Atheism is not a default position

[Curious George]

No it doesn't. It just requires the absence of the position God exists and the absence of the position God doesn't exist.

Why would that be true.

 

[ArtieE]

You start out in life without belief. Once you are capable of forming belief you do so. But the lack of belief accorded to a weak implicit atheist is starkly different from an weak explicit atheist.

Yes it is. That's why we use different terms.

 

[ArtieE]

Why would that be true.

See post 939.

 

[Curious George]

Yes it is. That's why we use different terms.

Yes, but you suggested there was not a change. A implicit atheist can no longer exist upon awareness of a God construct.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If -ism means belief, then a-the-ism means belief in not God. Or No-God-Belief.

Again, I'm afraid you're exactly wrong. The prefix "a-" is a negation of the following subject. The subject addresses in "atheism" is THEISM, and the prefix "a" is a negation of theism. It is "without [the belief God exists]".

Again, the no-belief in God is a more modern definition.

Wrong. It is the literal etymological root of the word.

If you look in older dictionaries of "atheism" and its definition, most (if not all) have the "belief in no God" (if I remember it right from my past).

Care to bring up a few examples?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theism may literally translate to God belief, but theism requires more than just God belief. Specifically theism also requires the rejection of the proposition "God does not exist."

No, theism only addresses the acceptance of the proposition "God exists" - although the mutual exclusivity of the claims means that you can't accept the proposition "God exists" without also rejecting the proposition "God does not exist". But the actual word simply doesn't address that question.

So not theist then requires the rejection of the belief in God and the acceptance of the proposition God does not exist.

False. As said above, the definition doesn't address that question at all.

 

[Curious George]

No, theism only addresses the acceptance of the proposition "God exists" - although the mutual exclusivity of the claims means that you can't accept the proposition "God exists" without also rejecting the proposition "God does not exist". But the actual word simply doesn't address that question.


False. As said above, the definition doesn't address that question at all.

False, one can accept two mutually exclusive claims just as well as one can reject both.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, but you suggested there was not a change. A implicit atheist can no longer exist upon awareness of a God construct.

I refer to Wikipedia on implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of theistic belief without conscious rejection of it. Of course you can be an implicit atheist and be aware of theistic belief without rejecting it. Those who reject it are called explicit atheists.

 

[Curious George]

I refer to Wikipedia on implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of theistic belief without conscious rejection of it. Of course you can be an implicit atheist and be aware of theistic belief without rejecting it. Those who reject it are called explicit atheists.

No, if you are aware you have either accepted or rejected it. Most assume a default position wherein you either accept both the proposition and it's negation until evidence is discovered to exclude one or reject both the proposition and it's negation until evidence is discovered to accept one.

 

[Jumi]

I'm still awaiting evidence of gods to make up my mind. Yet at least one theistic poster arguing the same decided that my lack of belief is atheism. Yes I agree with him. However I use the more neutral non-theism label since atheism seems confusing to those who believe, I think.

 

[ArtieE]

No, if you are aware you have either accepted or rejected it. Most assume a default position wherein you either accept both the proposition and it's negation until evidence is discovered to exclude one or reject both the proposition and it's negation until evidence is discovered to accept one.

Take a deep breath. You have gotten so lost in your own peculiar reasoning that you have forgotten that you don't need to accept or reject anything you can just stay neutral about it until you think you know enough about it to either accept or reject it.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm still awaiting evidence of gods to make up my mind. Yet at least one theistic poster arguing the same decided that my lack of belief is atheism. Yes I agree with him. However I use the more neutral non-theism label since atheism seems confusing to those who believe, I think.

Many weak atheists were sick and tired of being marked by theists as "those terrible immoral God-haters" that the Bible says are corrupt fools who do no good. Non-theism is an expression without the terrible baggage the word atheism has.

 

[ArtieE]

No, if you are aware you have either accepted or rejected it. Most assume a default position wherein you either accept both the proposition and it's negation

So your idea of a default position is that you can be both a theist and not a theist at the same time? To me that appears to be logically impossible.

 

[Curious George]

So your idea of a default position is that you can be both a theist and not a theist at the same time? To me that appears to be logically impossible.

No.

The default position is a position one assumes that accepts or rejects both a proposition and its negation.

This is a non-committal position of not knowing.

The person accepting both propositions basically says that they accept both until there is a reason to exclude one or the other.

A person rejecting both basically says they believe neither until there is reason to accept one or the other.

Both stances describe a position of not knowing. While rejection is more conventional, acceptance is equally valid.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

False, one can accept two mutually exclusive claims just as well as one can reject both.

How can you accept the claim "God exists" and "God does not exist" at the same time?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No.

The default position is a position one assumes that accepts or rejects both a proposition and its negation.

This is a non-committal position of not knowing.

The person accepting both propositions basically says that they accept both until there is a reason to exclude one or the other.

A person rejecting both basically says they believe neither until there is reason to accept one or the other.

Both stances describe a position of not knowing. While rejection is more conventional, acceptance is equally valid.

How on earth can you accept a proposition that you don't know? There's a difference between accepting both claims and not excluding them. You can't believe a claim you aren't aware of, and you cannot accept as true two mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Curious George]

How on earth can you accept a proposition that you don't know? There's a difference between accepting both claims and not excluding them. You can't believe a claim you aren't aware of, and you cannot accept as true two mutually exclusive positions. That doesn't make sense.

Sure it does.

I can accept as true that there is an odd number of grains of sand, and

I can accept as true there are an even number of grains of sand.

All this says is that they are equally likely.

This isn't me just blowing smoke up your...

This is schrodinger.

It is a way of describing the same probability as rejecting both claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure it does.

I can accept as true that there is an odd number of grains of sand, and

I can accept as true there are an even number of grains of sand.

But you can't accept both simultaneously, and you cannot accept either if you are yet to be convinced of either.

All this says is that they are equally likely.

But being equally likely doesn't mean you accept both propositions. If we accept that a coin flip is 50/50, does this mean you accept the proposition that a coin flip will be both heads and tails?

This isn't me just blowing smoke up your...

This is schrodinger.

Schrodinger was specifically talking about the behaviour of subatomic particles that exist in a quantum state. It was never the assertion that two necessarily contradictory positions can be held simultaneously.

It is a way of describing the same probability as rejecting both claims.

But saying "these two outcomes are equally likely" is wholly different to actually accepting the outcomes. Again, just because a coin toss is 50/50 doesn't mean you accept it will be both - we determine it to be one or other, and until the coin is actually tossed we have no definite idea of which will actually be true. Until such a time, we lack a belief.

 

[`mud]

And all coins have three edges !
It's all in the toss,
and the fall of the dice.
~
'mud

 

[Curious George]

But you can't accept both simultaneously, and you cannot accept either if you are yet to be convinced of either.


But being equally likely doesn't mean you accept both propositions. If we accept that a coin flip is 50/50, does this mean you accept the proposition that a coin flip will be both heads and tails?


But saying "these two outcomes are equally likely" is wholly different to actually accepting the outcomes. Again, just because a coin toss is 50/50 doesn't mean you accept it will be both - we determine it to be one or other, and until the coin is actually tossed we have no definite idea of which will actually be true. Until such a time, we lack a belief.

A person rejecting both views is doing the same thing. Are they rejecting the proposition that the coin will be either heads or tails? No, that is an equivocation.

That someone accepts the proposition the coin will be heads, and the proposition that the coin will be tails, does not mean they accept the proposition that the coin will be both heads and tails.

If you flip a coin and ask a person (do you believe it will be heads? And they say no. And then ask do you believe it will be tails? and they say no.

This works equally well for acceptance. I can know that the sand will number even or odd. But this does not limit my ability to accept both propositions. Similarly I can reject both, knowing that one rejection will be wrong.

We are dealing with uncertainty here. And it is possible to describe the equal likelihood with acceptance or rejection.