Atheism doesn't mean much.

[Willamena]

I am not the one claiming I am denying something.
You are.

Sorry, it was rhetorical. The implication was that, "Then you have nothing to deny."

 

[LuisDantas]

One cannot, but that wasn't my objection--it was that belief takes consideration. Belief is an attitude, not a choice.

Do you think it is possible to believe in a deity without having even a vague idea of what a deity is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, it was rhetorical. The implication was that, "Then you have nothing to deny."

Actually, we often have to deny that there is any compability between our actual realities and the odd expectations that some people have of us, when it comes to belief in God or even of having a functional conception of one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't believe he said that they are. He just said they are not the same thing.

Not overly interested in strict semantics, to be honest. He suggested that atheism is a positive knowledge claim that requires positive evidence. It's not, and it doesn't (at least, it doesn't have to be, and usually isn't).

 

[LuisDantas]

Because, no matter how much one claims otherwise, atheism is not, never has been, and never will be agnosticism. Atheism is the explicit denial of the existence of God. It is a positive claim about the nature of existence, and as such, it requires positive supporting evidence.

Nope, that is actually quite off the mark.

Positive or Strong Atheism is what you are describing. It is indeed atheism, but not even the most common form of it. And even it does not require any evidence whatsoever, because it is after all a claim of non-existence.

 

[Bunyip]

Just god. What you're denying is whatever that word means to you.

Don't pretend to be a mind reader.

 

[Willamena]

Do you think it is possible to believe in a deity without having even a vague idea of what a deity is?

Of course not. You can only believe in a deity if the term "deity" is meaningful.

 

[Willamena]

Not overly interested in strict semantics, to be honest. He suggested that atheism is a positive knowledge claim that requires positive evidence. It's not, and it doesn't (at least, it doesn't have to be, and usually isn't).

Atheism is a positive claim, it posits a way that the world is. A knowledge claim, it is not.

 

[Willamena]

Don't pretend to be a mind reader.

I don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism, however, is part of some ignorance situations.

Which only demonstrates that they are not the same thing.

I think you miss the point.

------------------------------------------

One has to learn of the concept of deity to even consider whether it can be believed in.

If belief takes consideration, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to consider.

How could one possibly believe in deities without having some conception of deity?

One cannot, but that wasn't my objection--it was that belief takes consideration. Belief is an attitude, not a choice.

Do you think it is possible to believe in a deity without having even a vague idea of what a deity is?

Of course not. You can only believe in a deity if the term "deity" is meaningful.

So which is it? Does "deity" have a meaning (and therefore needs consideration), or does it lack the need for such a meaning?

----------------------------------------------

Atheism is a positive claim, it posits a way that the world is. A knowledge claim, it is not.

Theism is the positive claim. Atheism is the refusal to agree with it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is excercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

Any single label we try to slap on people will break down to some degree somewhere. It can only tell you one thing usually. Atheism for example tells you that they don't believe in god. Beyond that not much.

 

[Willamena]

------------------------------------------
So which is it? Does "deity" have a meaning (and therefore needs consideration), or does it lack the need for such a meaning?

When the term "deity" acquires meaning, then the person has something to believe in. Until then, it has no meaning to the person.

----------------------------------------------
Theism is the positive claim. Atheism is the refusal to agree with it.

Even that is a positive claim. Refusal happens for a reason. That reason posits a way the world is (the world is without what is disagreeable).

The world must be pretty to be agreeable.

 

[LuisDantas]

When the term "deity" acquires meaning, then the person has something to believe in. Until then, it has no meaning to the person.

And yet it is not something that the theist considers? How is that possible?

Even that is a positive claim. Refusal happens for a reason. That reason posits a way the world is (the world is without what is disagreeable).

If I understood you correctly, you are saying not only that exposure to the concept of deity closes the way for any response that is not a positive claim (apparently both atheism and theism are positive claims regarding the existence of deities).

Such a reality model lacks finesse and is of doubtful value. It conflagrates lack of response with a positive response.

 

[Willamena]

And yet it is not something that the theist considers? How is that possible?

Perhaps what you consider to be "considering whether to believe," I consider to be, "considering the meaning of the term?"

If I understood you correctly, you are saying not only that exposure to the concept of deity closes the way for any response that is not a positive claim (apparently both atheism and theism are positive claims regarding the existence of deities).

Such a reality model lacks finesse and is of doubtful value. It conflagrates lack of response with a positive response.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. "There is a god," is a positive claim, and, "There is no god," is a negative one, but "I reject your claim that there is a god," is a positive claim.

 

[Erock13]

Nope, that is actually quite off the mark.

Positive or Strong Atheism is what you are describing. It is indeed atheism, but not even the most common form of it. And even it does not require any evidence whatsoever, because it is after all a claim of non-existence.

Agree with all except the need for evidence. If you make a claim, you either support said claim with evidence or you are simply making baseless (and irrational) assertions. The assertion of non-existence is still a positive claim in that it has taken a step beyond the rejection of an existence claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Agree with all except the need for evidence. If you make a claim, you either support said claim with evidence or you are simply making baseless (and irrational) assertions. The assertion of non-existence is still a positive claim in that it has taken a step beyond the rejection of an existence claim.

Traditionally, this is the moment to mention Russell's Teapot.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

Claims that things that leave no trace of their existence do, in fact, fail to exist do not need evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps what you consider to be "considering whether to believe," I consider to be, "considering the meaning of the term?"

A strong possibility, although I'm not sure it makes a decisive difference. Are you implying that theism "happens regardless"? Even so, one would expect a degree of responsibility of belief to settle in, wouldn't one?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. "There is a god," is a positive claim, and, "There is no god," is a negative one, but "I reject your claim that there is a god," is a positive claim.

I am not aware of nor fluent in such a classification.

 

[Willamena]

Claims that things that leave no trace of their existence do, in fact, fail to exist do not need evidence.

You've made it a rule, but that's not what Russel is saying. He's saying it's reasonable that they don't need evidence. As Russel well knows, nothing "fails to exist."

 

[Willamena]

A strong possibility, although I'm not sure it makes a decisive difference. Are you implying that theism "happens regardless"? Even so, one would expect a degree of responsibility of belief to settle in, wouldn't one?

I don't accept that belief is a choice, so no, there's no responsibility that that entails. Our beliefs are our beliefs, regardless.

If someone populates the term "deity" with meaning, and accepts that as true, they believe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Agree with all except the need for evidence. If you make a claim, you either support said claim with evidence or you are simply making baseless (and irrational) assertions. The assertion of non-existence is still a positive claim in that it has taken a step beyond the rejection of an existence claim.

Yeah, but the evidence is the lack of evidence or need. It's not dissimilar to a court who proclaims a man not guilty due to lack of body, smoking gun, fingerprints, motive, etc. Did he do it? Doesn't seem like it. Is it certain? No, but what is?