Atheism is not a default position

[McBell]

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.

*facepalm*
your presented definition is of no assist.

 

[Ouroboros]

*facepalm*
your presented definition is of no assist.

It is too.

It correlates that atheism and atheist are related. You can't just call things, people, or fetuses "default atheists" or having "default atheism" simply because there's a connection between them and it's relating to a held view, or state of mind of a person.

I'm told there's an active v passive voice of this unbelief, Active or passive, doesn't matter, they are both part of a person's state of mind.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

So do atheists. We distinguish between them by calling them implicit and explicit, weak and strong.

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

No, for a baby both the positions "I believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" are absent. The baby has none of them.

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.

Of course. If nobody had invented and started believing in gods there would be no theists so no use for the expression atheists.

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.

That would be true for strong atheists but not weak or implicit atheists.

 

[McBell]

It is too.

Not really.
You are defining it with itself.
Doing so does not offer any insight on the meaning of the word.

It correlates that atheism and atheist are related.

it is nothing more than chasing your own tail.

You can't just call things, people, or fetuses "default atheists" or having "default atheism" simply because there's a connection between them and it's relating to a held view, or state of mind of a person.

I agree.

I'm told there's an active v passive voice of this unbelief, Active or passive, doesn't matter, they are both part of a person's state of mind.

If it does not matter, why are you so up in arms over it?

 

[ArtieE]

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?

The logic never went wrong. By applying something we call reason and common sense we simply assume that we are talking about humans when discussing theism/atheism. This might change of course if we encounter aliens who believe in gods or animals who believe in gods. You must be really desperate to come up with such a post. Or maybe it was just meant in jest.

 

[Ouroboros]

If it does not matter, why are you so up in arms over it?

You're right. I shouldn't bother about it. But I wasn't bothered about it with you, but with those who make the claims.

And when it comes to "atheist=person holding view of atheism" definition, it does hold extra information. For instance "Person", "holding view", and then "atheism" which can be defined further. So it's not just tautological. It's more information in there than just an equality.

 

[ArtieE]

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

Here's a list of many gods atheists don't believe in.
Gods We Don’t Believe In
I have managed to not believe in these gods all my life even though I hadn't even heard of most of them.

 

[Ouroboros]

The logic never went wrong. By applying something we call reason and common sense we simply assume that we are talking about humans when discussing theism/atheism.

We also talk about humans who can hold a view. We're not just talking about humans in general, but humans who are atheists. An atheist hold the view of atheism. A rock doesn't hold a view of atheism. A fetus or child doesn't hold the view of atheism either. Hence, it's not a default view.

This might change of course if we encounter aliens who believe in gods or animals who believe in gods. You must be really desperate to come up with such a post. Or maybe it was just meant in jest.

Uh. No.

Whatever.

 

[ArtieE]

We also talk about humans who can hold a view.

No we aren't. We are talking about humans who are not theists. That is what the word atheist means. The prefix a- means "not".

We're not just talking about humans in general, but humans who are atheists.

We are talking about humans who are not theists.

An atheist hold the view of atheism.

A weak implicit atheist doesn't hold a view. Any view is absent. Only a strong explicit atheist holds a view. Learn the difference.

A fetus or child doesn't hold the view of atheism either.

A fetus or child doesn't hold the view of theism and doesn't hold the view of strong atheism. Hence the child is a weak implicit atheist because it doesn't hold any views.

 

[Ouroboros]

Learn the difference.

No, you learn the difference.

A fetus or child doesn't hold the view of theism and doesn't hold the view of strong atheism. Hence the child is a weak implicit atheist because it doesn't hold any views.

I disagree.

I agree that the child doesn't hold a view.

But I disagree that atheism is to "not hold view". Atheism is a view. To be an atheist is to hold that view.

A child doesn't hold views of atheism, and is therefore not an atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

No, you learn the difference.

If you know the difference why don't you use the proper terms?

 

[Ouroboros]

If you know the difference why don't you use the proper terms?

I am.

A child is not an atheist. That's proper terms.

I'm getting the feeling that you're not really serious about these things but are just trolling. Are you just jesting?

 

[ArtieE]

A child is not an atheist. That's proper terms.

A child is not a strong atheist. "That's proper terms".

I'm getting the feeling that you're not really serious about these things but are just trolling. Are you just jesting?

 

[Ouroboros]

A child is not a strong atheist. "That's proper terms".

They're not even a weak atheist. They're not any kind of atheist. An atheist is someone who holds one or other view of the atheistic definitions ("not believe G", "believe not G", "disbelief in G", "convinced G doesn't exist", etc). All of them are views held by a person. A child hasn't had the development yet to reach the ability to make their views clear even to themselves.

 

[ArtieE]

They're not even a weak atheist. They're not any kind of atheist. An atheist is someone who holds one or other view of the atheistic definitions ("not believe G", "believe not G", "disbelief in G", "convinced G doesn't exist", etc). All of them are views held by a person. A child hasn't had the development yet to reach the ability to make their views clear even to themselves.

An atheist is any person who is not a theist. a- = "not". Atheist = not theist. There are weak and strong atheists. You only talk about strong explicit atheism and seem to pretend that weak implicit atheism doesn't exist. So there's no point in continuing this exchange.

 

[Curious George]

An atheist is any person who is not a theist. a- = "not". Atheist = not theist. There are weak and strong atheists. You only talk about strong explicit atheism and seem to pretend that weak implicit atheism doesn't exist. So there's no point in continuing this exchange.

Some would disagree with your addition of the parameter "people." Not me. I ask, why limit this to "people?" The answer is that, if we are defining atheist by theism, then we are clearly discussing people. But, I would suggest that we are not discussing people but rather a group capable of theism.

This is why people, who understand how you are using the various terms, still disagree with the use of the terms. They believe that a non-position cannot be a position. Strong atheism is a position, weak explicit atheism is a position. Implicit atheism is contrived. Implicit atheism adds nothing to the discussion. While people understand how some categorize implicit atheism as "not theism" they disagree with the concept.

That we can say orange is even is technically true, is irrelevant. Hence, we can also say orange is not odd and it is technically true (though it adds nothing). Nothing changes with the exclusion of implicit atheist from the category atheist. If nothing changes, nothing is gained by its inclusion. If we agree that language ought to be efficient then the superfluous inclusion of meaningless categories is not the best way to define terms.

 

[ArtieE]

Some would disagree with your addition of the parameter "people." Not me. I ask, why limit this to "people?" The answer is that, if we are defining atheist by theism, then we are clearly discussing people. But, I would suggest that we are not discussing people but rather a group capable of theism.

We are discussing people because it was people who invented gods.

This is why people, who understand how you are using the various terms, still disagree with the use of the terms. They believe that a non-position cannot be a position.

Of course a non-position isn't a position. It's the absence of positions. Hence not theist and not strong atheist.

That we can say orange is even is technically true, is irrelevant. Hence, we can also say orange is not odd and it is technically true (though it adds nothing). Nothing changes with the exclusion of implicit atheist from the category atheist.

Implicit atheists are also not theists so how can you possibly exclude them from the "category atheist" when atheist literally means "not theist"? You are excluding some "not theists" from the category "not theist"?

 

[Curious George]

We are discussing people because it was people who invented gods.Of course a non-position isn't a position. It's the absence of positions. Hence not theist and not strong atheist.Implicit atheists are also not theists so how can you possibly exclude them from the "category atheist" when atheist literally means "not theist"? You are excluding some "not theists" from the category "not theist"?

I am excluding only to the extent you are by limiting atheist to "people." If you say theist is a person who believes in God, and atheist is a person that is not a theist, I am saying a better definition would be theis is an entity, aware of a God construct, who believes that God construct exists objectively.

Atheist then would be an entity aware of a God construct, that does not believe that God construct exists objectively.

In these definitions an atheist is still not a theist, and a theist is not an atheist the same way correct is not incorrect, and incorrect is not correct.

 

[ArtieE]

I am excluding only to the extent you are by limiting atheist to "people." If you say theist is a person who believes in God, and atheist is a person that is not a theist, I am saying a better definition would be theis is an entity, aware of a God construct, who believes that God construct exists objectively.

You might think that is a better definition but I find it practically incomprehensible.

 

[Curious George]

You might think that is a better definition but I find it practically incomprehensible.

Again, I am only "excluding" to the same extent you are when you limit atheists to "people."

But, perhaps you can answer the riddle, what is gained by the inclusion of implicit atheism? If nothing is gained, why not limit the terms such that the terms are the most efficient?