Atheism is not a default position

[A Vestigial Mote]

We aren't claiming belief that God doesn't exist. We are talking about the lack of belief either way. A baby is certainly without belief either way. Thus, the baby lacks a belief in the existence of God. Just as it lacks the belief that God does not exist.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. But, to my mind, the word "atheism" comes with that aforementioned knowledge, a predisposition toward understanding of the concepts involved - those being deity and the existence or non-existence thereof. Perhaps I merely need to be informed how "atheism" does not imply that such knowledge is at hand.

But even the word itself "atheism" includes in its root that term implying theological principles and ideas are contained within.

 

[atanu]

...
It is the lack of belief in all proposed deities that makes on an atheist.

Then no one can be an atheist.

Why is that?
Could you perhaps EXPLAIN why you say things?

My statement was in relation to Mestemia's definition. Can any one know and reject all propositions that may exist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why is it either "believe" or "disbelieve"?

Because they are necessarily mutually exclusive positions.

There are other states in there, I assure you. Being uninformed about something IS A COMPLETELY VALID STATE OF BEING.

But that has little, if anything, to do with belief. People can be uninformed about something but still either believe or disbelieve it. Being uninformed is not an alternative to belief or disbelief as positions.

For example, if I came to you and said "California just fell of the map due to the fault-lines finally cracking like an eggshell underneath it." - immediately following my statement do you believe or disbelieve?

Disbelieve.

Come on now... make a decision - you ONLY GET ONE. Go. Do it. Am I to be believed or no? Which one?!??! NOW NOW NOW!!!!!!

I just did...

Obviously, it will take verifying, validating, going on a quest for the information to reach a valid state of belief or disbelief about that statement.

Wrong. I can disbelieve the statement without validating it. You can say my position isn't necessarily justified, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd disbelieve the claim.

Until then, you can remain skeptical, uninformed, etc. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY FINE.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with whether you believe or disbelieve.

 

[leibowde84]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. But, to my mind, the word "atheism" comes with that aforementioned knowledge, a predisposition toward understanding of the concepts involved - those being deity and the existence or non-existence thereof. Perhaps I merely need to be informed how "atheism" does not imply that such knowledge is at hand.

But even the word itself "atheism" includes in its root that term implying theological principles and ideas are contained within.

And, the prefix "a" merely means "without". You don't have to know about God to be without a belief in God's existence, do you? I would say, certainly not.

 

[atanu]

All I am claiming is a "lack of belief in the existence of God".

It has been told many times that for a baby or for a stone such a statement cannot apply. Because a stone and most likely no baby has ever encountered and reasoned out this proposition this way or that way.

 

[leibowde84]

I never disbelieved in them. I neither believed, nor disbelieved. I was unaware of them in order to disbelieve. How could I evaluate my thoughts in order to say I believe or disbelieve if I was ignorant of them?


My default position was unawareness. Belief or disbelief was not part of it. I neither believed, nor disbelieved in them.

You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But even the word itself "atheism" includes in its root that term implying theological principles and ideas are contained within.

But, crucially, it also includes that "atheism", which implies "absence of" - therefore, it means and ABSENCE of those theological principles and ideas.

 

[leibowde84]

It has been told many times that for a baby or for a stone such a statement cannot apply. Because a stone and most likely no baby has ever encountered and reasoned out this proposition this way or that way.

Im sorry, but that is not what the word "lack" means. Why would reasoning be necessary to lack any belief? It merely means being without the belief.

 

[atanu]

This has everything to do with the OP.
If I had done nothing - if I had never mentioned Abe-Mango, the great fire god and daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe - would you have believed in those gods, or continued to disbelieve in them as you did before you heard of their existence?

Thus, your default position in the matter was a lack of belief. Your default position towards Ab-Mango was atheism. Depending on your personal faith, it has probably advanced very quickly to the point of outright rejection or denial. You "know" there is no such thing as Abe-Mango, don't you?

No. This question would have been non-existent and there would be no question of either belief or disbelief.

 

[atanu]

Im sorry, but that is not what the word "lack" means. Why would reasoning be necessary to lack any belief? It merely means being without the belief.

It has already been shown that 'lack' means more than what you ascribe to it. And further the word 'lack of belief in Deity' does not apply to a stone or to a child.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And, the prefix "a" merely means "without". You don't have to know about God to be without a belief in God's existence, do you? I would say, certainly not.

Then being "without a belief in God" actually means nothing, by your definition.

I am, myself, without belief in god(s) - so I say we apparently just need a new word t describe an informed person who lacks belief. A person who has chosen this as their path. I don't need to be lumped in with babies and other "defaults". That is a trivialization of what I am.

That, or we could just stop calling babies "athiests".

 

[leibowde84]

Then being "without a belief in God" actually means nothing, by your definition.

I am, myself, without belief in god(s) - so I say we apparently just need a new word t describe an informed person who lacks belief. A person who has chosen this as their path. I don't need to be lumped in with babies and other "defaults". That is a trivialization of what I am.

That, or we could just stop calling babies "athiests".

There is a term. "Strong Atheism". As opposed to weak atheism or agnosticism.

 

[Windwalker]

You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of.

I also lacked disbelief, let's not overlook.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then being "without a belief in God" actually means nothing, by your definition.

I am, myself, without belief in god(s) - so I say we apparently just need a new word t describe an informed person who lacks belief. A person who has chosen this as their path. I don't need to be lumped in with babies and other "defaults". That is a trivialization of what I am.

That, or we could just stop calling babies "athiests".

So we should change the entire definition of a word because you feel personally uncomfortable about using a broadly defined term to describe an aspect of yourself that happens to also be applicable to children?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I also lacked disbelief, let's not overlook.

You can't lack both belief and disbelief, they are mutually exclusive options. You either believe something or you do not believe something, you cannot do both or neither.

 

[leibowde84]

I also lacked disbelief, let's not overlook.

All that is required for atheism and disbelief is a "lack of faith or belief". That's the point.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So we should change the entire definition of a word because you feel personally uncomfortable about using a broadly defined term to describe an aspect of yourself that happens to also be applicable to children?

Where did I ask to change the definition of a word?

 

[leibowde84]

Where did I ask to change the definition of a word?

Atheism and disbelief merely require a "lack of faith or belief".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where did I ask to change the definition of a word?

If you wish for babies to no longer be accurately described as atheists, you would require a change in the definition of the word atheist, since - as it is - it can reasonably be used to describe a babies absence of belief in God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can't lack both belief and disbelief, they are mutually exclusive options. You either believe something or you do not believe something, you cannot do both or neither.

I would argue that you certainly can do neither, and that we do it all the time. You meet someone, and they tell you they are an astronaut. You have no way of verifying or disproving, and so you maybe make a mental note to look into it, or check with someone else who knows them. It's not that you don't believe them, necessarily - skepticism is not as hard-line as disbelief, but you don't out-right believe them either. So you await further confirmation to jump to either extreme. The state of being uninformed is valid, and real.