literalism, makes it impossible for you to see how silly and meaningless it is to call infants atheists. Don't sweat it. Most people eventually grow out of it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sorry, but the only silly and meaningless here are your posts.

Actually -- not to brag -- but I believe that I was the first to be charged by ArtieE with posting silly and meaningless material. Then Willamena. Then Kilgore.

Sure there are others, but the blue ribbon is mine!

 

[ArtieE]

Says the person who calls babies atheists.

So, are infants more, or less, atheistic than the mushed carrots they're eating? Heck, if we're going to have a silly conversation, then let's do it up.

In case you wonder why I don't answer any posts from you from now on it's because I've put you on my ignore list. Reading your posts and answering them is a sheer waste of time and intellectual effort.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I understand correctly what you mean, "Atheism" is not just a word.

Of course it is just a word, but we do lend meanings to it. I see it as shorthand for the whole of weak and strong atheism. You seem to find it equivalent to strong atheism unless otherwise indicated.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually -- not to brag -- but I believe that I was the first to be charged by ArtieE with posting silly and meaningless material. Then Willamena. Then Kilgore.

Sure there are others, but the blue ribbon is mine!

Dammit! I need to be quicker on the draw with my silly nonsense, such as my ridiculous notion that calling infants is vapid and pointless.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In case you wonder why I don't answer any posts from you from now on it's because I've put you on my ignore list. Reading your posts and answering them is a sheer waste of time and intellectual effort.

I accept your surrender.

 

[ArtieE]

Of course it is just a word, but we do lend meanings to it. I see it as shorthand for the whole of weak and strong atheism. You seem to find it equivalent to strong atheism unless otherwise indicated.

It only describes "absence of belief and absence of disbelief". "Strong atheism" only describes "absence of belief and presence of disbelief".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In case you wonder why I don't answer any posts from you from now on it's because I've put you on my ignore list. Reading your posts and answering them is a sheer waste of time and intellectual effort.

See my Msg #560.

We prophets just see things. I can't explain it.

 

[Falvlun]

What has that got to do with theism or atheism? Theism and atheism without any words in front or after is about belief not knowledge.
Yes. That is exactly what I've been explaining. I have just not included the word weak so as not to confuse you even further. "The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point." Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes You notice that it says "Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak". Sometimes. Not all the time or most of the time. I just didn't use the word "weak" to avoid confusing you further.

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

I am not confused at all. Apparently you are unaware that most English speakers do not equate the word "agnostic" with knowledge, but as a position of uncertainty regarding the existence of gods.

There are two different senses of the word agnostic. The "technical" one, which is about knowledge. And the "popular" one, which is about not having a stance either way on the existence of gods.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism?

These are of course totally different from theism or atheism. Agnosticism isn't about belief at all. It's about knowledge. Theism or atheism is about belief. Two different animals. If you put different words in front of theism and atheism you are no longer dealing with theism or atheism but something else namely agnosticism.

Sorry for the late edit, but this needed to be addressed as well.

Your position is a little incoherent here. Yes, (a)gnosticism (in the technical sense) is about knowledge. Yes, (a)theism is about belief. When you combine the two words, you aren't talking about one or the other-- as you claim above-- but both. It fully and completely explains a person's position, both in regards to the belief and the level of certainty. If you are certain about your belief, making a claim of knowledge, then you are gnostic regarding that belief. If you are uncertain, and do not make a claim of knowledge, then you are agnostic regarding that belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

well in the beginning we are all just people...
then philosophers asked each other about intelligent design, then people took sides

in order for atheism to exist there has to be theism to reject...

Sorry, that is patently not at all true.

Atheism exists by default. It does not even need an origin or justification, although it can be "destroyed" by theism of some kind.

It does not even need a name until theism enter the scene.

no matter what our feeling are on the subjects, it can not be the "natural"state of man because the natural state of man is to not care either way...

Wrong. Not caring and not believing is the natural state.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not so sure that we actually have beliefs. (But don't despair. I'm not so sure about anything at all.)

Whenever I think real hard about beliefs, everything goes foggy on me. What does a belief look like? Could a surgeon find it with a sharp-enough scapel? Could Big Brother change our beliefs into more pleasing ones? I mean, really change them; not work at propagandizing us in the hope of changing them.

I'm a bit more comfortable with the verb. I believe that Margaret Thatcher was kinda witchy sometimes. But do I have a belief in Thatcher's witchiness? I dunno. That ground doesn't feel quite so solid to me.

A belief is no more or less substantial than any other thought. It's simply a thought that says "I hold this (or that) statement to be true". It is just as changeable and malleable as any other thought.

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry, that is patently not at all true.

Atheism exists by default. It does not even need an origin or justification, although it can be "destroyed" by theism of some kind.

It does not even need a name until theism enter the scene.


Wrong. Not caring and not believing is the natural state.

How do you know what the default is? Maybe all babies are born believing in God. Maybe some are born not believing in God and maybe some don't care. How would you know?

Furthermore, even if from some superhuman source of knowledge you are certain that not believing in Gods is the default, then atheism is that default only if you choose to define it as such.

I choose not to. What then? Why should your choice be worth more than mine?

 

[Jainarayan]

He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity.

The atheist that can be spoken of is not a true atheist (apologies to Lao Tzu ).

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you know what the default is? Maybe all babies are born believing in God. Maybe some are born not believing in God, maybe some don't care, and maybe some do believe in God. How would you know?

Don't you?

If you want to be very technical about it, I will say that the idea that babies might hold some sort of belief in God is not coherent with my understanding of what belief in God is. But it really amounts to the same.

I could say that I have some doubts about how much capability of belief in God babies have. But I could exactly as honestly and sincerely, and for much the same reasons, say that I have doubts about their lack of ability to use written language.

Furthermore, even if from some superhuman source of knowledge you are certain that not believing in Gods is the default, then atheism is that default only if you choose to define it as such.

I'm not following, sorry. It does not take any special ability to realize that belief in God is a fairly complex cognition - and one that is only rarely not learned from others at that. There is no need to a "superhuman knowledge".

Nor is there a need to choose to define atheism as a default. It is just a fact for one to acknowledge.

I choose not to. What then? Why should your choice be worth more than mine?

Because the evidence supports mine and not yours, I suppose. If there is even a choice to be made.

Do you know of any reason to hold such a doubt or perception of a choice? I can't think of any so far. I'm quite puzzled that you perceive any.

 

[Willamena]

Of course it is just a word, but we do lend meanings to it. I see it as shorthand for the whole of weak and strong atheism. You seem to find it equivalent to strong atheism unless otherwise indicated.

No, atheism to me is not believing in god. It hinges on belief.

I've been reviewing them and I like George H. Smith's definitions: Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it." Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it."

Do you know what is "explicit" about explicit atheism? The atheist is there, clear and present in the picture being painted; and what is "implicit" about the other? The same atheist is there, but only implied by circumstance. If he put two thoughts into it, such as if anyone had bothered to ask, he would examine himself rationally and the moment an answer occurred he would cross that line to become explicit. He would say, "No, I don't believe in God."

 

[LuisDantas]

No, atheism to me is not believing in god. It hinges on belief.

That is a very unnatural - all-out satyrical, even - definition of the word.

I can only wonder where the notion that it "hinges on belief" can come from. Not from any reasonable situation or definition, for certain.

I like George H. Smith's definitions: Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it." Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it."

Fine. Yet you reject implicit atheism as not being true atheism?

Do you know what is "explicit" about explicit atheism? The atheist is there, clear and present in the picture being painted; and what is "implicit" about the other? The same atheist is there, but only implied by circumstance. If he put two thoughts into it, such as if anyone had bothered to ask, he would examine himself rationally and the moment an answer occurred he would cross that line to become explicit. He would say, "No, I don't believe in God."

Fine, but so what?

 

[Falvlun]

Don't you?

If you want to be very technical about it, I will say that the idea that babies might hold some sort of belief in God is not coherent with my understanding of what belief in God is. But it really amounts to the same.

I could say that I have some doubts about how much capability of belief in God babies have. But I could exactly as honestly and sincerely, and for much the same reasons, say that I have doubts about their lack of ability to use written language.

I would not presume to claim to know what babies do or do not believe, since no one, to my knowledge, has been able to ask one.

I do know that toddlers and young humans appear to have beliefs in agencies. Depending upon the strength and imagination behind those beliefs, they may be more or less godlike. I see no reason to assume that every single human toddler would have that predisposition at the same level. Thus, I do not believe that there is one default for all humans.

I'm not following, sorry. It does not take any special ability to realize that belief in God is a fairly complex cognition - and one that is only rarely not learned from others at that. There is no need to a "superhuman knowledge".

How do you know? Have you asked a baby?

Nor is there a need to choose to define atheism as a default. It is just a fact for one to acknowledge.

Because the evidence supports mine and not yours, I suppose. If there is even a choice to be made.

Do you know of any reason to hold such a doubt or perception of a choice? I can't think of any so far. I'm quite puzzled that you perceive any.

You believe that the "default" state is a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief in the existence of Gods.

You then defined atheism as a lack of belief and a lack of disbelief in the existence of Gods.

You then claimed that atheism is therefore the default.

I define atheism as the disbelief in the existence of Gods. Therefore, it would not be the default state as you defined it.

Your argument is therefore circular: you have defined atheism as the default state because you think the default state is atheism. There is no fact there. It was a choice to define atheism in a way that matched the default state that you believe to exist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A belief is no more or less substantial than any other thought. It's simply a thought that says "I hold this (or that) statement to be true". It is just as changeable and malleable as any other thought.

But to me it doesn't really seem to work that way in real life. People are not talking about 'statements', not usually. They're talking about various casual paraphrases, imagining possible realities represented by those paraphrases, and having or not having a belief in those realities.

Paraphrases seem sloppy, though: An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. An atheist lacks belief in God. An atheist rejects the notiion that gods actually exist. An atheist is someone who doesn't care about gods.

Those are all fine enough definitions of atheism for down on the street corner, but sloppy in a close RF discussion.

Here's what you and I seem to be saying:

An atheist is a person who is willing to give assent to the following statement: "Gods don't really exist in any corporeal or literal sense."

Or

An atheist is a person who assents to this statement: "The God of Abraham didn't really manifest as described in the Bible."

Whereas a theist would withhold assent when faced with those statements.

Now those are actual definitions which a lady can hang her bonnet on. But in real life, it doesn't happen that way. In real life, we don't make formal, written, English statements and then divide people up depending on whether they assent or withhold assent to the statement.

So I continue to believe that atheists don't really exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you know? Have you asked a baby?

It comes down to deciding not to assume supernatural knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your argument is therefore circular: you have defined atheism as the default state because you think the default state is atheism. There is no fact there. It was a choice to define atheism in a way that matched the default state that you believe to exist.

It is far more of a definition than an argument, really.