Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

Belief is not distinct from the content of belief, nor thought from the content of thought.
A belief about god is distinguished by god, not by the capacity to believe. The capacity to believe does not reflect on objects.

 

[Thief]

Belief is not distinct from the content of belief, nor thought from the content of thought.
A belief about god is distinguished by god, not by the capacity to believe. The capacity to believe does not reflect on objects.

please elaborate....you caught me off guard....
?????

 

[Willamena]

please elaborate....you caught me off guard....
?????

It was just a thought.

Thought is nothing more than what is thought, and belief what is believed. 'Thought' and 'belief' add nothing of themselves to the overall picture being viewed, because they are not 'selves' in the picture--they are concepts intended to capture relations to the picture, namely states of mind. When our thoughts turn to thought or belief (when we make them "a thought" or "a belief"), we have removed them from relation, and brought them into the picture. We can do that, so that we can examine them and discuss them.

Atheism is the relation, not just the object of discussion. When we say a person can "be without this belief in god," and intend to mean that they have no concept of it, we are talking about the object of discussion. When we say a person, "does not believe in god," and we intend to capture the state of mind they are in, we are talking about atheism.

The person who has never a thought for god is undoubtedly an atheist, but only if in our wording we are capturing that state of mind, and not pretending that a thought for god (an object) is something that can be captured.

PS: That's essentially also my objection to the word "lack," which implies that something is missing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The person who has never a thought for god is undoubtedly an atheist, but only if in our wording we are capturing that state of mind, and not pretending that a thought for god (an object) is something that can be captured.

PS: That's essentially also my objection to the word "lack," which implies that something is missing.

Just as concepts go you can "have" and "lack" things. I can "lack" compassion. I can "have" knowledge of something. I can "lack" faith. I can "develop" feelings. The word "lack" simply means that it is not something that we "have" in the sense that it is a concept that we hold true or a description of our selves that is accurate.

Unless you are saying you can't "have" freedom or some other non-physical philosophical attribute or quality then I feel you are mistake about your objection to the word "lack".

 

[Thief]

It was just a thought.

Thought is nothing more than what is thought, and belief what is believed. 'Thought' and 'belief' add nothing of themselves to the overall picture being viewed, because they are not 'selves' in the picture--they are concepts intended to capture relations to the picture, namely states of mind. When our thoughts turn to thought or belief (when we make them "a thought" or "a belief"), we have removed them from relation, and brought them into the picture. We can do that, so that we can examine them and discuss them.

Atheism is the relation, not just the object of discussion. When we say a person can "be without this belief in god," and intend to mean that they have no concept of it, we are talking about the object of discussion. When we say a person, "does not believe in god," and we intend to capture the state of mind they are in, we are talking about atheism.

The person who has never a thought for god is undoubtedly an atheist, but only if in our wording we are capturing that state of mind, and not pretending that a thought for god (an object) is something that can be captured.

PS: That's essentially also my objection to the word "lack," which implies that something is missing.

well something would be missing.

If the word....god....is not part of your vocabulary.....
you cannot discuss or develop a belief.
Neither can you say you have no belief in god.

An atheist can say they have no belief.
They have made a choice.
What they lack is reason to believe.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

The 'form' of the 'word' is the problem here,
Isn't it ?
The 'form' of the 'thought' is what really matters.

If I understand you correctly, I completely agree: You've hit the nail on the head, quite honestly (though you laid the poetic mysticism on a bit too thickly for my tastes ). Let me rephrase it back to you, to see if we're on the same page:

The core of this debate lies in the definition of "atheism" (i.e. "the 'form' of the 'word' is the problem")---is it something we translate literally ("a"+"theism" --> "without"+"[belief in] god(s)")? Or do we concede that its meaning is not so simple, and in fact describes someone who actively believes that there is no god? I agree that the question "is atheism a default position?" depends in large part on how you define the term.

But in the larger debate about god, the important thing is what people actually believe, and why they believe it (i.e. "the 'form' of the the 'thought' is what really matters"). I agree with this, too. In fact, I'll go one further: I actually believe the words "atheist" and "agnostic" have become so hopelessly blurred and contentious, they've become a hindrance to discussion of this larger point---not only is the "'form' of the 'word' the problem here', it's a problem almost everywhere it's used.

However, with all that having been said: This particular discussion is largely about the word. It's not the most important discussion to be had in the debate about god, but it's the one we're having here

 

[Willamena]

Just as concepts go you can "have" and "lack" things. I can "lack" compassion. I can "have" knowledge of something. I can "lack" faith. I can "develop" feelings. The word "lack" simply means that it is not something that we "have" in the sense that it is a concept that we hold true or a description of our selves that is accurate.

Unless you are saying you can't "have" freedom or some other non-physical philosophical attribute or quality then I feel you are mistake about your objection to the word "lack".

You can indeed lack things in terms of a state of mind, and to me that is in the sense that something is missing--the person who used to believe in god, for instance. When we describe someone, though, as lacking in compassion, we are not capturing their state of mind but a state of affairs.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

An atheist can say they have no belief.
They have made a choice.
What they lack is reason to believe.

This atheist couldn't have said it better himself. Because I lack a reason to believe, and because I choose to believe in things only if I have a reason to believe in them, it follows that a choice was made that led me to my atheism. However: The same is true when you say you have no belief in Odin---something in the way you've chosen to distinguish truth from falsehood has informed your belief in one god over others (I don't think you disagree with me on this point, I just wanted to make it clear).

Willamena: Please don't take this as an offense, but I have to confess I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing out your writings---it's not that you aren't articulate, but I think you use words more subjectively than I do, perhaps? If we get into a debate in the future, I think we'll both have to take extra care to define our terms! To give one concrete example:

Thought is nothing more than what is thought, and belief what is believed. 'Thought' and 'belief' add nothing of themselves to the overall picture being viewed, because they are not 'selves' in the picture--they are concepts intended to capture relations to the picture, namely states of mind. When our thoughts turn to thought or belief (when we make them "a thought" or "a belief"), we have removed them from relation, and brought them into the picture.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You can indeed lack things in terms of a state of mind, and to me that is in the sense that something is missing--the person who used to believe in god, for instance. When we describe someone, though, as lacking in compassion, we are not capturing their state of mind but a state of affairs.

Either you have it or you don't have it. There is often no difference in the minds of people who have always been atheists and those that are recovering believers. The state of mind is the same. They no longer have the faith or they never had it to begin with. It is only by technicality that it extends to those that have never heard of the concept of god before.

You need not "loose" something to "lack" It. We do have a "missing" piece if you will compared to a believer. We are missing that "faith in god".

 

[Willamena]

Either you have it or you don't have it.

Like a cold.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

You need not "loose" something to "lack" It.

Exactly. I lack six-pack abs. Never had them to begin with, but I lack 'em all the same: "lack" is a much broader word than suggesting a loss or a missing piece. It doesn't even have to refer to something possible or desirable: I also lack a terminal illness (er, that I know of). All of these are fair statements.

 

[Ouroboros]

The 'form' of the 'word' is the problem here,
Isn't it ?
The 'form' of the 'thought' is what really matters.
~
'mud

Yup. And what makes it difficult is that people say the same things with different words, and argue because they have different ideas about the same words.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Like a cold.

You can lack a "cold".

 

[columbus]

"Humans are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and life after death, according to a major three-year international study.

Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts."

I can say that from the time I was in kindergarten until I was 11 or 12 I would have given the "right" answer. I was a smart kid who was good at tests.
But I was only 7 or so when I started to realise that Jesus was Santa Claus for grown ups. Smart kids learn what to say on certain subjects, even when they don't believe it.
Tom

 

[Thief]

You can lack a "cold".

but it's not a default 'condition'

 

[Monk Of Reason]

but it's not a default 'condition'

Not having a cold is the default position until otherwise stated or inferred from evidence. Did you, by default, assume that I had a cold?

 

[Bunyip]

No it isn't. You can perfectly well be a gnostic atheist.

Sure. What I mean is that atheism infers no claim of knowledge - hence it is essentially agnostic.

 

[Shad]

My apologies, I should have specified Yahweh, not 'God'.

You missed the point. Atheism is relational to theism. It is the rejection of theism as true. No need for a specific God as this would be criticizing religious texts and interpretation rather than the philosophical concept of God.

Which God are you referring to if not a theistic one?

I am referring to the creator and intervention concept rather than a specific one like Christianity's Godhead.

Flew created the term 'atheism'? Sorry, but no he did not.

Flew created the definition that agnosticism is atheism. He did so with no supporting arguments. As did Martin.

 

[Bunyip]

You missed the point. Atheism is relational to theism. It is the rejection of theism as true. No need for a specific God as this would be criticizing religious texts and interpretation rather than the philosophical concept of God.

Atheism only has meaning in reference to a specific God. When I say I am an atheist, I mean that I do not believe in Yahweh. If you are referring to any other God - please just specify.

I am referring to the creator and intervention concept rather than a specific one like Christianity's Godhead.

Yes, I think I can see that. Whenever I refer to atheism I mean that I do not believe in Yahweh, unless otherwise specified.

Flew created the definition that agnosticism is atheism. He did so with no supporting arguments. As did Martin.

Uh huh. Sure. I agree with him on that point.

 

[Shad]

Atheism only has meaning in reference to a specific God.

It can be in reference to the basic creation/interaction concept found in philosophy. Religion and specific Gods are only introduced once the basis of the philosophical concept has been established and accept. First cause arguments is a prime example of requiring no religion as a reference. It is only after this argument has been accept do people start combing through religion to see which match this first cause argument.

When I say I am an atheist, I mean that I do not believe in Yahweh. If you are referring to any other God - please just specify.Yes, I think I can see that. Whenever I refer to atheism I mean that I do not believe in Yahweh, unless otherwise specified. Uh huh. Sure. I agree with him on that point.

You are taking a specific religion to God view not conceptual God. You are rejecting a theological God not the philosophical God. Atheism is about the concept of God not the religious specifics. This is putting the bull before the horn. Take the first cause argument above as an example. If I reject the first cause argument then I have no need in rejecting individual religions which lay claim to the first cause. One stone, many birds.

Uh huh. Sure. I agree with him on that point.

You agree on word games backed by no arguments. This is not rational. If agnostic, knowledge, is atheism then likewise ignorance, knowledge of an individual, is also atheism. However if as per my argument atheism is a position in relation to theism then one can be an agnostic atheist. They do not believe there is or will be knowledge of God but still rejection theism.