Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

What difference does it make? You said it was the same person who does not believe god exists, and at the same time knows God doesn't exist - so it is the same person. You are describing the position of a single person. An atheist.

A "GNOSTIC ATHEIST" not just an atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

A "GNOSTIC ATHEIST" not just an atheist.

What' s the difference?

 

[ArtieE]

What' s the difference?

A gnostic atheist says "I not only believe I KNOW God doesn't exist." A weak atheist says "I don't believe God exists". A strong atheist says "I believe God doesn't exist". Neither the weak nor the strong say anything about knowing or not knowing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As important to genuine philosophical inquiry as Bayesian analysis, modal logics "and" epistemology are (an oddly redundant catch-all for you to throw into the middle of a list of specifics---but at six syllables it certainly complemented that tactical broadside of intimidating jargon!), []the default belief when presented with a claim of existence is hardly a question[/U]

Wrong. Of course, the real answer is more complicated, but as you seem to object to "tactical broadside[ S ] of intimidating jargon", I'll suffice with "this is trivially and obviously wrong."

dark and tangled woods

I never liked Frost, and paraphrases or play-ons aren't any better.

(I wonder, how many people have fallen for this ploy of yours?).

Just researchers in the sciences and (less frequently) researchers outside of the sciences in fields like classics, linguistics, etc.

For starters, P cannot be "any proposition or lexeme."

Wrong. This is not only wrong, but required for mathematics and logic(s) to exist (not to mention the entirety of the science).

It's true, I didn't explicitly state this---my bad!---but all three of my examples shared a common and obvious trait (one that you shrewdly neglected in each of your counterexamples)*(EDIT: This is neither true nor fair, and I apologize. Please see footnote.)

Premise (1), clarified, is this:

1) Let [P] be any existential proposition---i.e., any claim proposing the existence of thing [N], for which the statements "[N] exists" and "[N] does not exist" are both (a) intelligible/meaningful and (b) mutually exclusive

What is an "existential proposition" (particularly given your qualifications)?

Note, as an aside, that this immediately excludes all of your fun counterexamples---they rely on grammar

None of them do. Google "construction grammar" (and don't forget to check out Hudson's work in network grammar, non-cognitive linguistic grammars such as HPSG, cognitive grammar, etc.).

whereas I'm merely using grammar as a illustrative device

You haven't demonstrated a basic understanding of grammar, let alone used it as an "illustrative device".

Because the set of all possible [N]'s (i.e. all possible things that could exist)
...doesn't address countability.

is infinite

Which infinity? This is practical. See physics.

when presented with the proposed existence of any single member of that set, you have two choices:

Not according to quantum mechanics.

However, I maintain that each of my examples does reference an existential claim

Ontological claim?[/S]

 

[Bunyip]

A gnostic atheist says "I not only believe I KNOW God doesn't exist." A weak atheist says "I don't believe God exists". A strong atheist says "I believe God doesn't exist". Neither the weak nor the strong say anything about knowing or not knowing.

Aren't they all the same person - just in respect to different concepts? I know I hold all of those different positions - and am atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Aren't they all the same person - just in respect to different concepts? I know I hold all of those different positions - and am atheist.

If you make a knowledge claim you are a GNOSTIC ATHEIST not just an atheist. People who just say they are atheists don't make knowledge claims.

 

[Bunyip]

If you make a knowledge claim you are a GNOSTIC ATHEIST not just an atheist. People who just say they are atheists don't make knowledge claims.

But I do. I am atheist, but can still make knowledge claims - why not? I know that cheese is nice. I am gnostic atheist in relation to Yahweh, and agnostic atheist in relation to as yet unspecified Gods.

 

[ArtieE]

But I do. I am atheist, but can still make knowledge claims - why not?

An atheist making knowledge claims is a gnostic or agnostic atheist per definition not just an atheist because a person who is just an atheist doesn't make knowledge claims.

I know that cheese is nice. I am gnostic atheist in relation to Yahweh, and agnostic atheist in relation to as yet unspecified Gods.

 

[Thief]

Doesn't much change anything even if true. Even if god exists it doesn't change the fact that lacking the belief is still the default position.

The belief is a choice.
gotta have some notion in your head about what a god is.
THEN you can decide.

you're not an atheist until you say so.
it's a declaration.
not a condition.

 

[`mud]

atta boy Thief !
~
'm

 

[Bunyip]

An atheist making knowledge claims is a gnostic or agnostic atheist per definition not just an atheist because a person who is just an atheist doesn't make knowledge claims.

Sorry Artie, but that does not make sense, it doesn't follow. Atheism speaks only to the question of the existence of God, not all knowledge claims.

 

[Thief]

Atheism is a declaration.
not a default position

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is a declaration.
not a default position

I'd say a proposition, but yes. Kudos.

 

[ArtieE]

Sorry Artie, but that does not make sense, it doesn't follow. Atheism speaks only to the question of the existence of God, not all knowledge claims.

Sorry Bunyip but if you didn't understand that since we were talking about God I obviously meant knowledge claims about the existence of God then so be it.

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry Bunyip but if you didn't understand that since we were talking about God I obviously meant knowledge claims about the existence of God then so be it.

Well I have acknowledged that many times. We have covered that Artie. Why are you so fixated on labels? They are just identifiers, as long as both parties have made it clear what they mean - what does it even matter?

 

[ArtieE]

Well I have acknowledged that many times. We have covered that Artie. Why are you so fixated on labels? They are just identifiers, as long as both parties have made it clear what they mean - what does it even matter?

Obviously it matters that people understand what words and labels mean otherwise communication would be difficult if not impossible. No point in having identifiers if people don't understand what they identify.

 

[outhouse]

The default position has always been atheism, and no child is a theist when born.

And no conscious rejection is required to be an atheist. In this context it means the kid is not a theist.

 

[Bunyip]

Obviously it matters that people understand what words and labels mean otherwise communication would be difficult if not impossible. No point in having identifiers if people don't understand what they identify.

Yes, which is why you need to make it clear what you mean when you apply a term. There is no correct definition of atheism mate. Only a suite of different usages. So you have to ask.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, which is why you need to make it clear what you mean when you apply a term. There is no correct definition of atheism mate. Only a suite of different usages. So you have to ask.

Saying "I'm an atheist" = saying "I don't believe gods exist". That defines all atheists. Then you can ask them to elaborate.

 

[Bunyip]

Saying "I'm an atheist" = saying "I don't believe gods exist". That defines all atheists. Then you can ask them to elaborate.

Which God are you referring to? And what about implicit atheists? They have not even heard of God.