Atheism is not a default position

[leibowde84]

Let's posit a man that is the only person in the whole wide world, all others having suddenly vanished. And he's never heard of god. Who is there to imply his atheism for him?

Why would there need to be anyone to imply his atheism? He is implicitly an atheist by definition. The definition of the term "implies" this.

 

[Willamena]

Why would there need to be anyone to imply his atheism? He is implicitly an atheist by definition. The definition of the term "implies" this.

There would be a need, because definitions are human constructs. While in the context of our discussion on this forum thread atheists and theists exist, in the world of our lone man they exist no longer.

 

[leibowde84]

There would be a need, because definitions are human constructs. While in the context of our discussion on this forum thread atheists and theists exist, in the world of our lone man they exist no longer.

But, we are the ones making the decision on whether that man is implicitly an atheist, and we are doing so from our own reality. That is unavoidable.

If we go by your logic, there would be no language or words at all, so, no, the word "atheism" and all that goes along with it would be non-existent. "Theism" is necessary for "atheism" to exist.

 

[Thief]

Well that's how Christianity was taught where I live, belief not actions. If you have personal relationship with Jesus you're going to heaven no matter what you do was how it was taught. It made zero sense to me of course, why have a punishment if it's not for anything other than lacking belief.

Belief without action is dead....even if you breathe...
Dead things don't move.
If you belief does no move you....it is dead.
You might as well lay in your grave and rot.

and I suspect....the angelic will let that happen.

 

[Thief]

Correct. Which is why a baby neither believes gods exist nor believes gods don't exist and is therefore automatically a weak implicit atheist.

but that's not the default position.
If the soul never develops a declaration.....the default position....back to God.

 

[Bunyip]

There are people who believe God exists (theists) and there are people who believe God doesn't exist. (Strong atheists).

Just atheists, forget about the 'strong'.

And then there are the fence-sitters who believe neither and haven't made up their mind what to believe. (Weak atheists).

Again, just 'atheist'.

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.

Because your understanding of weak/strong/atheist and theist is at fault matey. There is no 'fence' to sit on - it is an either/or proposition. A person is either a theist or not - there is no 'fence'.

 

[Bunyip]

Belief without action is dead....even if you breathe...
Dead things don't move.
If you belief does no move you....it is dead.
You might as well lay in your grave and rot.

and I suspect....the angelic will let that happen.

According to the bible (which you should get around to reading at some point) when we die we rot in our graves until judgement day.

 

[ArtieE]

A person is either a theist or not - there is no 'fence'.

LOL.

1. A theist believes God exists.
2. A weak atheist neither believes God exists nor that God doesn't exist.
3. A strong atheist believes God doesn't exist.

Number 2 weak atheists are sitting on the fence and haven't decided on whether to become a 1 theist or 3 strong atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

LOL.

1. A theist believes God exists.
2. A weak atheist neither believes God exists nor that God doesn't exist.
3. A strong atheist believes God doesn't exist.

Number 2 weak atheists are sitting on the fence and haven't decided on whether to become a 1 theist or 3 strong atheist.

You keep repeating the same misconception. Weak atheists don't believe God exists. Strong atheists don't believe God exists either. There is no 'fence', neither believe God exists.

Weak atheists don't believe God exists, neither do strong atheists - which is why the Christian apologetic invention of weak and strong atheism doesn't really mean anything or contribute anything - it is just a red herring.

Anybody who is aware of the concept of God and does not believe is atheist. So the 'fence sitters' you keep referring to, who are aware of the notion of God, but do not believe are atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

You keep repeating the same misconception. Weak atheists don't believe God exists. Strong atheists don't believe God exists either. There is no 'fence', neither believe God exists.

Weak atheists don't believe God exists, neither do strong atheists - which is why the Christian apologetic invention of weak and strong atheism doesn't really mean anything or contribute anything - it is just a red herring.

Anybody who is aware of the concept of God and does not believe is atheist. So the 'fence sitters' you keep referring to, who are aware of the notion of God, but do not believe are atheist.

LOL The fence is between theists who believe God exists and strong atheists who believe God doesn't exist. Weak atheists are on the fence believing neither.

 

[Bunyip]

LOL The fence is between theists who believe God exists and strong atheists who believe God doesn't exist. Weak atheists are on the fence believing neither.

LOL What? Do you read your posts before you send them?

Weak atheists don't believe God exists neither do strong atheists - neither weak nor strong atheists believe god exists - how many times are you going to ignore my saying to you that there is no neutral position? It is a simple either/or proposition. There is no neutral.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure I can quite follow ArtieE and Bunyip here. It sounds like you both are saying the same things and having the same views.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not sure I can quite follow ArtieE and Bunyip here. It sounds like you both are saying the same things and having the same views.

The difference is this;

I believe that one either believes or does not - a polarity.

Artie argues that there is a third position, neutral - I disagree. If a person does not believe in god, they are atheist, not neutral.

 

[Ouroboros]

The difference is this;

I believe that one either believes or does not - a polarity.

Artie argues that there is a third position, neutral - I disagree. If a person does not believe in god, they are atheist, not neutral.

I see.

 

[ArtieE]

LOL What? Do you read your posts before you send them?

Weak atheists don't believe God exists neither do strong atheists - neither weak nor strong atheists believe god exists - how many times are you going to ignore my saying to you that there is no neutral position? It is a simple either/or proposition. There is no neutral.

Since you didn't even understand my post 908 I give up on you and will concentrate on others from now on.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think this shows why the terminology is causing confusion and not clarity.

When a single concept is expanded to be too inclusive of almost all and everything there is, it becomes useless.

It was much easier when "atheism" stood for a person who intentionally and explicitly was not believing in God out of good reasons, and not just being ignorant of the concepts.

When George H. Smith invented the "implicit atheism", he did atheism a disservice by expanding it's definition this way. I understand what he was trying to say, but it didn't really help. (All in my opinion of course.)

It's just too broad. Yes, I understand that a kid doesn't believe in God, but I believe that using the term "atheism", even if it's prefixed with "implicit", just creates a mess. "-ism"s to me represents views that people hold and are aware of holding, and doing so out of reasons, not just because of default.

An "-ism" to me, is like a channel on TV. If the TV is on, I have a channel on. But if the TV is off, there's no channel on, not even 0 (zero).

 

[Bunyip]

Since you didn't even understand my post 908 I give up on you and will concentrate on others from now on.

Correct, I did not understand your logic in that post.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm not sure I can quite follow ArtieE and Bunyip here. It sounds like you both are saying the same things and having the same views.

Bunyip thinks that there are only two possibilities. Either you believe God exists or you don't believe God exists. In reality you are either a theist and believe God exists, you are a neutral weak atheist and haven't made up your mind whether to believe God exists or to believe God doesn't exist, or you are a strong atheist who has made up his mind and believes God doesn't exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Bunyip thinks that there are only two possibilities. Either you believe God exists or you don't believe God exists. In reality you are either a theist and believe God exists, you are a neutral weak atheist and haven't made up your mind whether to believe God exists or to believe God doesn't exist, or you are a strong atheist who has made up his mind and believes God doesn't exist.

Even though I agree with you in essence, I just don't agree on the broad use of the term "atheism".

After all, "a-theism" only means "without god" or "no god". It doesn't mean "no belief in god." And, if I understand it right, the first uses of the term "atheist" was more in the sense of rejection of the culturally accepted gods, not just a general unbelief in God. That's a concept that has been added to the word in modern time. And I don't like that addition.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's an interesting quote: "Mr. [Charles] Southwell has taken an objection to the term Atheism. We are glad he has. We have disused it a long time [...]. We disuse it, because Atheist is a worn-out word. Both the ancients and the moderns have understood by it one without God, and also without morality. Thus the term connotes more than any well-informed and earnest person accepting it ever included in it; that is, the word carries with it associations of immorality, which have been repudiated by the Atheist as seriously as by the Christian. Non-theism is a term less open to the same misunderstanding, as it implies the simple non-acceptance of the Theist's explanation of the origin and government of the world."
-- George Holyoake, 1852, introducing the term non-theism.

Also, apparently, Oxford English Dictionary says that non-theism means: "A person who is not a theist".

But if one researches the term non-theism, it's an umbrella term that includes atheism, pantheism, ignosticism, agnosticism, theological non-cognitivism, and more.