Atheism is not a default position

[Thief]

Atheist has more than one meaning.
Ignoring the meaning(s) you dislike doe snot help your case and merely makes you look like an extremist.

snot on my case?!....how dare you.

and we are seeking a line drawn.

Atheism is NOT a default position.
ask your dog.

 

[idav]

snot on my case?!....how dare you.

and we are seeking a line drawn.

Atheism is NOT a default position.
ask your dog.

My dog refuses to repent, the heathen.

 

[Bunyip]

First of all, the exchange between Monk of Reason and Curious George was about the definition of "atheism", not "implicit atheism".

Yes, two different but perfectly sound usages of the term 'atheist'.

Secondly, what makes you think that you know enough about the subject to lecture me on it?

That you are making a fundamental mistake - which so far you have defended only by agreeing with me, questioning my approach and referring to your experience. The actual argument you have agreed with.

What is your experience? Have you ever seen or filled out a citation form? Ever debated the merits of a definition? Ever attended courses in the subject or lectures in a lexicography workshop?

Why would I need to? The guidelines for lexicography you referred to when talking about usage tests do not apply to common speech. It is a guideline for the production of dictionaries, not a law commanding those who speak and write in English.

If you had any experience, you would know that dictionary publishers employ usage panels to judge definitions, and the panels do that on the basis of citations. That is the 'usage test' I was referring to. A panel looks at references from newspapers, literature, recorded speech, and other sources. Normally, people think it bizarre to call babies "atheists", which is why these discussions typically generate so much heat. The only time people take the idea seriously is when they start arguing over dictionary definitions. When lexicographers criticize dictionary definitions, they do so on the basis of bizarre claims of that nature.

Um...yes to all that. But this is not lexicographers critizing definitions for prospective dictionary entries, this is just common written English, no such debates or criticism apply.

Again, we were not discussing the meaning of "implicit atheism", which someone made up in the context of a dispute over definitions.

Actually implicit atheism is precisely the usage of the term 'atheist' in question.

That is based on the historical and morphological composition of the word. That is exactly what an etymological fallacy is. I provided a link to the Wikipedia page, so you can go look up examples of this type of genetic fallacy.

That b is the fallacy you are committing, not your opponent in this case - you are the one insisting on a specific definition drawn from historical context. Your opponent is just applying a common usage.

As I have made plain, the authority is based on citations of usage

There is no such authority for common speech, maybe for lexicographers debating definitions - but not in common speech.

, which are used by lexicographers to differentiate proposed word senses in need of definition in a dictionary entry. Crafting definitions involves more than citations, however, so you'll find that dictionaries tend to use different (copyrighted) definitions for the same words. Lexicologists are more concerned with meaning, so they tend to base research on more comprehensive surveys of usage and expertise about the nature of lexical semantics.


Again, we were not talking about the definition of a technical term that was invented just to be able to classify people ignorant of deities as "atheists". To use an invented term like that to validate the claimed usage under dispute is simple question begging.

So why are you doing it?

This is not a debate between lexicologists to determine which usages to describe and how - as you strangely appear to imagine, this is an informal written discussion. There is no 'usage test', there is no correct definition and there is still no point whatsoever in invalidating usages.

 

[Shad]

This is going no where fast. Perhaps I can make things simpler for you.

I define atheism at broad as any lack of theistic belief. Any lack of acceptance of a theistic claim. IF you are ignorant of a theistic claim are you in a state of acceptance of that claim? Yes or no ?

Theistic belief is rooted in theism, ontology. Under you definition rocks are atheist since rocks do not accept theism. Rocks lack acceptance of a claim of ontology. Reductio ad absurdum counter.

They are not. You are confused.

Sorry but it does. Theism and atheism are claims. Agnostic is the position that knowledge/evidence is unknowable. Thus one can refuse to make a judge since there is no evidence for nor against, probability of .5. Read what little we have of Protagoras' work

I don't conflate either. As I have demonstrated. It is you who have decreased both the scope of atheism an agnosticism to suit your needs.

Nope, see above.

I do not agree with that definition of agnosticism. It is a narrow and misguided view of the scope of the term. Your need to put agnosticism and atheism on the same line and then stake them out has caused you to misunderstand the fundamental properties of both in what they represent and how they are used functionally.

Nope, see above. I covered both scopes.

 

[ArtieE]

Absolutely.

All of us agree that whatever the definition is, it is at least a person who believes god does not exist. This aspect of the definition is the starting point of agreement and therefore the default in this discussion.

No, it is at least a person who doesn't believe gods exist. And since all of us agree, that is the definition.

 

[Shad]

Yes I know, and you simply can not n understand why that is pointless. You are making a fundamental error of logic - while accusing me of having reading issues. What? That didn't even make sense. You can't defeat a usage. All definitions are flawed, you seem unable tk accept that simple fact. I know you are, I'm amazed you still have not understood why that is a pointless exercise.Dude, there is no formal official correct definition - that is not how language works. As I keep saying, you are making a fundamental error of logic, one I have very politely and carefully tried to explain to you.

Yes, you are disproving a word usage - an exercise in futility.

Negative since I pointed out a logical counter in the lack of definition. Which I have repeated politely and aggressively several times. You have yet to provide any refutation other than complaining about correct definition. Sure one can not defeat a usage but no one is obligate to entertain such a usage which can not pass simple logic checks. So define away. Again it has nothing to due with a correct definition, I only supported a definition which passed scrutiny and has for centuries, nothing more. Also by admitting the definition is subjective you just provided an defeater for your own definition thus argument.

 

[Willamena]

Or Tebowing?



Sorry. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I am going to maintain that verbs are by definition something we do.

Please explain the following sentence:

"I do believe that I've heard just about enough of this irksome twaddle!"

Do you see the inherent relationship between the words "do" and "believe?" I hate to rain on your parade here, but belief is still an action and actions involve doing. You are cordially invited to provide evidence to the contrary, as long as the process doesn't involve any verbs. That'd automatically disprove your argument, wouldn't it?



I'd hesitate to say that belief is the truth of anything. If (for example) you believe that the world is flat, does your belief have any real relationship with the truth? It almost sounds like you're trying to say the truth is contingent upon belief (instead of the other way 'round).



Please unpack that assertion and elaborate on it ... because it isn't making any sense to me. None whatsoever.



I don't see how concepts are essentially true in form. They can be, of course. But they can also be essentially false, right? Aren't four-cornered circles a concept?



Is it just me, or is the atmosphere in here is getting pretty gruesomely woo-some?



You mean "As is the world" right?



Or are they participating in The Case?

Never mind. Are you actually saying that beliefs are conscious beings that exist independently from the believer?



In a poetic sense, perhaps. It's still just a huge mass of matter circling the sun when you get right down to it.



If The Case = The World, then it must by definition carry the exact same amount of baggage. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.



Unless you can convincingly demonstrate that thoughts have an independent, concrete, physical existence outside the confines of the human mind ... then I fail to see how one can do anything but deny that ideas are somehow "part of the world."

"Captain, there's a woo-based anomaly off the port bow that's causing sever distortions in the grammatical space/time continuum! Fascinating!"



"I do believe that you're out to lunch" vs. "I do state that I believe you're out to lunch?"

Which seems like the bigger put-on?



Theism and atheism would not even enter the picture at all if humans were not actively carrying them around in their minds.



Theism is believing in god. It's like you're saying "Just simply wearing pants, there is no need for clothing."



So you're saying that ignorance is a belief?

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

It would perhaps be easier for you to read my reply if you didn't quote mine parts of sentences.

I'm not saying ignorance is a belief, I'm saying atheism resides in our statements about the world.

 

[idav]

It would perhaps be easier for you to read my reply if you didn't quote mine parts of sentences.

I'm not saying ignorance is a belief, I'm saying atheism resides in our statements about the world.

Maybe for the well thought out atheist, but it just isn't that in depth I imagine for others. Heck even most religious people don't know much about their own beliefs. Is an atheist expected to have a well organized rejection of every god thrown at them? I should hope not. The same way I might reject fairies, lack of evidence just doesn't leave much to reject to begin with. Of course there are those that do reject theism do logical constructs, but they are more the exception I think, not that you would know if from most the atheists here.

 

[atanu]

Ya. I now believe that atheism is the default.

A theist, a believer of gods/God, lacks the same belief when he dies. So, don't you see that a dead man is an atheist? Now, it is plain and clear that atheism is the default because everyone will die.

(Pats own back).

 

[Willamena]

Maybe for the well thought out atheist, but it just isn't that in depth I imagine for others. Heck even most religious people don't know much about their own beliefs. Is an atheist expected to have a well organized rejection of every god thrown at them? I should hope not. The same way I might reject fairies, lack of evidence just doesn't leave much to reject to begin with. Of course there are those that do reject theism do logical constructs, but they are more the exception I think, not that you would know if from most the atheists here.

I think what I described is so for any atheist. Atheism is called a "stance," it is an idea posed in word-form. All that's needed to circumvent theism or atheism is to quiet words. People who insist that all of nature (lacking in belief as it is) is atheist are imposing a very loud idea on nature, and insisting that idea is the reality.

But to address your post, lack of evidence is the main reason for rejection of god. Issues about not "getting" what "god" is; confusing and conflicting descriptions; distasteful and disdainful actions in the name of this "god" that doesn't reveal itself--all are cause for a person to stand up and pose an alternative against it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe for the well thought out atheist, but it just isn't that in depth I imagine for others. Heck even most religious people don't know much about their own beliefs. Is an atheist expected to have a well organized rejection of every god thrown at them? I should hope not.

Actually, I think an atheist should. An atheist should have a fairly reasonable understanding of what theology/theism/gods etc really are and means, and from that argue their atheism. Not argue atheism from "I have no clue, I'm ignorant," or "I don't care". It's not atheism. It's lazyism. I saw atheists as the vanguard of thought, reason, intelligence, etc until I learned that this is not what atheism is anymore. It's the opposite. Disregard thought, reason, intelligence, knowledge, etc, and you have atheism. That's a very sad proposition.

The same way I might reject fairies, lack of evidence just doesn't leave much to reject to begin with.

Except that you don't have a word for it, and there's no philosophical dialogue that's been had for hundreds of years to clarify the standpoint of a-fairism. Neither are there people walking around identifying themselves with a-fairism and arguing with other people how important it is to be ignorant of fairies and therefore having lack in belief in them.

Atheism in modern philosophical time was a philosophical position. A person who actually did consider the concept of theism, before realizing atheism to be the answer. It was an -ism, not a lack of -ism.

Of course there are those that do reject theism do logical constructs, but they are more the exception I think, not that you would know if from most the atheists here.

People who doesn't have any reason to reject theism but just call themselves atheists because they don't know better, is just an example of how "atheist" has become vogue. It's just a buzz word. Atheism is the new black.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism is the new black.

Of course. The colour black is implicitly atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course. The colour black is implicitly atheist.

And since black is the color of satan, implicit atheists are implicit satanists.

 

[Augustus]

implicit atheists are implicit satanists

And Satan is a theist as he believes in the existence of God, so black is implicitly theist.

 

[Ouroboros]

And Satan is a theist as he believes in the existence of God, so black is implicitly theist.

Yup. So we have completed the circle. Atheists are essentially theists in disguise.

 

[McBell]

snot on my case?!....how dare you.

and we are seeking a line drawn.

Atheism is NOT a default position.
ask your dog.

What is the "default" position?
Are you honestly interested in my dogs opinion or are you merely trying to be funny?

 

[atanu]

Yup. So we have completed the circle. Atheists are essentially theists in disguise.

Implicitly or explicitly?

 

[Ouroboros]

Implicitly or explicitly?

Literally implicit, expressed in explicit terms of vague definitions.

 

[Augustus]

Yup. So we have completed the circle. Atheists are essentially theists in disguise.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It would perhaps be easier for you to read my reply if you didn't quote mine parts of sentences.

I apologize. It's just that there was so much going on in your post(s) that it seemed best to address the idea(s) individually, rather than trying to comment on the entire edifice as a whole.

I'm not saying ignorance is a belief, I'm saying atheism resides in our statements about the world.

It seems to me that atheism does not ... in fact can not ... reside anywhere (unless of course you're only speaking poetically). It is simply a rational conclusion regarding the alleged truth claims made by theism. There's no need to anthropomorphize it.

Anyway, atheism is in no way contingent upon a single statement being made about the world. One can have reached the conclusion that religion is a load of twaddle and taken that opinion to your grave. In fact, I'd imagine countless millions have done so down through the ages.

Perhaps it'd be easier to stop saying "atheist" and just say "skeptic?" That's all atheism really is: Skepticism regarding the claims made about religion.

Q. - Does skepticism reside in our statements about the world?

...

And if so ... what's the rent like?