Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

How on earth did you read that to mean I was saying that certain people don't exist?

In another thread you said and I quote:

"As I said, rather than write - 'doesn't believe God does not exist'', just edit out the double negative and write it as 'believes God exists'. That will save you a lot of confusion."
The default position... | Page 46 | ReligiousForums.com

Here you say if you don't believe God doesn't exist that's the same as "believes God exists". Hence in your world no fence-sitters.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes of course, rejecting the claim 'God exists' is lacking belief.

Lacking the belief that God exists.

Accepting that God does not exist is also lacking belief.

Lacking the belief that God does not exist.

The belief in question (surely this much is clear?) being the existence of god.

The two beliefs in question are the belief that God exists and the belief that God doesn't exist.

 

[Bunyip]

In another thread you said and I quote:

"As I said, rather than write - 'doesn't believe God does not exist'', just edit out the double negative and write it as 'believes God exists'. That will save you a lot of confusion."
The default position... | Page 46 | ReligiousForums.com

Yes, that is correct.

Here you say if you don't believe God doesn't exist that's the same as "believes God exists". Hence in your world no fence-sitters.

Artie, there is nothing there at all that refers to 'fence sitters'. Read it again. There is no fence to sit on implicit in what i said.

 

[Bunyip]

Lacking the belief that God exists.

Correct. Atheism.

Lacking the belief that God does not exist.

Which is theism of course.

The two beliefs in question are the belief that God exists and the belief that God doesn't exist.

No. Only one belief is being considered in that example - in God.
The former lacks that belief, the latter possesses it.

 

[ArtieE]

Correct. Atheism. Which is theism of course.No. Only one belief is being considered in that example - in God.
The former lacks that belief, the latter possesses it.

There are people who believe God exists (theists) and there are people who believe God doesn't exist. (Strong atheists). And then there are the fence-sitters who believe neither and haven't made up their mind what to believe. (Weak atheists). Therefore not believing that God doesn't exist (fence-sitter) can't be the same as being a theist. Then there would be no fence-sitters.

Your problem is that you can't separate between theism/atheism and theism/weak atheism/strong atheism and keep mixing them up in your arguments.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There are people who believe God exists (theists) and there are people who believe God doesn't exist. (Strong atheists). And then there are the fence-sitters who believe neither and haven't made up their mind what to believe. (Weak atheists). Therefore not believing that God doesn't exist (fence-sitter) can't be the same as being a theist. Then there would be no fence-sitters.

Your problem is that you can't separate between theism/atheism and theism/weak atheism/strong atheism and keep mixing them up in your arguments.

The fact that you have to have so many modifiers to the term atheism to clarify what you mean shows that it is not an effective and efficient term.
The better already-existing term for those who are "fence-sitters" is agnostic, which should be treated (IMO) as a separate category, rather than shoehorning them in with those who declare that God/gods do not exist (atheists). Those who are not capable of forming an belief should (again, IMO) should be called non-theists, to differentiate them from those who are capable of forming beliefs, but have chosen not to do so (agnostics).
If there are other distinctions, other terms can be identified to clarify.
Rather than insisting upon a dichotomy that clearly causes much apprehension, recognizing the diversity of positions by clearly separating and naming them would seem to be a more rational approach.

 

[ArtieE]

The fact that you have to have so many modifiers to the term atheism to clarify what you mean shows that it is not an effective and efficient term.

The terms weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism are perfectly "effective and efficient" terms. Some people simply aren't capable of understanding what they mean.

The better already-existing term for those who are "fence-sitters" is agnostic,

Agnostics are people who don't know whether gods exist or gods don't exist. Agnostics can perfectly well be theists or strong atheists.

Those who are not capable of forming an belief should (again, IMO) should be called non-theists,

We have a perfectly good expression for them. We call them implicit atheists because they are not theists and not strong atheists either and haven't formed any beliefs.

to differentiate them from those who are capable of forming beliefs,

Those who are capable of forming beliefs and have formed the belief that gods don't exist are called strong atheists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Must I retype the thread?

No. A single argument will do.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The terms weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism are perfectly "effective and efficient" terms. Some people simply aren't capable of understanding what they mean.

And some people disagree on that score. And you're only response is that "You don't understand what I/we mean. I understand perfectly well, and also understand that there are single existing words that already describe the differences.

What it boils down to is this: you're a lumper, and I'm not. It's good to have this discussion, but after 800+ posts in this thread alone, it's clear that neither point of view seems to be winning any converts. I think we should agree to disagree, and each of us just go on using the terms we prefer, knowing that the other will not be changing their mind anytime soon.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Let's just talk about pencils....

If you do not have a pencil on your desk, is it correct to say that you are lacking a pencil? That you are without pencil?
We could call you pencil-less, couldn't we?

Since that statement is obviously true, does it suddenly become untrue just because we changed the word from pencil to apple? Or from apple to god?

 

[Thief]

Only if you ignore the fact that atheism is also the lack of belief in a deity.

Well....we have been tossing babies back and forth......CATCH!

how about baby dogs?.....cats......worms......something with no consideration....

 

[Thief]

Let's just talk about pencils....

If you do not have a pencil on your desk, is it correct to say that you are lacking a pencil? That you are without pencil?
We could call you pencil-less, couldn't we?

Since that statement is obviously true, does it suddenly become untrue just because we changed the word from pencil to apple? Or from apple to god?

Let's toss thoughtless back and forth.
That you 'lack' a reason to believe......you have no reason.....

 

[jonathan180iq]

how about baby dogs?.....cats......worms......something with no consideration....

They're all implicitly atheist.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Let's toss thoughtless back and forth.
That you 'lack' a reason to believe......you have no reason.....

Having a reason to believe or disbelieve moves one into the realm of explicit consideration, wholly different from implicit states.

Again, you guys are arguing, very emotionally and strongly, against the wrong thing...

 

[Thief]

Having a reason to believe or disbelieve moves one into the realm of explicit consideration, wholly different from implicit states.

Again, you guys are arguing, very emotionally and strongly, against the wrong thing...

We (whoever that might be)......believe we can do so....and correctly so.

 

[Thief]

They're all implicitly atheist.

That's a good one.....and which of the little puppies told you so.

 

[jonathan180iq]

We (whoever that might be)......believe we can do so....and correctly so.

You correctly believe that you can argue about the wrong concept?
Knock yourself out.

That's a good one.....and which of the little puppies told you so.

Do you ever stop to reflect before you post?
Knee-jerk responses rarely make sense.

Those puppies have no pencils... Do they have to tell me that they don't have pencils for it to be true that they don't have pencils?

 

[ArtieE]

And some people disagree on that score. And you're only response is that "You don't understand what I/we mean.

No, my response to you in post 807 was to explain to you what an agnostic is since you obviously thought that agnostics are fence-sitters when you can perfectly well have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists who have jumped off the fence. I also explained that we have a perfectly good expression, implicit atheist, for people who are not theists or strong atheists and haven't for some reason formed any beliefs, and I also explained that we have perfectly good expressions for those who are capable of forming and have formed beliefs: theists and strong atheists.

What it boils down to is this: you're a lumper, and I'm not. It's good to have this discussion, but after 800+ posts in this thread alone, it's clear that neither point of view seems to be winning any converts. I think we should agree to disagree, and each of us just go on using the terms we prefer, knowing that the other will not be changing their mind anytime soon.

Well of course you can go on using the terms you prefer instead of the proper ones. It doesn't help communication much though.

 

[Thief]

You correctly believe that you can argue about the wrong concept?
Knock yourself out.


Do you ever stop to reflect before you post?
Knee-jerk responses rarely make sense.

Those puppies have no pencils... Do they have to tell me that they don't have pencils for it to be true that they don't have pencils?

Same to you.....and I shall refrain the obvious retort.

 

[leibowde84]

tossing the word salad rather high.....

Atheist have a belief......there is no god.

You can keep saying that all you like, but are argument is that you are wrong. "Atheism" does not contend that "there is no God" or "God does not exist", it merely requires the lack of the positive belief that "God does exist". Since, absence is all that is required for "atheism", anyone who is incapable of understanding or is ignorant of the concept of God still fulfills the requirement, as they certainly are without a belief in the existence of God.

In other words, "Atheism" does not necessarily contend that "there is no God". "Atheism" merely shows the lack of a positive or active belief in the existence of God. Obviously, though, the mere lack of this belief does not necessarily mean that "God does not" or "cannot exist".