Atheism is not a default position

[leibowde84]

You're missing the point. I've run out of ideas to explain what I'm trying to say, so I'm leaving this particular discussion. Perhaps we can take it up again one day.

Maybe, if I can point to some concepts that might help. Other than that, I'm plain out of ways of explaining.

Null value: Null (SQL) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"For people new to the subject, a good way to remember what null means is to remember that in terms of information, "lack of a value" is not the same thing as "a value of zero"; similarly, "lack of an answer" is not the same thing as "an answer of no". For example, consider the question "How many books does Juan own?" The answer may be "zero" (we know that he owns none) or "null" (we do not know how many he owns, or doesn't own). In a database table, the column reporting this answer would start out with a value of null, and it would not be updated with "zero" until we have ascertained that Juan owns no books."

Three valued logic: Three-valued logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In logic, a three-valued logic (also trinary logic, trivalent, ternary, or trilean,[citation needed] sometimes abbreviated 3VL) is any of several many-valued logic systems in which there are three truth values indicating true, false and some indeterminate third value. This is contrasted with the more commonly known bivalent logics (such as classical sentential or Boolean logic) which provide only for true and false. Conceptual form and basic ideas were initially created by Jan Łukasiewicz and C. I. Lewis. These were then re-formulated by Grigore Moisil in an axiomatic algebraic form, and also extended to n-valued logics in 1945."

--edit

Oh, I do remember some other terms that can be helpful.

Theological noncognitivism, the neither here nor there stance.

Nontheism, which I consider a more accurate opposite to theism than atheism.

My entire point is that "nontheism" can be included in "atheism", as they pretty much mean exactly the same thing. Being "without" theism. That is all that is required for "atheism", as a "lack of a belief" is merely "being without that specific belief". No consideration required at all.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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".

This man is a theist and totally understands the concepts being discussed here and seems to have no problem with them.

What is the hangup for the rest of the theists in the room?

 

[leibowde84]

This keeps jumping out at me when it comes up in your posts. The person who has no capacity to believe is arrived at by negation as much as the person who simply doesn't believe in god. It's just the negation of the state of belief, rather than the belief.

Exactly. "Atheism" is the negation of the "state of belief", not the negative version of the belief itself. Well-put.

 

[Thief]

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".

If you are able and willing to say ...there is no god....
that would be your belief.

 

[ArtieE]

If you are able and willing to say ...there is no god....
that would be your belief.

Correct. That is what strong atheists say. That is why we call them strong atheists to distinguish them from weak atheists who don't say that and don't say there is a god either.

 

[leibowde84]

If you are able and willing to say ...there is no god....
that would be your belief.

Yep. But, again, that is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are discussing those that simply "lack the believe in the existence of God", but are not able to express this fact. In other words, those who "lack belief" because they don't have the ability to consider the option. Our argument is that they, nevertheless, still "lack" or are "without" God.

I'm not sure what you are arguing against. Obviously if someone makes the declaration that there is no God, that is an active belief on their part. The problem is that no one has claimed otherwise. This should be obvious as we are focused on entities that don't have the ability to make declarations of this kind.

 

[leibowde84]

If you are able and willing to say ...there is no god....
that would be your belief.

This is "strong-atheism", by the way, not "atheism" in general. Most "atheists" are "weak-atheists", in that they lack the belief, but they don't actively believe that God does not exist.

 

[Thief]

This is "strong-atheism", by the way, not "atheism" in general. Most "atheists" are "weak-atheists", in that they lack the belief, but they don't actively believe that God does not exist.

yeah well....I believe....as we stand before God and heaven......
any weak belief will fail.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you are able and willing to say ...there is no god....
that would be your belief.

Correct - after a decision has been made, it's explicit atheism (or theism).
Before a decision has been made, however, it's implicit atheism - in the same way that before you were a theist you were not a theist.

 

[Thief]

Correct. That is what strong atheists say. That is why we call them strong atheists to distinguish them from weak atheists who don't say that and don't say there is a god either.

as in.....there is no god?
any statement ...ANY such statement is a declaration.
and if they have not the courage to speak of it.....that is even worse.

 

[leibowde84]

yeah well....I believe....as we stand before God and heaven......
any weak belief will fail.

How is this relevant to the conversation. We aren't making claims on how God will judge individuals based on their faith or lack thereof. That has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

 

[leibowde84]

as in.....there is no god?
any statement ...ANY such statement is a declaration.
and if they have not the courage to speak of it.....that is even worse.

We are discussing those who don't have the ability to express any belief.

 

[Thief]

We are discussing those who don't have the ability to express any belief.

comatose?
mentally challenged?
are lacking enough spirit to even have a thought of their own?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

comatose?
mentally challenged?
are lacking enough spirit to even have a though of their own?

Also, people who have never been presented with the claim.

 

[jonathan180iq]

comatose?
mentally challenged?
are lacking enough spirit to even have a though of their own?

Are you comatose or mentally challenged because you lack belief in Abe-Mango, or Parvati the Hindu goddess?

 

[leibowde84]

comatose?
mentally challenged?
are lacking enough spirit to even have a though of their own?

Or babies and other entities that are implicitly atheist because they don't have the ability to consider the belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

My entire point is that "nontheism" can be included in "atheism", as they pretty much mean exactly the same thing.

Over 10 years ago, when I became an atheist, non-theism was the umbrella term and atheism was a sub-term.

Basically, non-theism was the general term for non-belief of any Gods. Agnosticism was considered weak atheism. All these added prefix terms to atheism to make atheism hyper-generic either didn't exist or wasn't known to most people. The benefit to these separate terms however was that it made it easier to categorize things. Now, with this implicit atheism including everything from a fetus to a dead person, the term is becoming useless. In essence, implicit atheism is something that includes everything and everyone. I think it's Sam Harris who is questioning even the need to use the term when it really only means everyone and everything that doesn't or can't believe in God. Put it this way, my impression of the use of the terms was that non-theism was the negation of theism. Atheism was the strong position of non-theism

But there's another important issue here as well, and that is that the term "God" is vague and undefined. One can ask, "which God is it that you don't believe in?" And to say "every God" or "any God" still has to define what this God concept is that is not believed in. But that's up for another discussion though.

Being "without" theism. That is all that is required for "atheism", as a "lack of a belief" is merely "being without that specific belief". No consideration required at all.

But being "with" theism is quite vague as well. Exactly what is that "God" the theists believe in. It has to be one all-inclusive, non-reductive, coherent, and cohesive definition. From that, we shall then start putting other labels and categories into the umbrella terms "theism" v "atheism".

To understand what "not-theism" is, you have to understand what "theism" is. Many consider my naturalistic pantheism to be theistic. Which causes some really strange mixing where to put the non-naturalist pantheists.

 

[leibowde84]

Over 10 years ago, when I became an atheist, non-theism was the umbrella term and atheism was a sub-term.

Basically, non-theism was the general term for non-belief of any Gods. Agnosticism was considered weak atheism. All these added prefix terms to atheism to make atheism hyper-generic either didn't exist or wasn't known to most people. The benefit to these separate terms however was that it made it easier to categorize things. Now, with this implicit atheism including everything from a fetus to a dead person, the term is becoming useless. In essence, implicit atheism is something that includes everything and everyone. I think it's Sam Harris who is questioning even the need to use the term when it really only means everyone and everything that doesn't or can't believe in God. Put it this way, my impression of the use of the terms was that non-theism was the negation of theism. Atheism was the strong position of non-theism

But there's another important issue here as well, and that is that the term "God" is vague and undefined. One can ask, "which God is it that you don't believe in?" And to say "every God" or "any God" still has to define what this God concept is that is not believed in. But that's up for another discussion though.


But being "with" theism is quite vague as well. Exactly what is that "God" the theists believe in. It has to be one all-inclusive, non-reductive, coherent, and cohesive definition. From that, we shall then start putting other labels and categories into the umbrella terms "theism" v "atheism".

To understand what "not-theism" is, you have to understand what "theism" is. Many consider my naturalistic pantheism to be theistic. Which causes some really strange mixing where to put the non-naturalist pantheists.

But, theism is the belief in any god, not a particular one.

 

[Ouroboros]

But, theism is the belief in any god, not a particular one.

What is the definition of "god"? Or are you just saying that it's the word itself, not its meaning that's important? The atheist is disbelieving the word "god" or "gods" but not what the term stands for? It's not the concepts that theism is about, but just the use of the word? If a person calls his pet-rock "God", then he's a theist? Which is it? Is it just the use of a word "God" or is it the idea or concepts about "god" that these labels are referring to? If it's just the word, then what about Goth, gud, Elohim, and all those other words that represents same or similar concepts? You must agree that it's not the word "god" that's in question but the concepts. So do you have a list of uniform, non-negotiable definitions of these concepts? The concepts that all theists united agree on unquestionable.

Oh, I have an idea. Even theists are implicit atheists when they're sleeping or in coma. So we're all implicit atheists most of our life, and of course also at death too, since our bodies can't believe in these gods at that point, for eternity.

Another thing, in which category would you place ignosticists?

 

[Thief]

I can see this thread as we stand before God and heaven......
and for those who 'don't believe'.......try hard.