Atheism is not a default position

[Monk Of Reason]

Still, a baby doesn't believe a government is a good thing.

Not the definition of anarchy. I think the problem you have is that you don't understand the difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in that something doesn't exist". Its been gone over a million times so far in this thread.
Anarchist is someone who BELIEVES in a specific set of principles. Atheism doesn't have prinicples. Atheism doesn't require any kind of beliefs because it is not a belief.

Babies don't believe atheism to be true or accurate. Babies don't believe you're right either.

I don't believe atheism to be true or accurate. I simply don't believe in god. Therefore I am an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is simply a word for the people who don't have a belief in god.

 

[`mud]

Now this thread is a piece of work !
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

Then no one can be an atheist.

Wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Willamena]

You are conflicting yourself and making a few errors here.
1) If it is objective it is not subjective. You are claiming some kind of all encompassing subjectivity. This is a moot point. This is not objectivity.

I'm addressing it relatively, not subjectively.

2) If something works at all it may not work for each of us as a belief because people have such drastically different beliefs. Either your simply wrong here or I have not received the intended message.

I'm not suggesting each of us must agree with the definition, but that, for any of us, it work for each of us.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm addressing it relatively, not subjectively.

And that still doesn't change the dynamic. "belief in god" isn't so vague that it can be anything to anyone. If it is then the term itself is useless. Relatively, subjectively or objectively.

I'm not suggesting each of us must agree with the definition, but that, for any of us, it work for each of us.

And the "lack of" meets that.

 

[McBell]

I don't. Weird.

Perhaps you should ask Thief what you are, since in his world you are not an atheist?

 

[McBell]

"belief in god" isn't so vague that it can be anything to anyone.

Actually, I disagree.
Simply because of the word "god" in the phrase.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, I disagree.
Simply because of the word "god" in the phrase.

Perhaps I should have added "without butchering the language and making any other conversation with the word god totally meaningless"

 

[McBell]

Perhaps I should have added "without butchering the language and making any other conversation with the word god totally meaningless"

Start a thread asking for each member to post what they mean when they use the word "god".

If you do I would suggest you ask the question twice, one with "god" and again with "God".
The reason being I have seen many a post where people complain that "god" and "God" are different.

 

[Willamena]

And that still doesn't change the dynamic. "belief in god" isn't so vague that it can be anything to anyone. If it is then the term itself is useless. Relatively, subjectively or objectively.

I've not suggested that it be "anything to anyone." Just the opposite: that it be something very specific to each. For some of us, it is nothing vague, and the definitions we adhere to are those that work for each person they're tested for.

And the "lack of" meets that.

Except that reasons why it doesn't work have been argued for several pages.

 

[atanu]

Can you restate this whole statement

The expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If we know what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then we know the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t’.

in your own words?

I will try. Hope we can keep sarcasm away.

Let us take the sentence "Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." According to adherents of Implicit atheism, a baby (who has not encountered and judged the proposition) is also an atheist as equally as an adult (who has encountered and judged the proposition). Nyaya logic will distinguish between the two situations.

In case of a baby, the position would be described as "A baby neither believes nor disbelieves existence of deities".

In case of an adult it would be said that: The expression ‘absence of belief in deity’ will be meaningful if it is known what it is for ’belief in deity’ to be present somewhere. Then only it is known accurately how the ’belief in deity’ is justified, which then is negated. In short, there is nothing like empty "lack of belief'. There has to be a corresponding process of negation in cognition.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've not suggested that it be "anything to anyone." Just the opposite: that it be something very specific to each. For some of us, it is nothing vague, and the definitions we adhere to are those that work for each person they're tested for.

Should all words be subject to the same thing? Or is there not a general understanding of the concept of "belief in god"?

Except that reasons why it doesn't work have been argued for several pages.

I have yet to see a functional argument against it yet.

 

[Ouroboros]

Is this the logical implication of the argument that "anything that doesn't have belief is an atheist" will lead to?

p1) Anything that doesn't have belief in God is an atheist
p2) The Universe belongs to the category of "anything".
c) The Universe is an atheist

But we also know
p1) An atheist is a person
p2) The Universe is an atheist
c) The Universe is a person

Oops. Does this mean this very vague, super-general definition of atheism means that atheists believe the Universe is a person? God perhaps?

Where did the logic go wrong?

 

[atanu]

lacking a belief in a particular deity does not make one an atheist.
It is the lack of belief in all proposed deities that makes on an atheist.

Then no one can be an atheist.

Wishful thinking on your part.

Good to know that you know all proposed deities to lack belief in all of them.

 

[Thief]

well gee....

Belief as a noun.

Belief as a verb.

the negative aspect is still a belief.

 

[McBell]

Good to know that you know all proposed deities to lack belief in all of them.

That is nothing more than an assumption on your part.

An assumption based upon another assumption you try to present as a proven premise.

 

[McBell]

well gee....

Belief as a noun.

Belief as a verb.

the negative aspect is still a belief.

I agree.
Disbelief is also a belief.

I am not talking about belief or disbelief.
I am talking about lack of belief and disbelief.

 

[McBell]

Is this the logical implication of the argument that "anything that doesn't have belief is an atheist" will lead to?

p1) Anything that doesn't have belief in God is an atheist
p2) The Universe belongs to the category of "anything".
c) The Universe is an atheist

But we also know
p1) An atheist is a person
p2) The Universe is an atheist
c) The Universe is a person

Oops. Does this mean this very vague, super-general definition of atheism means that atheists believe the Universe is a person? God perhaps?

Where did the logic go wrong?

Who has made the claim "anything that doesn't have belief is an atheist"?

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's another, more generic definition (and more accurate in my opinion) of atheism and atheist.

1. An atheist is a person who holds the view of atheism.
2. Atheism is a view held by an atheist.

Now, the finer details of what this atheism view is, that's where the passive/active voice of belief comes in, but not before.

That resolves the problem of Universe being an atheist as well as ova, sperm, inoculated cells, fetus, and new born also can be removed as default atheistic. They're not a "person holding the view of atheism", as of yet.

Belief in not X, or not belief in X, only differs as much as passive and active voice of unbelief. But they're both still held in a view by a person, actively held by a person.

 

[Ouroboros]

Who has made the claim "anything that doesn't have belief is an atheist"?

It was made earlier in this thread, that rocks were atheists.

The definition that has been forced upon me is that "lack of belief in God" is the full and proper definition of atheism. Rocks, circles, unicorns, and universes all "lack belief in God." They all fit the definition.

When I suggested that there's more to it than just "lack of belief in God", I was told, "no, that's all there is to it."

I'm too lazy to go back and dig out those posts, but that's the essence of what this discussion is about. Is "atheism" a default position. Default position of what exactly?