Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

But certainly an idea can exist, if nothing else, in someone's mind.

Metaphorically "in there," yes.

Our concept of "existence" when we say does God exist is questioning not any form of existence, but a specific existence. That is does a construct of God that exists subjectively have an objective form on which this construct is based?

That specific existence is, in fact, just more information about the information that is "god." It's not really existence we question (or can question), just information posed in this frame or that frame, as this image or that image.

So we are not dealing with non-existent things per se.

I will deal with that things lacking characteristics in a different post.

Just so. But the lack of information creates a vacuum--nothing for us to pose, nothing to posit, no proposition in which to either make a belief be about or make a belief not be about.

 

[Willamena]

Is it then completely defined by information theory (or some form thereof)? If not, what do you mean by the above?

I'm not familiar with information theory. I meant no more than what I said.

 

[Willamena]

So, why shouldn't those with "non existent belief" be included with those that hold "no belief in God". The negation of "the lack of belief in the existance of God" is "not lacking the belief in the existence of God", which is theism. If you do not "lack" something then, by definition, you hold it.

Technically, you "have" it, as in possession. With lacking, what is missing is something you could have.

The person with no information about the subject has nothing to not believe in.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think they should be forced to come up with a new term, as "atheism" should remain as the general, umbrella term for all those who are not theists.

I find that too general. It's no longer useful definition. For example, a smoker is "not a theist."

That being said, there are already plenty of more specific terms which actually do indicate what a specific atheist might actively believe. But, to your point, "atheism" and "atheism" are states of mind where a belief is either held or not held.

Not if "atheism" is then held to be no state of mind.

 

[leibowde84]

Technically, you "have" it, as in possession. With lacking, what is missing is something you could have.

The person with no information about the subject has nothing to not believe in.

This is incorrect. To "lack" means to merely be "without". There is no requirement for consciousness of the possibility. Absence is the only reauirement. It's not the same as saying "his belief is lacking", as that would indicate an insufficient amount of something.

 

[leibowde84]

I find that too general. It's no longer useful definition. For example, a smoker is "not a theist."


Not if "atheism" is then held to be no state of mind.

But, atheism does have a meaning. It indicates no belief, but it does indicate a lack of theism.

 

[Willamena]

This is incorrect. To "lack" means to merely be "without". There is no requirement for consciousness of the possibility. Absence is the only reauirement. It's not the same as saying "his belief is lacking", as that would indicate an insufficient amount of something.

We disagree. Lacking has connotation.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Give me a reason why there must be a cause first? And how can your cause have come to exist?

Just because a car or a horse can't come from non intelligent being.

 

[Thief]

I have already told you numerous times over the years that I have a much higher standard for evidence than you do.

Interesting that for all your posts of "empty retort" you are the one with most empty retorts.

Nay to all of the above.

 

[Thief]

This is incorrect. To "lack" means to merely be "without". There is no requirement for consciousness of the possibility. Absence is the only reauirement. It's not the same as saying "his belief is lacking", as that would indicate an insufficient amount of something.

You really believe?.....sticking a label to the unsuspecting makes them yours?
party to your agenda be default?

and some people call ME arrogant!!!!!!!

 

[Thief]

But, atheism does have a meaning.

only to those that know of it....

 

[Bunyip]

Just because a car or a horse can't come from non intelligent being.

Well horses did. Where did your God come from? An even more intelligent God?

 

[idav]

I find that too general. It's no longer useful definition. For example, a smoker is "not a theist."


Not if "atheism" is then held to be no state of mind.

So a person can't be atheist until they have a well thought out conversation on the matter? Sure it may be useless to call a baby atheist but it is most likely accurate until the person has the above mentioned conversation to decide in believing or not. It would be inaccurate to say a person has a belief in something they have no concept of, yet I can assume nonbelief if the concept isn't yet heard of. Seems reasonable.

 

[Ouroboros]

I find that too general. It's no longer useful definition. For example, a smoker is "not a theist."
Not if "atheism" is then held to be no state of mind.

Here's a good read that you might like by a modern historian and philosopher: Definitions of atheism | Evolving Thoughts

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

I didn't mean the meaning has changed (first of all, because it is a new development that largely emerged thanks to the intellectually sterile "new atheism" has the attempt to define atheism in terms of a default epistemic position despite the inherent contradiction of such an attempt). It was a long time after the term existed before it could even refer to beliefs in deities rather than the relationship between a person and the gods, and in English it clearly meant disbelief in god:
"1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv, Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii, The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It 23 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

1577 M. Hanmer tr. Bp. Eusebius in Aunc. Eccl. Hist. iv. xiii. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men.
1656 T. Stanley Hist. Philos. II. viii. 93 An Atheist is taken two waies, for him who is an Enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost i. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons.
1827 J. C. Hare & A. W. Hare Guesses at Truth I. 65 Practically every man is an Atheist, who lives without God in the world."
(OED)
or for "atheism" the OED has

"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

1587 Sir P. Sidney & A. Golding tr. P. de Mornay Trewnesse Christian Relig. xx. 355 Athisme, that is to say, vtter Godlesnes.
1605 Bacon Of Aduancem. Learning i. sig. B3v, A little or superficiall knowledge of Philosophie may encline the minde of Man to Atheisme.
1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 119. ¶5 Hypocrisy in one Age is generally succeeded by Atheism in another.
1859 C. Kingsley Lett. (1878) II. 75 Whatever doubt or doctrinal Atheism you and your friends may have, don't fall into moral Atheism."

Webster defines it as:

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

Neither of which is a "lack of" anything. More importantly, I raised the issue of neuroscience not because we use fMRI studies or something to determine what words mean, but that we can determine using neuroimaging the difference between lacking a belief (regardless of what one lacks a belief in) and the epistemic position atheists have merely by being able to identify themselves as such or use words like "god".

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Well horses did. Where did your God come from? An even more intelligent God?

A car or a House, correcting.

 

[Willamena]

So a person can't be atheist until they have a well thought out conversation on the matter? Sure it may be useless to call a baby atheist but it is most likely accurate until the person has the above mentioned conversation to decide in believing or not. It would be inaccurate to say a person has a belief in something they have no concept of, yet I can assume nonbelief if the concept isn't yet heard of. Seems reasonable.

If atheism is "a state of mind," then it cannot also be "no state of mind." Not without becoming vague and losing usefulness.

 

[leibowde84]

You really believe?.....sticking a label to the unsuspecting makes them yours?
party to your agenda be default?

and some people call ME arrogant!!!!!!!

I think you are just really confused. I am not an atheist, and I have no "agenda" to label more people atheists. In your own conspiracy theory, what would atheists have to gain by doing this, anyways?

 

[leibowde84]

Blatantly trying to misquote me, huh. Here is really what I said without your "edits":

"But, atheism does have a meaning. It indicates no belief, but it does indicate a lack of theism."

 

[Thief]

I think you are just really confused. I am not an atheist, and I have no "agenda" to label more people atheists. In your own conspiracy theory, what would atheists have to gain by doing this, anyways?

I know from other posts ...you believe.

as for the label pasting....
It's a practice dealt when misery has no comfort.

Ever see children do it?
I have.