Atheism is not a default position

[atanu]

There is no situation in reality where a room can both have a chair and not have a chair.

Who said there was a situation like that? Do you understand what was said?

(Quantum physicists may create such paradoxes, however.)

 

[Curious George]

[QUOTE="ImmortalFlame, post: 4367445, member: 21676"
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.[/QUOTE]
Lacking belief here is rejection of both propositions. It is nearly identical to accepting both.

What it is wholly different than is lacking belief in the manner that a baby or rock would.

 

[Thief]

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.

I never claimed to be a bible thumper.....and it seems odd your attempt.

I believe we stand from the flesh if we are able.
The desire will be there.
That one desire will be to stand up and you want to.....greatly so.

I suggest you go with it.

I do believe heaven has concern what survives the last breath.
The angelic will be there to look us over.

but as you say.....and you claim the bible supports it.....you might fail to stand.
in which case you would rot in your grave.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

 

[`mud]

Sometimes it's like trying to help a drowning person,
and sometimes, I'm the person being drowned !
~
look out for the waves on this thread,
one could drown in them !
~
'mud

 

[jonathan180iq]

Who said there was a situation like that? Do you understand what was said?

(Quantum physicists may create such paradoxes, however.)

Yes. You said:

Suppose a man enters a dark room and says "There are no chairs in the room". However, when the light comes on, he finds that there is a chair and he says "There is light and I see a chair".

In Hindu logic system, the latter statement would be termed as True. But the former statement, which is only provisionally true as long the room is dark, is termed as "Neither true nor untrue". An assertion made in dark (in ignorance) has no relation at all to the truth value of a proposition.

The point is that regardless of a man's ignorance, or of his enlightened state, there is only one truth regarding the chairs in the room. They are either there, or they are not...
If the man never turned on the light, he would still be making an accurate or inaccurate claim. The reality of the room, regardless of the man's knowledge, would not change.
The reality of the room does not change based on the man's perception.

The lights in the room can be on or off... There is no reality in which the lights are both on and off at the same time.
There are chairs or there are no chairs... There is no reality in which there are both chairs and no chairs at the same time.
There are gods, or there are no gods... There is no reality in which there are both gods and no gods.
Some either believes in god, or they do not... There is no reality in which someone believes and disbelieves in god simultaneously.

But that is not the truth about presence or absence of a chair. It is like if you toss a coin it will fall on its head or on its tail.

The coin analogy explains this wonderfully. There are no 3-sided coins... If the coin lands on heads, it did not land on tails. If the coin lands on tails, it did not land on heads.

 

[`mud]

Spin that coin on it's edge !
Third 'side'.
It could land there !
Couldn't it ?
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

Sometimes, one must think out of the 'bag',
or the 'box' !
~
'mud

 

[jonathan180iq]

Spin that coin on it's edge !
Third 'side'.
It could land there !
Couldn't it ?
~
'mud

Only in the Twilight Zone...

 

[`mud]

That's all right...I like it here !
~
'mud

 

[atanu]

Yes. You said:

Of course I did not. 'Neither true nor untrue' refers to the decision pronounced under ignorance and not to the actual presence or absence or deity or chair ... Or whatever else.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Of course I did not. 'Neither true nor untrue' refers to the decision pronounced under ignorance and not to the actual presence or absence or deity or chair ... Or whatever else.

But his statement was either true or untrue, regardless of his knowledge.

 

[viole]

Then the metaphor of a dark room is not applicable. You have already introduced some light. Please do not change the reference point that we are talking of beliefs of babies. Also do not kindly stretch the metaphor beyond what it is intended for.

A baby has no conception regarding deity.

Hold your horses.

Are you telling me that after having illuminated the room, it is till uncertain whether there is a chair or not? Must be, if Joe and Alice do not know what a chair is. They have to know what a chair is before we can resolve the issue by sheding light in the room.

If not, who can say whether there is, indeded, a chair in the room?

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Actually, you do. If you do not accept their claim at face value, then you do not accept their claim. You may not necessarily believe they are lying, or that there may not be ANY truth in what they have told you, but the fact that you need verification before you accept their claim means that you have not yet accepted their claim. You disbelieve the claim that they are an astronaut.

No - I would argue that in no way do I "disbelieve" the claim - I have no reason to necessarily go to the extreme of disbelief - if I investigate that is only to confirm the truth, one way or the other. Would I be blown away, and my convictions on the matter shattered in finding out he really is an astronaut? No.

Does the criminal investigator "disbelieve" the suspects of a murder case when they tell him something/anything? Is that why he validates and investigates all possibilities? Because he disbelieves that any of the suspects are telling the truth? The term "innocent until proven guilty" is a perfect example of upholding a state of "neither belief nor disbelief". You don't "believe" that the person is innocent, necessarily - nor do you disbelieve it - you work to make sure one way or the other via proof and evidence. Taking a hard-line stance either way before you have sufficient evidence is actually considered unethical in that particular arena.

 

[Ouroboros]

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]".

If you say so.

Is agnosticism then without the knowledge in belief, or is it without belief in knowledge? Exactly how would you interpret that word?

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

If you say so.

Care to bring up a few examples?

atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god.

(1999-09-28). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (p. 59). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

In other words, implicit atheism = agnosticism. Explicit atheism = standard one. In 1999.

My point is, the use of "implicit atheism" to suggest "agnosticism" is only confusing, and wasn't the standard one, until recently.

"Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). "Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea ofdeities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further." Wikipedia, "Implicit and Explicit Atheism".

In other words, these terms are new. The concepts aren't, but the terminology is.

I don't argue that a baby has a belief or not. It is true, the baby doesn't have belief, of any kind, in anything. However, to force the label "implicit atheism" just for the "unbelief in God" is completely useless endeavor. It doesn't add to the debate of any kind to start labelling babies as implicit a-bananaists, or implicit a-car-ownerists, or implicit a-mathematicians, even though it's true that the baby doesn't believe in bananas, cars, or math, it's just completely dysfunctional to have those labels.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's a good one. Atheism according to REP:

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Since many different gods have been objects of belief, one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god. In the religions of the west – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the dominant idea of God is of a purely spiritual, supernatural being who is the perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything other than himself. As used in this entry, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality. The justification of atheism in the narrow sense requires showing that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are inadequate as well as providing some positive reasons for thinking that there is no such being. Atheists have criticized the traditional arguments for belief and have tried to justify positive disbelief by arguing that the properties ascribed to this being are incoherent, and that the amount and severity of evils in the world make it quite likely that there is no such all-powerful, perfectly good being in control.

From Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

That's the old traditional definition of atheism. You can even be an atheist towards one god, but be a theist to another. Interesting...

--edit

And here's the one about agnosticism:

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. In the modern period, agnostics have appealed largely to the philosophies of Hume and Kant as providing the justification for agnosticism as a philosophical position.

 

[ArtieE]

Is agnosticism then without the knowledge in belief, or is it without belief in knowledge? Exactly how would you interpret that word?

Agnostics don't know if gods exist or not. Saying that you are an agnostic says nothing about what you believe only that you don't know. If an agnostic wants to say what he believes he'll say "I'm an agnostic theist" or "I'm an agnostic atheist".

atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods.

Strong atheism.

A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God

Weak atheism

A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.

Strong atheism. It used to be the standard one. Now most atheists prefer the "not theist" definition.

In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods.

Notice that it says "not believing".

Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god.

This I have to investigate further.

(1999-09-28). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (p. 59). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. In other words, implicit atheism = agnosticism.

Nonsense of course. Atheism is about belief agnosticism about knowledge.

Explicit atheism = standard one. In 1999.

Most older references define atheism as strong atheism.

My point is, the use of "implicit atheism" to suggest "agnosticism" is only confusing

Confusing and incorrect.

"Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). "Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea ofdeities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further." Wikipedia, "Implicit and Explicit Atheism".

In other words, these terms are new. The concepts aren't, but the terminology is.

As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2]" Wikipedia

I don't argue that a baby has a belief or not. It is true, the baby doesn't have belief, of any kind, in anything. However, to force the label "implicit atheism" just for the "unbelief in God" is completely useless endeavor. It doesn't add to the debate of any kind to start labelling babies as implicit a-bananaists, or implicit a-car-ownerists, or implicit a-mathematicians, even though it's true that the baby doesn't believe in bananas, cars, or math, it's just completely dysfunctional to have those labels.

We don't have those labels. They are not in general use and you just made them up as a straw man you could shoot down. We do have the label implicit atheist describing those who are not theists but doesn't consciously reject theism. It's a perfectly good label. For some reason I can't fathom it seems to be terribly annoying to you that babies fit under that label. You see, that label wasn't made up especially for babies, they just happen to fit under that label. Let me repeat that. The label "implicit atheist" wasn't made up especially as a label for babies. If the fact that babies fit under that label is so traumatic for you I suggest therapy...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Since every cell of my body is incapable of holding beliefs and, therefore, lack belief in god, they are then all atheists. This also applies to theists. Isn't it strange that all of the billions of components that make up a theist are atheists, while the theist themselves is not?

Not so much a philosophical exercise, as an illustration of where vapid logic and foolish semantic consistency leads you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2]"

But the question is, what does this prove, if anything? That babies meet a dictionary definition of a particular word? So what? Who cares? What is this in defense of, or in offense against? Does it give anyone ANY sort of enlightenment on any topic whatsoever?

Is this put to theists to ask what happens to babies' souls? And then what? The theist realizes babies are pure, even though they are, according to the dictionary "atheist", renounces their belief and walks away "reformed" and now atheist themselves? No... no I don't think that has ever once happened. It is a useless statement.

 

[ArtieE]

That's the old traditional definition of atheism. You can even be an atheist towards one god, but be a theist to another. Interesting...

Christians are 99.99% atheists...

 

[ArtieE]

But the question is, what does this prove, if anything? That babies meet a dictionary definition of a particular word? So what? Who cares? What is this in defense of, or in offense against? Does it give anyone ANY sort of enlightenment on any topic whatsoever?

Some people are not theists and consciously reject theism, some people are not theists without consciously rejecting theism. I find it easier to say some are implicit atheists and some are explicit atheists. I used 18 words in the first sentence and 9 words in the second sentence to say the same thing.