Atheism is not a default position

[McBell]

So all atheists are eligible for heaven.....by default....
and would be happy to be there.....
and heaven would not mind all the denial made....

Who, other than yourself in making a strawman, has made any of the claims you whine about here?

 

[leibowde84]

like a child....

see previous post

Yes.

 

[Thief]

I don't think God is petty enough to hold disbelief in himself against people for eternity. Call me crazy, but that seems counterintuitive. Why would people be rewarded for buying into beliefs that may or may not be accurate?

Cause and effect.
Walk among the angelic without grace?
I think not.
If you insist that children lack faith is one thing.
They are declared unable?
That comatose lack declaration.....no longer persisting as they are unable....

and you still want to lean on the word 'implicit'...
as you can see the pending cause and effect...

 

[leibowde84]

Cause and effect.
Walk among the angelic without grace?
I think not.
If you insist that children lack faith is one thing.
They are declared unable?
That comatose lack declaration.....no longer persisting as they are unable....

and you still want to lean on the word 'implicit'...
as you can see the pending cause and effect...

Implicit just means by definition, not with declaration. Why do you have an issue with that word?

 

[Thief]

Implicit just means by definition, not with declaration. Why do you have an issue with that word?

not the word....just your use of it.
You are attempting to draw a line where it need not be drawn at all.

If children lack belief....and CANNOT declare.....
God would have mercy.

If an adult fails in sound mind and body....and CANNOT declare....
God would have mercy?

I see a difference.

The lack of ability....works for .....who?
You?

 

[Willamena]

Likewise, it is also accurate to say that they do not believe in the propositions that they do not have, right?

"To believe in" is to hold a proposition as true. So, no, it wouldn't be accurate or pertinent to say that. If I "do not believe," it is "in a proposition."

Look, I follow you completely on active belief and active disbelief - it's just that active belief and disbelief aren't at issue when dealing null states.
As long as we can agree that babies are null states, then the fact will always remain that they do not believe in anything, regardless of variable.

Babies do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You've shifted to another shoe, though, to be able to say that: from the shoe of belief to the shoe of observation of belief. Atheism isn't just an observation about what people believe.

 

[leibowde84]

not the word....just your use of it.
You are attempting to draw a line where it need not be drawn at all.

If children lack belief....and CANNOT declare.....
God would have mercy.

If an adult fails in sound mind and body....and CANNOT declare....
God would have mercy?

I see a difference.

The lack of ability....works for .....who?
You?

Why does "God's mercy" have anything to do with the meaning of the term "atheism"? Can you provide your reasoning as to why the definition of the term "atheism" should be reliant on whether you subjectively believe that "atheism" should only be applied to those who will not "have God's mercy"?

On a theological note, my personal belief is that God has mercy on all those who attempt to live good lives. But, my subjective beliefs should have no impact on the definition of terms.

 

[Thief]

Why does "God's mercy" have anything to do with the meaning of the term "atheism"? Can you provide your reasoning as to why the definition of the term "atheism" should be reliant on whether you subjectively believe that "atheism" should only be applied to those who will not "have God's mercy"?

On a theological note, my personal belief is that God has mercy on all those who attempt to live good lives. But, my subjective beliefs should have no impact on the definition of terms.

Letter of law?....letter of definition?
still wanting that line drawn?

and to what effect?

Take away the effect....and you have no cause for definition.

 

[jonathan180iq]

"To believe in" is to hold a proposition as true.

Correct.
You can't hold a position as true until you've considered the proposition, obviously.
Admittedly, then, you cannot believe in a proposition that you are unaware of, right?

By your own definition you cannot believe in something, or hold it to be true, if you don't know of the proposition's existence.

So during that period before your knowledge of a proposition, can you believe in it?
Do you believe in the thing that you can't believe in?

So, no, it wouldn't be accurate or pertinent to say that. If I "do not believe," it is "in a proposition."

Before

But since you cannot believe in the thing you haven't considered, you obviously aren't actively believing in it.... You do not believe in the thing you can't believe in, because you can't believe in it.

Again:
1 is a positive statement
-1 is opposite the positive statement
0 is the null state
Neither 0, nor -1, are 1.

0 and -1 are certainly different, but neither of them are 1.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please. What are you saying in a nutshell? Quoting the studies is like quoting scriptures to me.

Is athiesm a disbelief in deities (lack of belief, absent of belief, whatever)?

I feel it is a very simple definition with no need no study. Peolle who say they are atheist, say they lack of beliefs in deity. Which deity, how many, depends on the person.

What is wrong with saying "lack of" compared to "disbelief"m What are you saying exactly?

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."



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".

 

[Willamena]

Correct.
You can't hold a position as true until you've considered the proposition, obviously.
Admittedly, then, you cannot believe in a proposition that you are unaware of, right?

By your own definition you cannot believe in something, or hold it to be true, if you don't know of the proposition's existence.

So during that period before your knowledge of a proposition, can you believe in it?
Do you believe in the thing that you can't believe in?


Before

But since you cannot believe in the thing you haven't considered, you obviously aren't actively believing in it.... You do not believe in the thing you can't believe in, because you can't believe in it.

Again:
1 is a positive statement
-1 is opposite the positive statement
0 is the null state
Neither 0, nor -1, are 1.

0 and -1 are certainly different, but neither of them are 1.

If I haven't considered it, then it becomes just an observation that I "do not believe."

Atheism isn't "the observation that there is no belief in God." It's "no belief in God," or "lacking belief in God."

 

[jonathan180iq]

If I haven't considered it, then it becomes just an observation that I "do not believe."

Correct.
But what if you haven't even observed it?

Atheism isn't "the observation that there is no belief in God." It's "no belief in God," or "lacking belief in God."

Right.

Observing no belief in god still entails that there is, in fact, no belief in god

 

[Ouroboros]

in English it clearly meant disbelief in god:

Thank you for that list. I don't know if you had it from before, found it, or actually compiled it yourself, but it takes a lot of effort to find that information. Good job.

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".

That's what I saw in the research too. Belief, unbelief, and uncertainty all had actual patterns in the neuroimages. The unbelief wasn't blank. It was a map of brain activity just as much as belief was. Unbelief is a mental state, not the absence of a mental state.

 

[leibowde84]

Letter of law?....letter of definition?
still wanting that line drawn?

and to what effect?

Take away the effect....and you have no cause for definition.

That's not true. Language doesn't work without definitions. The effect is not important at all in this discussion, as no one is being judged and no one can speak for God?

 

[leibowde84]

Letter of law?....letter of definition?
still wanting that line drawn?

and to what effect?

Take away the effect....and you have no cause for definition.

The "effect" you speak of is merely based on your belief and speculation. Thus, the definition of general terms should not be based on them. Maybe if the effect was known it would be different. But that certainly is not the case.

 

[Willamena]

Correct.
But what if you haven't even observed it?

The observation I referred to wasn't mine, it was definition. It belongs to everyone who uses the word in that way.

Right.

Observing no belief in god still entails that there is, in fact, no belief in god

Definition is concise and precise. Implications and entailments should not figure in if we want clarity.

 

[leibowde84]

The observation I referred to wasn't mine, it was definition. It belongs to everyone who uses the word in that way.


Definition is concise and precise. Implications and entailments should not figure in if we want clarity.

How can clarity be expected from the term "atheism" when the "theism" is so incredibly vague.

 

[Willamena]

How can clarity be expected from the term "atheism" when the "theism" is so incredibly vague.

Because the definition of atheism does not depend on interpretations of theism, or even the definition of theism, just on gods. Atheism being not believing in God/gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Because the definition of atheism does not depend on interpretations of theism, or even the definition of theism, just on gods. Atheism being not believing in God/gods.

I agree, though. "Atheism" should be defined as "not beieving in God or gods".

 

[Ouroboros]

The history of the word atheism, in a short and sweet way:

The word atheism comes from the Greek language. It can be divided into a- (ἄ), a Greek prefix meaning "without", and theos(θεός), meaning "god", and recombined to form "without gods"[6] or "godless". In Ancient Greece it also meant "impious".

Starting in about the 5th century BC, the word came to describe people who were "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". Before then, the meaning had been closer to "impious". There is also the abstract noun, ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism".

Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. This word was often used in the debate between early Christians andHellenists. Each side used it to label the other, in a bad way.[7]

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively forpolemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[8] Atheism was first used to describe an openly positive belief in late 18th-century Europe, meaning disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[9] The 20th century saw the term expand to refer to disbelief in all deities. However, it is still common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[10]

Atheism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia