Atheism is not a default position

[atanu]

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.

Ciao

- viole

No. Even now you are wrong. Let me use a very approximate example.

Suppose a man enters a dark room and says "There are no chairs in the room". However, when the light comes on, he finds that there is a chair and he says "There is light and I see a chair".

In Hindu logic system, the latter statement would be termed as True. But the former statement, which is only provisionally true as long the room is dark, is termed as "Neither true nor untrue". An assertion made in dark (in ignorance) has no relation at all to the truth value of a proposition.

So, it is another category altogether: neither true nor untrue.

You may or may not agree to this system of logic but this is how it is in Nyaya system.

 

[atanu]

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".

Thank you. But I did not ask as to what rock lacks. I asked "What is meant by this cognition? What exactly the man knows that he (the man) lacks?"

 

[leibowde84]

No. Even now you are wrong. Let me use a very approximate example.

Suppose a man enters a dark room and says "There are no chairs in the room". However, when the light comes on, he finds that there is a chair and he says "There is light and I see a chair".

In Hindu logic system, the latter statement would be termed as True. But the former statement, which is only provisionally true as long the room is dark, is termed as "Neither true nor untrue". An assertion made in dark (in ignorance) has no relation at all to the truth value of a proposition.

So, it is another category altogether: neither true nor untrue.

You may or may agree to this system of logic but this is how it is in Nyaya system.

You must not understand the meaning of the word "true", as used in the english language. Here's the definition:

adjective

1. in accordance with fact or reality.
2. accurate or exact.

How can one claim that any statement can be both true or not true. Intent or knowledge of reality has nothing to do with it? That would deal with honesty. If one has no way of knowing whether the light is on or off, their stating it being "on" is either "in accordance with fact or reality" or not.

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you. But I did not ask as to what rock lacks. I asked "What is meant by this cognition? What exactly the man knows that he (the man) lacks?"

Again, that's the point. The rock (and the baby) do not have any requirement to acknowledge their own condition of being "atheist". They either are or they aren't, according to what belief they hold, not what belief they declare to hold. This is why it is not a belief, but, instead, merely the lack thereof. The rock's inability to claim that it lacks the ability to hold a belief does not effect in any way the rocks lack of specific beliefs and belief in general. The term "lack" or "being without" does not create the requirement for declaration or understanding. It's not like I have to understand what a key is to be without a key. It's not like I have to understand what religion is to be "without" religion or "lack" religion. It is a state of being, not a belief. That is my biggest pet peeve with my fellow theists. They intentionally ignore the generality of the term "theist" and refuse to apply that same generality to the term "atheist". Theism means being with (or holding) a belief in the existence of God or gods. "Atheism" means "lacking" or "being without" a belief in the existence of God or gods. You are either one or the other. Either you hold a belief in the existence of God or gods. Or you are without a belief in the existence of God or gods.

What are you confused about? Keep in mind, though, that "lacking a belief in God" is certainly not the same as "believing that God does not exist". One is active and one is passive.

 

[atanu]

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.
It means to not have a belief...

The examples are not analogous to empty mind with a lack of belief. You did not note the part about "concept" perhaps.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

We can only say that we lack belief once we are aware of that which we have the option to believe in...
Prior to forming said belief, we lack belief - hence implicit atheism/default position.

We cognise that we lack one, or more, or all beliefs only AFTER we realize that we have something to cognise about. Correct?
So, before that moment, we are still implicitly without belief in those things.

It could be something as simple as a pencil.
Before we are aware that pencils exist, we implicitly know nothing of pencils, and have no opinions about them. We're pencil atheists - no one cares, but it's still a true statement because we lack belief of any kind in pencils.
You can replace the pencil variable with anything else that you like, including gods, and it still works.The example holds true regardless of variable..

 

[leibowde84]

The examples are not analogous to empty mind with a lack of belief. You did not note the part about "concept" perhaps.

Why would a rock need to know that it is "lacking a belief" for it to "lack a belief" in actuality. There is no requirement for declaration or understanding.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The examples are not analogous to empty mind with a lack of belief. You did not note the part about "concept" perhaps.

Again, I think what you guys fail to realize is that there is a huge difference between implicit atheism and explicit atheism.
You seem stuck on the latter.

 

[atanu]

You must not understand the meaning of the word "true", as used in the english language. How can one claim that any statement can be both true or not true. I.

Hey. You have been indeed acting smart without understanding or paying attention.

I did not say :True and untrue.

I said: Neither true nor untrue.

 

[leibowde84]

Hey. You have been indeed acting smart without understanding or paying attention.

I did not say :True and untrue.

I said: Neither true nor untrue.

Exactly. Not possible. If something does not align with reality or isn't "accurate", then it is "untrue" by necessity.

 

[leibowde84]

Hey. You have been indeed acting smart without understanding or paying attention.

I did not say :True and untrue.

I said: Neither true nor untrue.

Whether we find out after the fact or not is irrelevant.

 

[atanu]

... But the former statement, which is only provisionally true as long the room is dark, is termed as "Neither true nor untrue". An assertion made in dark (in ignorance) has no relation at all to the truth value of a proposition.
.....

You must not understand the meaning of the word "true",
How can one claim that any statement can be both true or not true. .....

Hey. You have been indeed acting smart without understanding or paying attention.

I did not say :True and untrue.

I said: Neither true nor untrue.

Exactly. Not possible. If something does not align with reality or isn't "accurate", then it is "untrue" by necessity.

Some people are incorrigible. Accepting their own mistake is impossible for them.

I repeat that I talked about a category called "Neither true nor untrue" and not "True and untrue".

When the truth value of a proposition is indeterminate then the knowledge of such state is called "Neither true nor untrue".

 

[Willamena]

Atheism doesn't require the separation you speak of. That's the point. The lack of belief in God can well be wrapped up with a fellow lack of belief in anything else based on ignorance.

In regards to the unknown, there is no lack of belief "in god," that's the point. There is no "in god" to lack belief about. We can only make propositions about existent things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some people are incorrigible. Accepting their own mistake is impossible for them.

I repeat that I talked about a category called "Neither true nor untrue" and not "True and untrue".

No such state of things exist. Something is either true or untrue, it cannot be both or neither.

When the truth value of a proposition is indeterminate then the knowledge of such state is called "Neither true nor untrue".

But as with regards to BELIEF, you don't have to believe a claim is untrue in order to not believe it is true. If the truth value of something is indeterminate to you, then you don't necessarily have to determine it to be untrue, but you still don't accept it as true, which is entirely the point. A belief is that which you hold to be true. If you lack sufficient knowledge or capacity to determine that a particular thing is true, then you do not accept that given thing as true and hence you do not believe it. This need not mean that you must accept the position that it is untrue, either - even though the two are mutually exclusive. The point is that until you believe X to be true, you can be said to disbelieve X.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If it's been suggested, it can hardly be claimed to be unknown. Even if it's only a label, there's something to start with.

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

Well, that's a topic for another thread anyway.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If it's been suggested, it can hardly be claimed to be unknown. Even if it's only a label, there's something to start with.

What exactly do you feel is "unknown" in this argument. this is where you begin to confuse me.

 

[Willamena]

You're not talking about implicit atheism...

In the OP I'm talking about any atheism. Since then, the discussion has shifted and I am once again defending atheism against those who would imply it on behalf of those who cannot be it.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. Even now you are wrong. Let me use a very approximate example.

Suppose a man enters a dark room and says "There are no chairs in the room". However, when the light comes on, he finds that there is a chair and he says "There is light and I see a chair".

In Hindu logic system, the latter statement would be termed as True. But the former statement, which is only provisionally true as long the room is dark, is termed as "Neither true nor untrue". An assertion made in dark (in ignorance) has no relation at all to the truth value of a proposition.

So, it is another category altogether: neither true nor untrue.

You may or may not agree to this system of logic but this is how it is in Nyaya system.

That's the definition of Null in both SQL and modern programming languages. Null (or Nil) means, no value, or unknown value, and it's not the same as zero or empty string (as some early implementations of SQL did wrongly, MS-SQL 6.5 for instance if I remember right).

 

[Willamena]

What exactly do you feel is "unknown" in this argument. this is where you begin to confuse me.

Some people think that people who've never heard of god are automatically atheists. Obviously, any concept of god is an unknown to them.

 

[Ouroboros]

In the OP I'm talking about any atheism. Since then, the discussion has shifted and I am once again defending atheism against those who would imply it on behalf of those who cannot be it.

Not long ago I was accused of using "word games" when I equated the totality of things with God, i.e. pantheism. One time (not here), I was even accused of using the equivocation fallacy by doing it. Now, I believe this claim that a default position of tabular Rasa being equated with atheism should be flagged word games and false equivocation. Keep up the good fight.