Atheism is not a default position

[Pudding]

Also from the wiki: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

And this line is follow after the above definition from the wiki:
Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Technically, whatever shirt he is wearing is evidence, presuming he's not referring to some other shirt, so the responses are:
Yes, you do;
No, you don't; and
Is this a test?

It is a test of some kind. However you are still missing it by miles.

I disagree that I am misunderstanding him, but I allow for the possibility.

The fact you thought that belief that there is no god is a subsection of ignorance shows that you didn't understand him.

 

[Copernicus]

The reason I made a distinction between "atheist" and "nontheist" is that we do not normally describe every nontheist as an atheist. If a person doesn't have a "god" concept--and this is the point of our proverbial baby--then we just don't think of that person as an atheist. An atheist is someone who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them.

That is the definition of a "strong atheist.

Artie, I was talking about just the bare term "atheist". If you want to argue over what we mean by "strong atheist" and "weak atheist", I have no problem with that, but it isn't relevant to the question of how people generally use the word "atheist". In fact, most English speakers don't use terms like "strong atheist" and "weak atheist". I believe that they were made up by people engaged in just the kind of semantics game we are playing here. So there are even different camps who want to claim ownership of those terms and squabble over nuances of meaning.

You could define atheism in that sense in many different ways. You could say that atheists "deny the existence of gods" or "believe that gods are imaginary" or "conceive of all gods as mythical beings". Those would be reasonably good definitions.

"Of "strong atheism".

Not necessarily. One could argue that those terms just refer to the level of confidence that one has in rejecting belief, but it really is futile to argue this point in a debate where people are not interested in describing usage, but in prescribing it. The debate here is really over what you want the terms to mean, not what people actually use the terms to mean. If we were interested in the latter, then it would be more of an empirical issue than one of gut feeling.

If you want to claim that "atheists" are people who "lack belief in gods", that strikes me as a reasonable secondary definition, because it does describe some actual community of users--primarily people in internet communities who engage in debates over the meaning of "atheism".

But dear Copernicus, all atheists without exception "lack belief in gods" so this is the primary definition of atheism. All atheists "lack belief in gods" but not all atheists actively believe gods don't exist. That subset we call "strong atheists".

Actually, I would argue that all atheists do believe that gods don't exist, but the the level of confidence they have in that denial of belief varies. Beliefs may or may not be strong beliefs. The broader community of English speakers determines what words mean, but it is very common for people to argue over how they feel words ought to be used. The latter is the kind of polemic being engaged in here. Atheists really want to be able to claim that atheism is the "default" belief and that the burden of proof lies with theists. In reality, the burden of proof is something of a subjective concept. As an atheist, I do believe that the burden lies with theists, but that is because I find their arguments and purported evidence to fail to sustain belief. In my experience, people who believe in gods tend to believe that they have sufficient reason to maintain the belief. So they see the burden of proof as lying with atheists. IMO, the "burden of proof" argument against theism is a poor one, because theists simply believe that they have met it, at least as far as they are personally concerned.

If a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know one thing for sure about him which is common to all atheists: He is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist.

Exactly. And, if you thought he didn't think he knew what a god was, you would not expect him to make such a claim, would you?

 

[Augustus]

If a guy walks up and claims he has a red shirt there are three responses.
I believe you.
I don't believe you have a red shirt.
I mean its possible but I don't really believe you until you present evidence.

What about 'I don't understand the meaning of "red shirt"'?

 

[ArtieE]

Exactly. And, if you thought he didn't think he knew what a god was, you would not expect him to make such a claim, would you?

What claim?

 

[Copernicus]

Lewis Carroll had a lot of fun with poking fun at intellectual arguments in his Alice in Wonderland books. Here is an unforgettable exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty:

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'​

That is funny precisely because words do not mean what the speaker intends them to mean. They mean what people generally perceive them to mean. The whole point of language is that it is a form of communication--a process that allows us to share thoughts with other people. Word meanings can and do change in usage all the time, but that is usually by mutual consent of the participants in a discussion. They don't fly around all over the place, because some person or group wants them to be used in a different fashion from what is common.

 

[Yorutenchi]

What about 'I don't understand the meaning of "red shirt"'?

If they have not heard of "red shirt" but rather "aka shirt" then it would just need to adjust for terminology and see if they can come to an understanding. But if they no not the concept of "red shirt" then they do not "believe" in red shirt. Is this not so?

 

[Copernicus]

What claim?

Here is what you wrote: "If a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know one thing for sure about him which is common to all atheists: He is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist." The person doing the "telling" is making a claim.

 

[ArtieE]

Here is what you wrote: "If a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know one thing for sure about him which is common to all atheists: He is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist." The person doing the "telling" is making a claim.

No he isn't. Instead of saying "I am not a theist. I don't believe in the existence of gods" he says "I'm an atheist" which is exactly the same statement just using different words. Every atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. If he wanted to tell you specifically that he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods and that he makes the claim that gods don't exist he would have said "I'm a STRONG atheist".

 

[Augustus]

If they have not heard of "red shirt" but rather "aka shirt" then it would just need to adjust for terminology and see if they can come to an understanding. But if they no not the concept of "red shirt" then they do not "believe" in red shirt. Is this not so?

Do you believe in gfdhgfdhfdh?

Personally, I don't know what it means so I can't say.

You can't 'not believe' in something unless you understand what the something you don't believe in actually is, because if you knew what it is then you might realise you actually do believe in it.

 

[outhouse]

It requires a concept of god, still, that is posed as not accepted--hence, the rejection is implicit. It's a third-party evaluation; a third-party has evaluated, based on the "god" that he knows, that "this person has no belief in god".

How can it require something many people think doesn't exist. ?


Your only trying in vain to redefine implicit atheism and the fact it does not need a conscious rejection of theism to be considered an atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you believe in gfdhgfdhfdh?

Personally, I don't know what it means so I can't say.

You can't 'not believe' in something unless you understand what the something you don't believe in actually is, because if you knew what it is then you might realise you actually do believe in it.

I have managed to not believe in gfdhgfdhfdh all my life because I heard about it just now.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Do you believe in gfdhgfdhfdh?

Personally, I don't know what it means so I can't say.

You can't 'not believe' in something unless you understand what the something you don't believe in actually is, because if you knew what it is then you might realise you actually do believe in it.

This is not so. If you have no concept of something you have yet to begin to be able to believe it. Just like you may not have any concept of electrogravitics. If there were word that meant "does not support electrogavitics" then one would not be a supporter of it. I may explain to you what it means and then you understand. After that you might support it. However before that you had no support for the theory. We don't have words in most languages like atheism. Atheism means to not belong to a group. Most of the time we do not express an absence from a group. This is why it is strange word to us.

 

[Augustus]

I have managed to not believe in gfdhgfdhfdh all my life because I heard about it just now.

Yes, I should have phrased it "do you believe in the existence of the concept or thing referred to by the symbol 'gfdhgfdhfdh'?"

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, I should have phrased it "do you believe in the existence of the concept of thing referred to by the symbol 'gfdhgfdhfdh'?"

I have managed to not "believe in the existence of the concept of thing referred to by the symbol 'gfdhgfdhfdh'" all my life. If you now claim that "the concept of thing referred to by the symbol 'gfdhgfdhfdh'" exists you must tell me more about it so I can either continue to not believe it exists as I've done all my life or start to believe it exists.

 

[Copernicus]

Here is what you wrote: "If a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know one thing for sure about him which is common to all atheists: He is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist." The person doing the "telling" is making a claim.

No he isn't. Instead of saying "I am not a theist. I don't believe in the existence of gods" he says "I'm an atheist" which is exactly the same statement just using different words. Every atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. If he wanted to tell you specifically that he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods and that he makes the claim that gods don't exist he would have said "I'm a STRONG atheist".

Artie, you are confusing me. I quoted your exact words and commented on your words. Now you paraphrase what I said with different words and act as if I were trying to say words that you put in my mouth. I was talking about a person who asserts or claims to be an "atheist". If someone says "I am not a theist", that is not necessarily the same as claiming to be an atheist, because it could be said by someone who is completely on the fence about whether or not gods exist. You can certainly infer that someone claiming to be an atheist is "not a theist", but that is not the same as using the words "not a theist" in all possible contexts.

And most people don't actually use the term "strong atheist". That is a term that is familiar to many of those who engage in polemical discussions about faith in gods, but it is not a term in general usage in the English-speaking population. "Atheist" is a term in general use, and most English speakers think of atheists as people who have a concept of "god" in mind and deny the existence of such beings. You may disagree strenuously with me, but that is my position on this topic.

 

[Augustus]

This is not so. If you have no concept of something you have yet to begin to be able to believe it. Just like you may not have any concept of electrogravitics. If there were word that meant "does not support electrogavitics" then one would not be a supporter of it. I may explain to you what it means and then you understand. After that you might support it. However before that you had no support for the theory. We don't have words in most languages like atheism. Atheism means to not belong to a group. Most of the time we do not express an absence from a group. This is why it is strange word to us.

I have managed to not "believe in the existence of the concept of thing referred to by the symbol 'gfdhgfdhfdh'" all my life. If you now claim that "the concept of thing referred to by the symbol 'gfdhgfdhfdh'" exists you must tell me more about it so I can either continue to not believe it exists as I've done all my life or start to believe it exists.

A word should have a referent (the objective concept or thing that the word relates to), this referent exists objectively of your understanding of it.

If I asked you if you believed in the existence of es batu what would you say?

The referent of es batu is the same as the English ice cubes, language is a symbol that points to something. Unless you understand what it points to, you would be well advised not to make any statement about your attitude towards that symbol.

If you believe in the existence of ice cubes, you believe in the existence of es batu, regardless of whether or not you are aware of what the symbol es batu refers to. This is why if you don't understand the referent of a symbol, you simply profess ignorance of its referent, rather than lack of belief in its referent.

 

[Yorutenchi]

A word should have a referent (the objective concept or thing that the word relates to), this referent exist objectively of your understanding of it.

If I asked you if you believed in the existence of es batu what would you say?

The referent of es batu is the same as the English ice cubes, language is a symbol that points to something. Unless you understand what it points to, you would be well advised not to make any statement about your attitude towards that symbol.

If you believe in the existence of ice cubes, you believe in the existence of es batu, regardless of whether or not you are aware of what the symbol es batu refers to. This is why if you don't understand the referent of a symbol, you simply profess ignorance of its referent, rather than lack of belief in its referent.

This is what I stated earlier. You must first learn what it is to ask the person. But if it is something you know that they do not know, then you still do not believe in it.

 

[ArtieE]

Artie, you are confusing me. I quoted your exact words and commented on your words. Now you paraphrase what I said with different words and act as if I were trying to say words that you put in my mouth. I was talking about a person who asserts or claims to be an "atheist". If someone says "I am not a theist", that is not necessarily the same as claiming to be an atheist, because it could be said by someone who is completely on the fence about whether or not gods exist.

Yes. We call such a person who is on the fence (weak) atheist. Seriously, this is getting tiresome.

1. Theist (Believes god(s) exist.)
2. Weak atheist (Neither believes god(s) exist nor believes god(s) don't exist. On the fence.)
3. Strong atheist (Believes god(s) don't exist.)

I recommend you read some basic information about atheism before posting more.

 

[Augustus]

This is what I stated earlier. You must first learn what it is to ask the person. But if it is something you know that they do not know, then you still do not believe in it.

My post was in reply to someone who said there are only 3 possible states regarding beliefs about possession of a red shirt.

I added a 4th to show that saying there are only 3 possible states is false.

If I can never understand what you mean by 'red shirt', then you can't say I 'don't believe' in red shirts. You can only say 'I don't know what you mean by red shirt'.

You can't 'not believe' in the existence of a concept or thing referred to by a symbol, unless you know what the referent of that symbol actually is. I'm specifically talking about when you don't understand what the word means. Not understanding what a referent is is not the same as not believing in the existence of the referent.