Atheism is not a default position

[leibowde84]

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.

Exactly.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

By this same token, you are a homo. Just because that word comes with negative connotation in some circles does not exclude the fact that it is also used as the informal introduction of a being as belonging to the genus "Homo", of which humans (Homo Sapiens) are a part. So, you should not at all take any offense or feel uncomfortable at my calling you a homo to anyone and everyone I choose.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Our point is that you still lack positive belief and that is sufficient.

 

[Blastcat]

I honestly meant no disrespect. The statement that a baby "disbelieves everything by default" when pertaining to anything it lacks knowledge of, is dumb in my opinion. You didn't actually make that statement, but I made it as a generalization of the "lack of belief in God" specific statement in order to make my point. I argue that being uninformed is a valid state. And neither belief nor disbelief need to come into play at all.

Well, the PROBLEM I see that your having with the idea is the way that you USE "dis".

Let's take a look at the statement for a sec.

A BABY DISBELIEVES X BY DEFAULT.

You might find it RIDICULOUS that a baby uses critical thinking ... and I would agree... they pee and poo all over the place. They aren't evaluating TRUTH claims.

BUT...

Don't get caught up playing pedantic words games.

Nobody is saying that babies are evaluating truth claims of propositions using propositional logic.

What we might be referring to is that ( to our knowledge ) babies DON'T have beliefs in metaphysical beings and have NOT formed opinions on their ontology. Because ( as far as we know ) babies don't DISPLAY knowledge of critical thinking on very obtuse philosophical questions.

We MIGHT infer that BABIES.. ( as far as we know ) don't HAVE metaphysical categories such as "beliefs" and "gods" to begin with.

Notice, please, that the word part DIS means

a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force (see de-, un-2. ); used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:
disability; disaffirm; disbar; disbelief; discontent; dishearten; dislike; disown.

So, lets look at these words for a minute, using the prefix DIS....

A disability is NOT an ability.. it's a LACK of an ability.
To disafirm is to NOT affirm.
To disbar is to remove someone from the bar. If you have been disbarred you are NOT on the bar.
A discontent is to NOT be contented.
To be disheartened means to NOT be "heartened".
To dislike is NOT to like.
To disown is to NOT own.

Notice that every time we use the prefix DIS we mean NOT in some way.. a NEGATION.. a NEGATIVE

And to disbelieve is to NOT believe.

NOT being the operative word here.

disbelieve and not believe is utterly synonymous.

the baby doesn't HAVE active decision making opportunity as of YET.. that comes a bit later in life.

So, the prefix NOT comes into play as to the acceptance of a truth statement when it comes to BABIES...

Babies, ( as far as we know ) DO NOT have beliefs about ... metaphysical beings and propositional logic.

PLEASE notice the DO NOT HAVE part of that last sentence. It's not the SAME as DO HAVE beliefs about metaphysical beings and propositional logic.

DIS = NOT in MOST English dictionaries.
And in MOST English conversations I've ever HAD.

A ROCK disbelieves.. because it does NOT believe. It has NOT the belief in any god. ( afawk )
A rock LACKS a belief in any god.( afawk )
A rock DOES not possess a belief in any god. ( afawk )

Neither does a pre-cognative baby. ( afawk )

 

[leibowde84]

By this same token, you are a homo. Just because that word comes with negative connotation in some circles does not exclude the fact that it is also used as the informal introduction of a being as belonging to the genus "Homo", of which humans (Homo Sapiens) are a part. So, you should not at all take any offense or feel uncomfortable at my calling you a homo to anyone and everyone I choose.

I'm pretty sure it would depend on context and intent. This is utterly illogical.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, the PROBLEM I see that your having with the idea is the way that you USE "dis".

Let's take a look at the statement for a sec.

A BABY DISBELIEVES X BY DEFAULT.

You might find it RIDICULOUS that a baby uses critical thinking ... and I would agree... they pee and poo all over the place. They aren't evaluating TRUTH claims.

BUT...

Don't get caught up playing pedantic words games.

Nobody is saying that babies are evaluating truth claims of propositions using propositional logic.

What we might be referring to is that ( to our knowledge ) babies DON'T have beliefs in metaphysical beings and have NOT formed opinions on their ontology. Because ( as far as we know ) babies don't DISPLAY knowledge of critical thinking on very obtuse philosophical questions.

We MIGHT infer that BABIES.. ( as far as we know ) don't HAVE metaphysical categories such as "beliefs" and "gods" to begin with.

Notice, please, that the word part DIS means

a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force (see de-, un-2. ); used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:
disability; disaffirm; disbar; disbelief; discontent; dishearten; dislike; disown.

So, lets look at these words for a minute, using the prefix DIS....

A disability is NOT an ability.. it's a LACK of an ability.
To disafirm is to NOT affirm.
To disbar is to remove someone from the bar. If you have been disbarred you are NOT on the bar.
A discontent is to NOT be contented.
To be disheartened means to NOT be "heartened".
To dislike is NOT to like.
To disown is to NOT own.

Notice that every time we use the prefix DIS we mean NOT in some way.. a NEGATION.. a NEGATIVE

And to disbelieve is to NOT believe.

NOT being the operative word here.

disbelieve and not believe is utterly synonymous.

the baby doesn't HAVE active decision making opportunity as of YET.. that comes a bit later in life.

So, the prefix NOT comes into play as to the acceptance of a truth statement when it comes to BABIES...

Babies, ( as far as we know ) DO NOT have beliefs about ... metaphysical beings and propositional logic.

PLEASE notice the DO NOT HAVE part of that last sentence. It's not the SAME as DO HAVE beliefs about metaphysical beings and propositional logic.

DIS = NOT in MOST English dictionaries.
And in MOST English conversations I've ever HAD.

A ROCK disbelieves.. because it does NOT believe. It has NOT the belief in any god. ( afawk )
A rock LACKS a belief in any god.( afawk )
A rock DOES not possess a belief in any god. ( afawk )

Neither does a pre-cognative baby. ( afawk )

Again well put. Bravo, sir.

 

[leibowde84]

By this same token, you are a homo. Just because that word comes with negative connotation in some circles does not exclude the fact that it is also used as the informal introduction of a being as belonging to the genus "Homo", of which humans (Homo Sapiens) are a part. So, you should not at all take any offense or feel uncomfortable at my calling you a homo to anyone and everyone I choose.

... the term "atheist" is not derogatory unless the speaker is incredibly ignorant.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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?

by being unaware, you lacked belief in them. You were, and most likely still are, an atheist in regards to Abe-Mango.

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

Correct. You lacked belief - period. You were, and most likely still are, an atheist in regards to Abe-Mango.

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

It does not matter if I ever questioned you about Abe-Mango or not. By telling you of their existence and then questioning you, I have shown your default position of having a lack of belief in Abe-Mango.
Now that you know how Abe-Mango is, I can expand the question to ask you if you actively disbelieve in Abe-Mango as opposed to simply having an implicit atheism towards Abe-Mango.
If you actively disbelieve in Abe-Mango, now that you know of her, you would be a strong Atheist towards Abe-Mango.
You have left behind your default position of implicit athiesm towards Abe-Mango and replaced it with a strong atheism towards Abe-Mango...

If this were a secondary conversation, I would ask you to prove to me that Abe-Mango does not exist, since you'd be the one making the positive claim. But that's a whole other can of worms...

 

[leibowde84]

by being unaware, you lacked belief in them. You were, and most likely still are, an atheist in regards to Abe-Mango.



Correct. You lacked belief - period. You were, and most likely still are, an atheist in regards to Abe-Mango.


It does not matter if I ever questioned you about Abe-Mango or not. By telling you of their existence and then questioning you, I have shown your default position of having a lack of belief in Abe-Mango.
Now that you know how Abe-Mango is, I can expand the question to ask you if you actively disbelieve in Abe-Mango as opposed to simply having an implicit atheism towards Abe-Mango.
If you actively disbelieve in Abe-Mango, now that you know of her, you would be a strong Atheist towards Abe-Mango.
You have left behind your default position of implicit athiesm towards Abe-Mango and replaced it with a strong atheism towards Abe-Mango...

If this were a secondary conversation, I would ask you to prove to me that Abe-Mango does not exist, since you'd be the one making the positive claim. But that's a whole other can of worms...

Nailed it.

 

[leibowde84]

By this same token, you are a homo. Just because that word comes with negative connotation in some circles does not exclude the fact that it is also used as the informal introduction of a being as belonging to the genus "Homo", of which humans (Homo Sapiens) are a part. So, you should not at all take any offense or feel uncomfortable at my calling you a homo to anyone and everyone I choose.

Until you form a belief either way on a concept, you are, by the generally accepted definition of the word, an "atheist" of that concept.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... the term "atheist" is not derogatory unless the speaker is incredibly ignorant.

Way to miss my point entirely.

 

[leibowde84]

Way to miss my point entirely.

Can you respond to the rest of my comments please? You really didn't have to respond to this one, but the rest I would appreciate a response to.

 

[Thief]

Again well put. Bravo, sir.

....please don't feed the trolls....

Belief is a noun....and it is a position or stance in discussion.
It is a declaration.

If you believe.....ANYTHING.....
It's you because think you should or feel like it.

If you DISbelieve....ANYTHING....
It's because you think you should not or don't feel like it.

Let's drop the baby......and be adult about it!
and take responsibility for what we think and feel.

 

[Blastcat]

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.

IF you do not KNOW anything about X, please tell us how you could form a BELIEF about X.
DO you have a belief in X?

How many beliefs do you have about X? Twenty? Two? Three thousand? ZERO BELIEFS?

Not having a belief seems the same to you as having a belief.

You say you don't HAVE a disbelief about X, either. But you are tripping yourself up with a double negative.

The double negative in that last sentence is completely unnecessary as it means the SAME EXACT THING AS not having a belief.

I HAVE A BELIEF IN X.
I DON"T HAVE A NON BELIEF IN X.

this is like the math equation.

X = X

-X = -X

They both MEAN the same exact thing. We can DISPENSE with the completely irrelevant double negative.

Now, I really want to help you with that language difficulty.
You don't need it. and if you get rid of it, you will be WAY more clear to everyone you would like to talk to about beliefs and the lack thereof.

NOT KNOWING if a proposition is true or NOT simply means that we CANNOT form a belief of ANY KIND. I think you might agree with that.. but you get messed up by the "math" or "logic" of what that really means.

Notice the part where it says CANNOT FORM A BELIEF.

NON belief isn't a belief.

Apologists mess up people's minds SO bad.

NOT HAVING A BELIEF isn't the SAME as having a belief.

In math that would be like saying that -X=X .

And that would be VERY BAD MATH.
Logic is LIKE MATH.... a NON something isn't EQUIVALENT to a SOMETHING...

Well, I've only TRIED to explain how being an atheist doesn't MEAN I have a belief for about 5 years to theists under the guidance of apologists, Without much success I'm afraid to say. This is UTTERLY shocking to me.

Apologists mess up people's minds SO much.

X simply does not equal non X.

But somehow.. I can never convince theists under the guidance of apologists of this.
Apparently, to the apologists, NOT having a belief is the same exact thing as HAVING a belief.

I'd like to see a simple MATH equation that would convince me of that.
OR A COMPLEX ONE... ( and preferably, I would love to see the propositional logic notation )

 

[leibowde84]

....please don't feed the trolls....

Belief is a noun....and it is a position or stance in discussion.
It is a declaration.

If you believe.....ANYTHING.....
It's you because think you should or feel like it.

If you DISbelieve....ANYTHING....
It's because you think you should not or don't feel like it.

Let's drop the baby......and be adult about it!
and take responsibility for what we think and feel.

You just don't know what the prefix "a" or the word "lack" mean. You've demonstrated this in your commen. All that us required is to be without a belief. No actual belief is required.

 

[leibowde84]

....please don't feed the trolls....

Belief is a noun....and it is a position or stance in discussion.
It is a declaration.

If you believe.....ANYTHING.....
It's you because think you should or feel like it.

If you DISbelieve....ANYTHING....
It's because you think you should not or don't feel like it.

Let's drop the baby......and be adult about it!
and take responsibility for what we think and feel.

Blastcat lays it out pretty well.

 

[Thief]

You just don't know what the prefix "a" or the word "lack" mean. You've demonstrated this in your commen. All that us required is to be without a belief. No actual belief is required.

That is a declaration of what you believe.

guess you just take the 'a' out of an atheist!

 

[leibowde84]

That is a declaration of what you believe.

guess you just take the 'a' out of an atheist!

Nope, just going by the meaning of the term.

 

[leibowde84]

That is a declaration of what you believe.

guess you just take the 'a' out of an atheist!

Your logic is flawed.

 

[Thief]

Your logic is flawed.

false.....