Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

So basically you're railing against this thing called "correct definition" that you can't define that doesn't exist?

 

[Bunyip]

So basically you're railing against this thing called "correct definition" that you can't define that doesn't exist?

Is that an exercise in misrepresentation? What is the point?
I said no such thing.

There is no correct definition of atheism Willa, just lots of different usages. There is no arbiter or authority that dictates which is the correct definition of atheism. The mental gymnastics involved in your metamorphosising such a simple point into the gibberish I quote above is staggering.

 

[Willamena]

Is that an exercise in misrepresentation? What is the point?
I said no such thing.

There is no correct definition of atheism Willa, just lots of different usages. There is no arbiter or authority that dictates which is the correct definition of atheism. The mental gymnastics involved in your metamorphosising such a simple point into the gibberish I quote above is staggering.

I asked what "correct definition" is.

 

[Bunyip]

I asked what "correct definition" is.

The definition that is correct I assume.
You need to ask this of those who think that there is a correct definition of atheism Willa.

If you honestly can not understand what the term 'correct definition' means - how are you writing in English? Is there somebody nearby you could ask?

There are some sophisticated concepts discussed here, if 'correct definition' is beyond your comprehension - there must be better fora for you.

 

[Curious George]

The definition that is correct I assume.
You need to ask this of those who think that there is a correct definition of atheism Willa.

If you honestly can not understand what the term 'correct definition' means - how are you writing in English? Is there somebody nearby you could ask?

There are some sophisticated concepts discussed here, if 'correct definition' is beyond your comprehension - there must be better fora for you.

I think she is driving at the factt that how can you say there is"no correct definition" if you cannot define "correct definition."

You might be better of saying "correct definition" is akin to a perfect circle. While we can define a perfect circle, we observe that none in the universe.

 

[Bunyip]

I think she is driving at the factt that how can you say there is"no correct definition" if you cannot define "correct definition."

Really? If so - what a bonkers 'fact' to drive at. Is this an exercise in missing the point or obfuscation? You are seriously not able to figure out what 'correct definition' means - but apparently can write in English?

You might be better of saying "correct definition" is akin to a perfect circle. While we can define a perfect circle, we observe that none in the universe.

There is no correct definition of atheism, how is that so difficult to grasp?

 

[Curious George]

Really? If so - what a bonkers 'fact' to drive at. Is this an exercise in missing the point or obfuscation? You are seriously not able to figure out what 'correct definition' means - but apparently can write in English?There is no correct definition of atheism, how is that so difficult to grasp?

Perhaps recognize that some posters are intelligent. If you miss the point, try to process their posts further.

I am unsure of your rhetoric here. Is it aimed at me? I have no problems understanding your use of the term. However, willa is a philosophical cookie. Why not take a bite and see where it leads you.

Perhaps you are leery about wasting your time or something to that effect. I, much less pragmatic than you I assume, have no such qualms and consequently often enjoy thinking for its own sake.

@Bunyip
@Willamena
I assume that by "correct definition" you mean an abstract definition that perfectly portrays what a word signifies such that no other grouping of words could truthfully convey such.

The reasoning I would suggest that supports this is that our mental constructions are impossible to separate from subjective experience. No people can have the exact same experience. Therefore we should not expect people to have the exact same mental constructions. We use words to convey our mental constructions and our each word we use is subject to these same limitations. So, thr receiver of any conveyed information via language will only be capable of approximating understanding based on similar subjective experience. Not unlike our ability to approximate a circle but never create a perfect circle.

While a theoretical existance, such as that found in Platos forms could conceivably exist, no worldly evidence of such a place exists. Certainly, some have tried to use our constructions as evidence, but, (morellikely) these constructions could exist and originate solely in our minds.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps recognize that some posters are intelligent. If you miss the point, try to process their posts further.

I am unsure of your rhetoric here. Is it aimed at me? I have no problems understanding your use of the term. However, willa is a philosophical cookie. Why not take a bite and see where it leads you.

Because historically it leads nowhere. It is just an attempt to derail.

Perhaps you are leery about wasting your time or something to that effect. I, much less pragmatic than you I assume, have no such qualms and consequently often enjoy thinking for its own sake.

@Bunyip
@Willamena
I assume that by "correct definition" you mean an abstract definition that perfectly portrays what a word signifies such that no other grouping of words could truthfully convey such.

The reasoning I would suggest that supports this is that our mental constructions are impossible to separate from subjective experience. No people can have the exact same experience. Therefore we should not expect people to have the exact same mental constructions. We use words to convey our mental constructions and our each word we use is subject to these same limitations. So, thr receiver of any conveyed information via language will only be capable of approximating understanding based on similar subjective experience. Not unlike our ability to approximate a circle but never create a perfect circle.

While a theoretical existance, such as that found in Platos forms could conceivably exist, no worldly evidence of such a place exists. Certainly, some have tried to use our constructions as evidence, but, (morellikely) these constructions could exist and originate solely in our minds.

 

[Curious George]

Because historically it leads nowhere. It is just an attempt to derail.

Smh

 

[Bunyip]

Smh

Tell you what, if you think; What does 'correct definition' mean? Is an interesting thing to explore, start a thread on it.

My point is that there is no correct definition of atheism. Perhaps any unsure about what the term 'correct definition' means could engage with you there.

 

[Curious George]

Tell you what, if you think; What does 'correct definition' mean? Is an interesting thing to explore, start a thread on it.

My point is that there is no correct definition of atheism. Perhaps any unsure about what the term 'correct definition' means could engage with you there.

Cheers bunyip.

 

[Milton Platt]

Really? If so - what a bonkers 'fact' to drive at. Is this an exercise in missing the point or obfuscation? You are seriously not able to figure out what 'correct definition' means - but apparently can write in English?There is no correct definition of atheism, how is that so difficult to grasp?

Perhaps it would be better to say that there are multiple correct definitions??? Atheism, like all words in the English language is flexible and squishy. So while there can be incorrect definitions (such as claiming that atheism is a tree) it could have multiple correct definitions. as well as some partially correct definitions. Frankly, I don't even care much for the term. They can call me a non-believer, a heathen, whatever blows their skirt up.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps it would be better to say that there are multiple correct definitions??? Atheism, like all words in the English language is flexible and squishy. So while there can be incorrect definitions (such as claiming that atheism is a tree) it could have multiple correct definitions. as well as some partially correct definitions. Frankly, I don't even care much for the term. They can call me a non-believer, a heathen, whatever blows their skirt up.

Sure.

Again, the point is that there is no correct definition of atheism. A simple point.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Citation needed.

Where are yours? What academic sources have you cited anywhere, and what citations in general have you used for which there exists a reason for them to be considered authoritative (and what is that reason?)? After all, you defined default positions as word or statement to which one could prefix and "a" and postpose "ism":

Atheism most certainly is a "default" position---at least, to the extent that the following are default positions:

• A-"firebreathing-dragons-are-real"-ism
• A-"there's-an-invisible-leprechaun-on-my-shoulder"-ism
• A-"I'm-a-robot"-ism

nonbelief---a-"whatever"-ism---is the default. Hell, a-"Theory of Gravity"-ism is the default: Evidence, and evidence alone, has the power to elevate a possibility from background static, and it's why no one's an a-"gravity"-ist today. (Has it really taken a bajillion posts to get us here?)

By this logic, we get the default position a-"atheism"-ism or any number of alternative ways to imply that the default position is theism. All we do is take something like "lack a belief in god", prefix and postpose to get a-"lack a belief in the existence of god"-ism, and voila! The default position is lacking a belief in a lack of belief in the existence of god (which means having a belief).

Spoiler: Dictionaries aren't authoritative

Oh! There it is!

Dictionaries are (hopefully) an attempt to best simplify instances of usage, which is why I don't know of any dictionary that has one "sense" of atheism only that is the "lack of belief" sense and why they aren't authorities on what a word means. They are guides to correct usage of word senses that must ignore extremely important aspects of meaning/semantics such as that perhaps ~%50 or so of all language consists of prefabricated constructions, which can be decomposable but are "chunked" (uttered and processed as units despite having multiple lexemes) and/or schematic constructions that aren't semantically decomposable into individual lexemes: "once upon a time", "pull strings", "let the cat out of the bag", "made off with", "going to" (intent/immediate future, not motion/direction), "once in a while", "all of a sudden", "time off", etc.

Yes, babies have no reason to believe in god, and are thus technically atheists.

Nor to believe god doesn't exist, or that there isn't a god, or that they aren't atheists, or that they aren't theists, etc.

They also have no reason to believe you'll reappear during a game of peek-a-boo

They do. This largely anecdotally-based theory of cognitive development by Piaget was eschewed thanks to groundbreaking work in the field by Renee Baillargeon and Elizabeth Spelke, who developed ways (in particular, the habituation/dehabituation paradigm) to enable pre-linguistic infants to "show" their understanding despite lacking all but the most basic motor coordination (see e.g.,
Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20(3), 191-208.
or
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3½-and 4½-month-old infants. Developmental psychology, 23(5), 655.)

Absent a reason---the default position---a person does not believe.

Every non-belief entails at least one belief. If I belief the glass is half full, I don't believe it is full, empty, half empty, not there, etc.

This is true of literally everything.

Impossible.

Atheism is, by relevant authority (see Dawkins, Harris),

They are atheists, not authorities on atheism (hence the moniker "new atheism").

by logic

Logically, belief in A entails a belief that not-A is false (and vice versa).

, by literal dictionary definition,

from the OED, the most comprehensive, "authoritative' dictionary on the planet:
"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."
That is the only sense given for "atheism" in the OED.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If a prevailing error was discovered in my foundation of belief........yes.

your challenge is interesting.....post an op....and let me know

So if you were not presented with a prevailing error in your foundation of belief ...? And what is the foundation of belief? Is it purely choice? Or is it founded in something else?

 

[Pudding]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Default: Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.

Thing about this: belief isn't an act. It's not something we do, and especially not something we choose to do. It's a description of the world, nothing more, nothing less.

Take the world.

The world is the case.

If we wish to examine truth or untruth, belief or doubt, certainty or uncertainty about the world, then we must hold the world distinct from those things we wish to examine. Hence, we will refer to it, and all its parts, as "the case."

The world is the case, and of the case things may be true or false, hence they may be believed or doubted, with degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

If I say, "I believe George went to the store," that lends it uncertainty. It says that because of insufficient knowledge there may some amount of doubt about George's activities, but still I have a degree of certainty about it. Similarly, to say, "I don't believe George went to the store," is to assert its uncertainty. Belief is the case described in such a way as to hold a degree of certainty.

If I say "George went to the store," then asserting the truth of that lends it a face that says there is no doubt, no uncertainty about George's journey. Truth is the case described as apart from me, apart from the certainty a consciousness might know.

That's because a consciousness is distinct from the world it knows.

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing. The world is the case.

Both asserting a degree of certainty to the world and describing it as apart from me, apart from any degrees of certainty, are things we do. They are dong something, not nothing. Where the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing, asserting belief and truth--and their counterparts disbelief and falsehood--about what is the case are doing something.

In discussion, we do not fail to do something about the world.

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing?

Some people "does nothing" and became believer to god(s)?
Therefor the default position is theism?

While some other people also "does nothing" and became non-believer?
Therefor the default position is atheism?

 

[Ouroboros]

from the OED, the most comprehensive, "authoritative' dictionary on the planet:
"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."
That is the only sense given for "atheism" in the OED.

Deserves to be repeated.

And to explain to anyone who doesn't know what OED stands for, it's Oxford's English Dictionary. If any source is the "most authoritative" of the meaning and definitions of English words, it would be that one.

 

[ArtieE]

Just out of curiosity, what would a "correct definition" be?

The "correct definition" of atheism is obviously the one most atheists use and feel best describe atheism which is "not theism", just the absence of belief in god(s). It is true for every single person calling himself an atheist. If a person tells you he's an atheist that tells you one thing for sure about this person: that he's not a theist, that he doesn't believe gods exist. If a person tells you that he doesn't believe gods exist, you are talking to an atheist. When every person who says he doesn't believe gods exist is an atheist and every person who says he's an atheist is a person who doesn't believe gods exist it must take great effort to avoid concluding that the definition of atheist is a person who doesn't believe gods exist.

 

[ArtieE]

There would be a usage that best fits my position, but not one that describes all atheists.

What?! All atheists are not theists. All atheists don't believe gods exist. All who say they are not theists are atheists. All who say they don't believe gods exist are atheists. If a person tells you he's an atheist the one thing that tells you is that you're dealing with a person who's not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist.

 

[Bunyip]

What?! All atheists are not theists.

Of course. Why are you pointing out the obvious?

All atheists don't believe gods exist. All who say they are not theists are atheists. All who say they don't believe gods exist are atheists. If a person tells you he's an atheist the one thing that tells you is that you're dealing with a person who's not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist.

Sure. Agreed. Assuming you mean theistic Gods, there are many conceptions of God that do not conflict with atheism as I understand it.

Just for clarity, are you arguing that there is a correct definition of atheism that applies to all people who identify as atheist?