Atheism is not a default position

[atanu]

Yes. Just so.

And the set of things that are unknown is indivisible, making everything unknown a set of one. The god we don't know about is not just in the same set as the rock we don't know about and the baby we don't know about, they are indistinguishable, making "atheism" that includes ignorance no longer meaningfully "about god."

It's not even necessary to specify atheism in people, as people are what have beliefs, and beliefs are what make people.

Brilliantly said.

If the term “atheism” simply describes a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking.

 

[`mud]

And some of them smile at that !
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

The rocks that is...
~
'mud

 

[atanu]

There doesn't need to be any argument. Ignorance provides the lack of belief. There is no requirement for a declaration of a lack of belief.

You know these are very condenscending remarks.

Whose ignorance and exactly what ignorance you are talking about. When there is a lack of belief, what Argument/criteria you have to define ignorance?

 

[leibowde84]

Brilliantly said.

If the term “atheism” simply describes a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking.

Come on guys. Get real. As we have said repeatedly, "atheism" describes "the lack of belief in [the specific belief of] the existence of God or gods". No straw man's please. No one has claimed that atheism is simply the lack of beliefs in general. It is true, however, that all that lack the ability to believe necessarily lack belief in the existence of God and can thus, technically, be classified as "atheist".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes. Just so.

And the set of things that are unknown is indivisible, making everything unknown a set of one. The god we don't know about is not just in the same set as the rock we don't know about and the baby we don't know about, they are indistinguishable, making "atheism" that includes ignorance no longer meaningfully "about god."

It is about god. It is about any god concept that has been suggested. The concept of belief in god isn't so open ended that it encompasses everything. Otherwise it is self defeating in any and every argument regardless if it is about atheism or not.

It's not even necessary to specify atheism in people, as people are what have beliefs, and beliefs are what make people.

I don't agree that beliefs are what make people. This sounds more like your personal opinion rather than a fact.

 

[leibowde84]

You know these are very condenscending remarks.

Whose ignorance and exactly what ignorance you are talking about. When there is a lack of belief, what Argument/criteria you have to define ignorance?

Ignorance of the concept of "God". How is that condescending? You mean if I said it to a rock or a baby? That's ridiculous.

 

[viole]

It is wrong in the same way as asking whether a stone has taken its meal is a meaningless question.

To ask whether a stone has belief or not is meaningless.

OTOH, a statement such as "a stone has neither a belief nor a disbelief" is faultless.

I think this is contradictory.

If X does not have neither a belief nor a disbelief, that entails logically that X has no belief. Becaue of the "or" semantics as applied to logic. Ergo, if it is flawless to say that stones hold neither beliefs nor disbeliefs, then it is equally faultless to say that stones hold no beliefs.

So, if you insist that beliefs/unbeliefs are unapplicable properties to stones, your sentence "stones have neither beliefs nor unbeliefs", is equally meaningless.

Acually, if your sentence were taken seriously we could prove that stones do not exist. For the set of all X, who have both property Y and its negation, is the empty set. Independently from X and Y.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

I think this is contradictory.

If X does not have neither a belief nor a disbelief, that entails logically that X has no belief. Becaue of the "or" semantics as applied to logic. Ergo, if it is flawless to say that stones hold neither beliefs nor disbeliefs, then it is equally faultless to say that stones hold no beliefs.

So, if you insist that beliefs/unbeliefs are unapplicable properties to stones, your sentence "stones have neither beliefs nor unbeliefs", is equally meaningless.

Acually, if your sentence were taken seriously we could prove that stones do not exist. For the set of all X, who have both property Y and its negation, is the empty set. Independently from X and Y.

Ciao

- viole

Nice. Possibly you have not noted the double negation. The double negation is of the belief and disbelief but is not a negation of the stone itself.

 

[leibowde84]

Nice. Possibly you have not noted the double negation. The double negation is of the belief and disbelief but is not a negation of the stone itself.

... talk about a meaningless statement.

 

[leibowde84]

Nice. Possibly you have not noted the double negation. The double negation is of the belief and disbelief but is not a negation of the stone itself.

No double negative. Just the absence of something.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheism is defined by the belief in gods as much theism is.

You're not talking about implicit atheism...
If you are going to start a thread about the default position, you have to address the type of atheism that the default position would adhere to.

All of your arguments thus far are about either strong or weak atheism - which obviously are not the default position.

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can an empty mind hold a concept of 'lack of belief'?

Does a empty coke can hold no coke?
Does an empty chair hold no buttocks?
Does an empty car hold no driver?

An empty mind can likewise hold no belief.

What does 'Without a belief' mean? Belief needs a subject here, for example, a particular deity. To say "I lack a belief in the particular deity" you must hold a concept of the particular deity in your mind.

It means to not have a belief...

If you want to add particular deities to the mix, then you're no longer talking about implicit atheism. Once you mention a deity, as I did with Abe-Mango, you've moved on from the realm of implicit atheism and immediately have to decide whether or not you are going to actively believe or disbelieve in said deity. Once you've started this part of the conversation, you're no longer talking about implicit atheism.

So, the question whether baby has belief of a deity is meaningless.

It's not meaningless - it's simply a fact. Just as your stone example - babies are implicitly atheists - just as you were towards Abe-Mango.
You're now, however, either a weak atheist or strong atheist towards Abe-Mango. Either way, you're an atheist.

Agree. But why atheists abandon that position?

I'm one of the few who doesn't. I have left behind my implicit and weak atheism and openly say that there are no gods, and that gods are merely figments of well-intentioned imaginations.

 

[viole]

Nice. Possibly you have not noted the double negation. The double negation is of the belief and disbelief but is not a negation of the stone itself.

That does not matter. If X has Y (lack of belief) and has not Y (lack of lack of belief = belief), then the set of those X is still empty. Which is the same as X not having Z (belief) and not having not Z (ergo not having the absence of belief = having beliefs).

Ergo, if stones satisfy that property, then the set of stones is empty. Therefore, there are no stones.

But stones appear to exist, and therefore your premise is false.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

WE have come to a common understanding regarding a couple of points and we may try to explore further.

It is agreed that a stone has no cognition as opposed to a man who has cognition. There is another point on which all atheists agree. That 'lack of a belief' may apply to both a stone and a man. Let me agree to this.

Going forward we may say, that a stone will not cognise that it has a lack of belief. But a man will cognise that he lacks one or more or all beliefs.

Now I ask. What is meant by this cognition? What exactly the man knows that he lacks?

 

[atanu]

That does not matter. If X has Y (lack of belief) and has not Y (lack of lack of belief = belief), then the set of those X is still empty. Which is the same as X not having Z (belief) and not having not Z (ergo not having the absence of belief = having beliefs).

Ergo, if stones satisfy that property, then the set of stones is empty. Therefore, there are no stones.

But stones appear to exist, and therefore your premise is false.

Ciao

- viole

X not having Z and X not having not Z, does not mean the set of stones is empty.

Suppose I say "I neither believe in a Deity nor I disbelieve in a Deity", does not mean that "I" am non existent. Where do you get that?

 

[atanu]

I'm one of the few who doesn't. I have left behind my implicit and weak atheism and openly say that there are no gods, and that gods are merely figments of well-intentioned imaginations.

Ya. That is better.

 

[atanu]

Ignorance of the concept of "God". How is that condescending? You mean if I said it to a rock or a baby? That's ridiculous.

Okay.

 

[viole]

X not having Z and X not having not Z, does not mean the set of stones is empty.

I neither believe in a deity nor I disbelieve in a Deity, does not mean that "I" an empty. Where do you get that?

It depends, if disbelief is defined as lack of belief, then it is the case that you do not believe in a deity AND you do not lack belief in a deity.

That does not make you empty. Just contradictory.

In other words, if it is make sense to say that stones can be contradictory, I will withdraw my claim. If stones exist, they are logically incoherent.

Better?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

WE have come to a common understanding regarding a couple of points and we may try to explore further.

It is agreed that a stone has no cognition as opposed to a man who has cognition. There is another point on which all atheists agree. That 'lack of a belief' may apply to both a stone and a man. Let me agree to this.

Going forward we may say, that a stone will not cognise that it has a lack of belief. But a man will cognise that he lacks one or more or all beliefs.

Now I ask. What is meant by this cognition? What exactly the man knows that he lacks?

The man knows that the rock cannot "hold beliefs". Thus, the man knows that the rock "is without every belief", of which one is the belief that God exists. Thus, that rock is "without" or "lacks the belief that God exists". This shows that, technically and semantically speaking of course, the rock is "atheist". The rock is not "an atheist" because that term requires personhood, but it is "atheist" all the same. In other words, because the rock technically meets the requirements for "atheism" it is "atheist", as the rock "lacks a belief in the existence of God or gods".

 

[leibowde84]

Okay.

I'm confused. I still don't get how that is condescending. Are you saying that it is offensive to babies and rocks if I claim that they lack belief in something?