Atheism is not a default position

[leibowde84]

atheism.....there is no god

ignorance.....has no position

Both of these are "atheism". The claim "there is no God" would be "explicit atheism". Ignorance would be "implicit atheism".

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are the two kinds of atheism that exist. "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".

 

[Thief]

Both of these are "atheism". The claim "there is no God" would be "explicit atheism". Ignorance would be "implicit atheism".

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are the two kinds of atheism that exist. "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".

so atheism is ignorance?
can't have one without the other?

 

[jonathan180iq]

atheism.....there is no god

Explicit Atheism, yes.

From the Wiki:
Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.[1]

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:[1] p.17

1. the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
2. the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible";
3. the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible".

Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit".

ignorance.....has no position

Ignorance is part of implicit atheism.

From the Wiki:
Smith defines "implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Children are also included, though, depending on the author, it may or may not also include newborn babies. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2] Smith is silent on newborn children, but clearly identifies as atheists some children who are unaware of any concept of any deity:

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.[1]

Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as qualifying for the label "atheism":

I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.[3]

 

[leibowde84]

so atheism is ignorance?
can't have one without the other?

Read my last comment again, as you don't seem to understand the concept. "Implicit atheism" is based on ignorance. "Explicit atheism" requires consideration. So, when you say "atheism is ignorance" it shows that you failed to understand the difference between the two, which is the topic of discussion here.

You are denying that "implicit atheism" exists, and that "explicit" atheism (or the claim that God does not exist) is the only thing that the term "atheism" should be applied to. Correct?

 

[Thief]

Explicit Atheism, yes.

From the Wiki:
Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.[1]

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:[1] p.17

1. the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
2. the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible";
3. the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible".

Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit".


Ignorance is part of implicit atheism.

From the Wiki:
Smith defines "implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Children are also included, though, depending on the author, it may or may not also include newborn babies. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2] Smith is silent on newborn children, but clearly identifies as atheists some children who are unaware of any concept of any deity:

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.[1]

Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as qualifying for the label "atheism":

I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.[3]

well for once....and for the scheme of this thread....I say nay to wiki....

Like if you don't know about the cancer in your gut....your ignorance will save you....
I don't think so.

Stand before God and heaven and pronounce denial.
That you are able to speak.....the line will be drawn.
The question will be simple.....'what say ye?'

having to plead ignorance having lived to the ability to draw a line......
ignorance won't work.

 

[leibowde84]

well for once....and for the scheme of this thread....I say nay to wiki....

Like if you don't know about the cancer in your gut....your ignorance will save you....
I don't think so.

Stand before God and heaven and pronounce denial.
That you are able to speak.....the line will be drawn.
The question will be simple.....'what say ye?'

having to plead ignorance having lived to the ability to draw a line......
ignorance won't work.

What does this have to do with the meaning of the term "atheism", and whether "implicit atheism" should be included in it? It sounds like you think very little of explicit atheists and want to retain your ability to judge them, but I could be wrong.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm saying that that we have scientifically determined it isn't thanks to neuroscience as I have over and over again and detailed how. Linguistics is and logic need not even be invoked

If the meaning has changed according to neuroscience, what has it changed to?

Webster defines it as:

a :a disbelief in the existence of deity
b :the doctrine that there is no deity

Personal demensions of atheism depends on the person. It doesnt affect the definition of the word. What am I missing here?

 

[Thief]

What does this have to do with the meaning of the term "atheism", and whether "implicit atheism" should be included in it? It sounds like you think very little of explicit atheists and want to retain your ability to judge them, but I could be wrong.

cause and effect.
There is effect pending for ignorance.
There is effect for denial.

Care to compare?

 

[jonathan180iq]

well for once....and for the scheme of this thread....I say nay to wiki....

Like if you don't know about the cancer in your gut....your ignorance will save you....
I don't think so.

Stand before God and heaven and pronounce denial.
That you are able to speak.....the line will be drawn.
The question will be simple.....'what say ye?'

having to plead ignorance having lived to the ability to draw a line......
ignorance won't work.

You just blatantly ignore definitions because you don't like them?
Do you not understand, or do you simply dislike the fact that these terms exist?

I'll make it simple.

1 is a positive number, and it represents a claim.
0 is the null state. 0 does not equal 1.
-1 is in opposition to 1.
Like 0, -1 does not equal 1.

Neither 0 nor -1 are 1. 0 and -1 are also not the same number, but they share the fact that neither of them are equal to the number 1.
They can never be 1, unless something is added to them.
Do you have a problem with these facts?

 

[leibowde84]

cause and effect.
There is effect pending for ignorance.
There is effect for denial.

Care to compare?

That there is a negative effect for mere ignorance is your subjective belief, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I am not making any claims about whether implicit atheism will land you in hell. I wouldn't dream of making claims about that. The discussion at hand is whether those who are ignorant of the concept of God should be considered to be "implicit atheists". If not, why not? Is your issue that you think the term "atheist" is an insult or has some negative connotation that shouldn't be connected with those that are merely ignorant?

 

[leibowde84]

You just blatantly ignore definitions because you don't like them?
Do you not understand, or do you simply dislike the fact that these terms exist?

I'll make it simple.

1 is a positive number, and it represents a claim.
0 is the null state. 0 does not equal 1.
-1 is in opposition to 1.
Like 0, -1 does not equal 1.

Neither 0 nor -1 are 1. 0 and -1 are also not the same number, but they share the fact that neither of them are equal to the number 1.
They can never be 1, unless something is added to them.
Do you have a problem with these facts?

This is perfect logic, but I'm not sure he is going to understand this. He'll probably say something about being judged by God, which, obviously enough, has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is perfect logic, but I'm not sure he is going to understand this. He'll probably say something about being judged by God, which, obviously enough, has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[Thief]

You just blatantly ignore definitions because you don't like them?
Do you not understand, or do you simply dislike the fact that these terms exist?

I'll make it simple.

1 is a positive number, and it represents a claim.
0 is the null state. 0 does not equal 1.
-1 is in opposition to 1.
Like 0, -1 does not equal 1.

Neither 0 nor -1 are 1. 0 and -1 are also not the same number, but they share the fact that neither of them are equal to the number 1.
They can never be 1, unless something is added to them.
Do you have a problem with these facts?

Let me make it simple for you.....No God.....no afterlife for you.
How can you follow if your mindset was based on ignorance?

 

[Thief]

This is perfect logic, but I'm not sure he is going to understand this. He'll probably say something about being judged by God, which, obviously enough, has nothing to do with this conversation.

bingo!....now you're thinking.

 

[Thief]

was that a government official?

 

[jonathan180iq]

was that a government official?

Yeah. That's me at my desk.

 

[Thief]

well...that explains a lot...

(sorry....it was there)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Let me make it simple for you.....No God.....no afterlife for you.

Wonderful premise - would you care to prove that?

Also, what does this have to do with the discussion?

How can you follow if your mindset was based on ignorance?

I'm not longer an implicit atheist, if you care to make this personal. Neither are you.
But before you ever heard your first word, did you actively and explicitly believe in the same god and theology as you do now?

 

[Levite]

There is no tabula rasa. We certainly have both genetic disposition and temperament at birth.

And the default position is a position in an argument not before an argument.

Nobody holds beliefs because they are genetically programmed to believe that way. And temperament is not purely genetic, it is a complex combination of biological, psychological, and developmental factors.

As far as I can see a "default opinion" is the opinion one would hold prior to argument of any kind. I don't really see why it would be defined otherwise.

 

[Thief]

Wonderful premise - would you care to prove that?

Also, what does this have to do with the discussion?


I'm not longer an implicit atheist, if you care to make this personal. Neither are you.
But before you ever heard your first word, did you actively and explicitly believe in the same god and theology as you do now?

I do believe in God.
Cause and effect work for me.
There is a universe(one word)...there is a Cause for it.

if you choose to ignore..

If you are not of sound mind or old enough and cannot choose.....you're default will take you back to God.
Here's another baby......catch!