Atheism is not a default position

[jonathan180iq]

Sure. Just not that atheists do.

Atheists cannot lack belief in a deity?
That's a very interesting claim, considering that's exactly what they do.I am an atheist. I lack belief in every deity that I can think of. I also, obviously, lack belief in the deities that I've never heard of; just like babies.

Belief is an ability.
If you lack the ability you cannot believe.

The ability is this discussion is performed under reasoning.

Then let's reason...

If belief is an ability as you say, how many abilities are you lacking?
How many gods are unable to believe in?

If you can name even one, then you're an atheist.
Unless you believe in every single god known to man, and unless you believe in the gods that you've never heard of, you are an atheist.

 

[Thief]

Belief is a thought process. It's based on accepting a conclusion as true.
Most people have this "ability" called "thinking".

No....the thought process renders the belief...
there will be no conclusion...this will go on forever.

 

[Thief]

Atheists cannot lack belief in a deity?
That's a very interesting claim, considering that's exactly what they do.I am an atheist. I lack belief in every deity that I can think of.



Then let's reason...

If belief is an ability as you say, how many abilities are you lacking?
How many gods are unable to believe in?

If you can name even one, then you're an atheist.
Unless you believe in every single god known to man, and unless you believe in the gods that you've never heard of, you are an atheist.

I reason there is ONE Almighty.
there may be lesser gods.
It is written......ye ARE gods.

If you prefer a lesser reasoning....I then do not expect to see you....after you enter your grave.

 

[Blastcat]

No....the thought process renders the belief...
there will be no conclusion...this will go on forever.

I said that belief WAS a thought process, that a belief is a THOUGHT..
We look at something to see if it's TRUE or not. IF we think that it IS true, then we can believe in it.
But believing is a THOUGHT process, just like the reasoning that leads us to a conclusion about the truth value of some conclusion is a thought process.

You know, THINKING?

There ARE conclusions that can be made using good logical procedures.
Even if people will THINK forever, it doesn't mean we can't arrive at logical CONCLUSIONS.

You might not be able to, but that doesn't mean that OTHERS can't.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I reason there is ONE Almighty.
there may be lesser gods.
It is written......ye ARE gods.

If you prefer a lesser reasoning....I then do not expect to see you....after you enter your grave.

You've dodged my question.
You made a claim about belief. For intellectual honesty, you should either defend that claim or admit that it's bogus.

How many gods are you unable to believe in?

 

[Blastcat]

I reason there is ONE Almighty.
there may be lesser gods.
It is written......ye ARE gods.

If you prefer a lesser reasoning....I then do not expect to see you....after you enter your grave.

No, you BELIEVE that there is ONE Almighty.. ( whatever you mean by THAT ).. I see NO reasoning here, just a pure statement of belief.

And those other unjustified beliefs...
But reason?

You would have to SHOW us some reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

As long as we are going to use Oxford, we might as well use the actual Oxford dictionary (the OED). So here:
"atheism, n.

Pronunciation:
/ˈeɪθiːɪz(ə)m/
Forms: Also 15 athisme.

Etymology: < French athéisme (16th cent. in Littré), < Greek ἄθεος : see atheal adj. and -ism suffix. Compare Italian atheismo and the earlier atheonism n.

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

1587 Sir P. Sidney & A. Golding tr. P. de Mornay Trewnesse Christian Relig. xx. 355 Athisme, that is to say, vtter Godlesnes.
1605 Bacon Of Aduancem. Learning i. sig. B3v, A little or superficiall knowledge of Philosophie may encline the minde of Man to Atheisme.
1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 119. ¶5 Hypocrisy in one Age is generally succeeded by Atheism in another.
1859 C. Kingsley Lett. (1878) II. 75 Whatever doubt or doctrinal Atheism you and your friends may have, don't fall into moral Atheism."

Of course, dictionaries don't define words, usage does. For that one should use corpora.

Ok, well, first, the term "disbelief" can mean simply a "lack of faith". Further, most people who identify as "Atheist" do not hold a belief that God does not or cannot exist; they merely lack a belief in the existence of God due to lack of evidence and reason to do so. If we are going by usage, I would strongly argue that "lack of belief" should suffice to be considered "atheist" or "without theism".

 

[Thief]

I said that belief WAS a thought process, that a belief is a THOUGHT..
We look at something to see if it's TRUE or not. IF we think that it IS true, then we can believe in it.
But believing is a THOUGHT process, just like the reasoning that leads us to a conclusion about the truth value of some conclusion is a thought process.

You know, THINKING?

There ARE conclusions that can be made using good logical procedures.
Even if people will THINK forever, it doesn't mean we can't arrive at logical CONCLUSIONS.

You might not be able to, but that doesn't mean that OTHERS can't.

Believers will stand on common 'ground' before God and heaven.

If you don't agree....you will stand somewhere else.....or lay in your grave.

 

[Thief]

No, you BELIEVE that there is ONE Almighty.. ( whatever you mean by THAT ).. I see NO reasoning here, just a pure statement of belief.

And those other unjustified beliefs...
But reason?

You would have to SHOW us some reasoning.

The term Almighty is self explanatory.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Atheists cannot lack belief in a deity?

No. That's why the word exists.
That's a very interesting claim, considering that's exactly what they do.I am an atheist. I lack belief in every deity that I can think of. I also, obviously, lack belief in the deities that I've never heard of; just like babies.

If belief is an ability as you say, how many abilities are you lacking?

Infinitely many. I don't speak every language ever spoken.

 

[Thief]

You've dodged my question.
You made a claim about belief. For intellectual honesty, you should either defend that claim or admit that it's bogus.

How many gods are you unable to believe in?

As many as God allows....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok, well, first, the term "disbelief" can mean simply a "lack of faith".

It just isn't ever used as such with negligible exceptions.

Further, most people who identify as "Atheist" do not hold a belief that God does not or cannot exist

Irrelevant. Atheists have beliefs about god(s).

 

[atanu]

Exactly...
Isn't it fair to also say that those babies lack belief in the deities?

Please let me repeat for the last time. It is not correct or proper to say "...babies lack belief in deities....", since they have not encountered and considered the merit of the proposition this way or that way. For such cases, the ancient Indian logic system uses a category called "neither true nor untrue." In the context it will be "babies hold neither belief nor disbelief".

 

[jonathan180iq]

Infinitely many. I don't speak every language ever spoken.

Similarly, you don't believe in every god ever invented or suggested, right?

No. That's why the word exists.

You're saying that atheists make positive belief claims about gods, and that their belief is disbelief, right?

It just isn't ever used as such with negligible exceptions.

I'll simply ask - why do you think atheists must make claims about such deities if not for the theistic claim that deities exist?

Do you run around talking about how much you disbelieve in the gods that you're unaware of? Or are you only forced to take a stand against the claims of others?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can you demonstrate this using the deontic operator?

I can demonstrate it using basic logic: Belief is defined as "the acceptance of a given proposition as true". If you do not accept something, then you do not accept it as being true. Therefore, lack of belief is the same as non-acceptance.

Ergo, disbelief or non-belief is the non-acceptance of "the truth of a claim". You can't not accept what you haven't ever been presented with or are incapable of accepting.

Wrong. You "do not accept" a claim that you have never been presented with or are incapable of accepting by default. Non-acceptance doesn't require you to be familiar with, or even capable of accepting, a claim. It only requires you to not accept it. In the same way as "not being a chef" doesn't require to you necessarily understand or be capable of being a chef. My one-year old cousin is not a chef.

Which is not true of atheists regarding the existence of god(s).

Wrong. Since atheism is broadly defined as an absence of belief in a God, one does not need to be presented with the claim a God exists in order to be an atheist. One need only not believe God exists.

So, either atheists are so completely incapable of understanding anything that they are rocks (which none but those as ignorant as rocks would believe), or atheists cannot accept claims because they are capable of evaluating them and have, after said evaluation, rejected them.

Or, as I have said multiple times, atheism is a broadly defined term encompass a variety of positions. The only requirement to being an atheist is to not believe a God exists.

You miss the point. If I've never tasted sushi, I am incapable of rendering a judgment about the taste of sushi.

So, do you believe sushi is delicious? Yes or no?

Atheists aren't incapable of rendering a judgment about god; they already have.

As said before, not necessarily. You seem to have completely ignored or forgotten that I used the broad definition of atheism as being an absence of belief.

Either that, or they are so pathetically idiotic and inept they are incapable of so basic an intellectual ability as that of formulating a judgment about a proposition they can evaluate. And we both know atheists are not at all so stupid (I would hazard to guess that both of us might tend to think that atheists are more intelligent than theists on average).

See above.

Nobody who has any knowledge of language thinks dictionaries define anything.

Uh huh...

I have access to the most authoritative dictionary in the entire world, and I still recognize that it is inferior to merely an adequate reliance on corpora..

Well, you may obfuscate the issue all you want and arbitrarily ascribe authority to whatever you wish. As for me, language is about conveying meaning through commonly accepted symbols and definitions.

Not according to neuroscience and the cognitive sciences in general.

Please present one scientific paper which states that we are born with a belief in God.

So I have you reliance on inferior "dictionaries" on the one hand, and science on the other. Which should I believe (without factoring in how inadequate your approach is from a logical perspective)?

Your condescension is noted.

Have you ever studied logic?

I'm an aspiring rationalist, but I personally find many people who think they study "logic" really just study obfuscation.

Only it isn't. For one thing, "atheism" was a word hundreds and hundreds of years before theism.

So?

 

[jonathan180iq]

For example, let's just get a show of hands... who here believes in the fire god Abe-Mango; daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?

 

[leibowde84]

It just isn't ever used as such with negligible exceptions.



Irrelevant. Atheists have beliefs about god(s).

Most of them dont. But prove me wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

Why is it not unreasonable? How is it possible to both accept a proposition and NOT accept a proposition?

To people other than you, it's not unreasonable; and because to people other than you, they can and do accept and reject propositions concurrently.

But those other states are irrelevant when you are talking purely about belief. We're not dealing with "experience" or "knowledge", we are talking about "belief", and when we are discussing the meaning of the word "belief" then "belief" and "not belief" are exactly the best terms to apply.

Again, when the term "belief" and "not belief" doesn't reasonably apply to the entity/scenario in question, it doesn't make as much sense to use it. Maybe you can compartmentalize "belief" in a way that makes all other things irrelevant, but I'm a big-picture thinker. Doing what you're doing to me is analogous to demanding that we describe a colorless object in terms of its color. "Is that gray object red or blue?" The answer is it is neither, as neither description reasonably applies, and that we should instead describe the object in terms of what actually applies to it. Sure, you could still describe the color gray in terms of red and blue, but it'd be rather awkward, inefficient, and misleading.

At any rate, I'm more than likely done with this conversation given certain lines that have been crossed and the direction it's going in. I don't come to RF for debate, much less to be insulted by people.

 

[leibowde84]

They lack the capacity to believe (in it).

If they don't have the capacity then they must lack the belief, correct? Why would ability prevent this?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To people other than you, it's not unreasonable; and because to people other than you, they can and do accept and reject propositions concurrently.

I don't see what me being me has to do with anything. How is it possible to both accept and not accept a proposition? HOW is that possible?

Again, when the term "belief" and "not belief" doesn't reasonably apply to the entity/scenario in question, it doesn't make as much sense to use it. Maybe you can compartmentalize "belief" in a way that makes all other things irrelevant, but I'm a big-picture thinker. Doing what you're doing to me is analogous to demanding that we describe a colorless object in terms of its color. "Is that gray object red or blue?" The answer is it is neither, as neither description reasonably applies, and that we should instead describe the object in terms of what actually applies to it. Sure, you could still describe the color gray in terms of red and blue, but it'd be rather awkward, inefficient, and misleading.

But how is the way in which I define belief or lack of belief inefficient or misleading? I fail see the connection in your analogy here. You say it doesn't make much sense, but you haven't really provided any explanation as to WHY you think it doesn't make sense? What is unreasonable about defining "belief" as "the acceptance of a given proposition as true"?

At any rate, I'm more than likely done with this conversation given certain lines that have been crossed and the direction it's going in. I don't come to RF for debate, much less to be insulted by people.

To be honest, looking around the thread at the moment, that's probably a wise thing to do.