Atheism is not a default position

[ImmortalFlame]

Because consideration is part of the definition of a theist. And defining atheist in terms of theist would necessarily limit atheists to the same set.

Except atheism is specifically the lack of theism, and one need not consider the position in order to lack it.

Without this, meaningless propositions ensue. Orange becomes atheist. Love becomes atheist. Hate becomes atheist hell, even the word "theist" becomes atheist. Parameters are important.

How? If we can clearly define atheism as "The lack of belief in a God", how on earth can any of those other definitions become true?

 

[leibowde84]

The 'undecided' ones neither lack nor possess. It is very simple.

But be happy and stick to your half truth view. This topic is not worth spending so much time. The worthwhile thing is the OP.

This is the topic of the OP. What it means to be "without the belief that God exists", and whether that is the default position.

 

[Willamena]

are you showing us.....two sides of the same coin?
Yeah or nay.....it is a belief.

I will neither agree nor disagree.

 

[Willamena]

Thought is not necessary to be without something.

Relation is, though, and relation requires thought.

 

[leibowde84]

Relation is, though, and relation requires thought.

Why would "relation" require thought? I am "without" many things that I don't know exist.

 

[Jumi]

having not seen and not believing......you have just declared your belief.

Or more accurately lack of belief.

You are an atheist.

Like I said.

You said so....that is a declaration.

But not the same declaration as "god doesn't exist".

So what we take from this, lacking belief without declaring "god doesn't exist" makes one already an atheist, right?

 

[Blastcat]

Yup. Agree.

If the label "atheist" should be used on babies who doesn't have the neural pathways to have an opinion either way, then we could just as well start claiming that babies have no belief in organization and government, no belief in their own existence, no belief that they are, themselves atheists or theists, no belief in that their parents are their real parents, no belief in Hitler being wrong, no belief in roads, taxes, life, existence, math (they don't believe 1+1=2), and so on, which then means they're parent-hating nihilistic nazi anarchists who reject math! Well... they are kind'a rebellious at times.

This is like the guy who didn't go to Chicago because he can't travel for some reason.

He didn't travel to Chicago REGARDLESS OF THE REASON WHY.
DID he go to Chicago?

Of COURSE HE DIDN'T GO TO CHICAGO.. he can't TRAVEL.
The reason why.. that he can't travel for some reason IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

Why can't the man travel?
Is he in PRISON?.

THE REASON that something lacks a characteristic is DIFFERENT from the FACT that it lacks a certain characteristic.

So a rock or a baby can't travel EITHER ( not on it's own volition ) Rocks just STAY where they are PUT.
Babies TOO.. they generally go where they are taken.
BUT that doesn't mean the rock traveled somewhere ELSE.. and that doesn't mean that the rock or the baby WENT TO CHICAGO.

If we EXAMINE the rock and the baby as to it's location.. it wont BE in CHICAGO.

Doesn't matter why.

A lack of something is just a lack of something.

A lack of a belief is just a lack of a belief.. the REASONS for that lack of belief are AN OTHER MATTER.

DID the baby have a belief in god?
YES OR NO?

DID the guy go to Chicago? YES OR NO?

No, the baby has no belief in god. THE REASON WHY IS ANOTHER MATTER.
No, the man didn't go to Chicago. THE REASON WHY IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So, in the sense that a person LACKS a belief in god, we can call that person an ATHEIST... it's a LABEL for someone who doesn't believe in a god.

HOWEVER, the label ATHEIST says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AS TO THE REASON WHY.

But this is SO pedantic a subject as to gag me. OF COURSE we are talking about people who can THINK about gods when we speak of theists or atheists.

What a ridiculous waste of time ..
WHO CARES what position rocks or pre-cognitive babies think about gods? THEY DON'T THINK ABOUT ANYTHING.

We aren't TALKING about rocks or babies when we say someone is an atheist.
BUT a lack of a belief is JUST a lack of a belief.

THIS IS THE KIND OF MORONIC discussions apologetics gets us INTO.
What a complete waste of time.

 

[atanu]

You still have not shown why consideration is necessary to be "without" a belief.

How can an empty mind hold a concept of 'lack of belief'?

What does 'Without a belief' mean? Belief needs a subject here, for example, a particular deity. To say "I lack a belief in the particular deity" you must hold a concept of the particular deity in your mind.

......
Btw, that is how the Deity exists -- inside consciousness. Where else Jesus exists? Ha ha.

 

[atanu]

This is like the guy who didn't go to Chicago because he can't travel
THIS IS THE KIND OF MORONIC discussions apologetics gets us INTO.
What a complete waste of time.

Feeling of superiority is so pervasive ....

People get what they deserve. No?

 

[Blastcat]

Yes. Babies have neither belief nor disbelief on these points. They have not considered these prpositions at all.

Those who have considered a proposition can have only three position:

"I do believe".
"I do not believe".
"I am undecided".

To say I have mere lack of belief is either meaningless (as for a baby or for a stone) or the following will obtain:

From another author

1 If the term “atheism” describes a missing mental property (i.e. a lack of belief), then the definition is too broad to be meaningful. Given this new definition there would be no difference between an atheist and the armchair he’s sitting on; that is, an armchair also lacks a belief in God just like the atheist.
2 If the term “atheism” simply describes a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking. It is merely describing an absence of an opinion. Atheists, therefore, cannot support absence with any good reasons; for, in absence, there is nothing to support. This relegates their view to the same level of seriousness as an aversion to lima beans or boiled cauliflower.
3 If the term “atheism” simply describes a lack of belief, then atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens went to an awful lot of trouble writing books describing their missing mental property. As a matter of fact, I’m curious how the internet atheist should interpret Dawkins’ chapter title in The God Delusion: “Why There Almost Certainly is No God”. Perhaps he should read it as: “How My Lack of Belief Explains Why There is No God”.


First of all, WHO is that other author?
The rules of the forum clearly state that citations like this should be sourced.

I can make up any authoritative sounding "author" to express my own views.

But let's take a look at this other person's ideas, shall we?

1. Atheism is a negative position on theism. PEOPLE have positions on propositions, Armchairs CANNOT have positions on propositions. What a ridiculous notion.

We are TALKING about people. NOT pre-cognitive or un-cognitive objects or beings.

We are NOT talking about "ANYTHING that doesn't believe in gods" we are talking about "ANYONE who doesn't believe in gods ".. as only PEOPLE can believe in gods. Does the author thing that ARMCHAIRS are PEOPLE?

2. Atheism is LACKING a belief in gods. OF COURSE atheists don't HAVE a belief... they LACK a belief. IN A GOD.. that's IN THE NAME.. theism is ABOUT GOD. THEISTS HAVE a belief in gods, and ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE a belief in gods.

While is it true that SOME atheists might not be able to give good reason for a non belief in any god, your author is WRONG to think that ALL atheists cannot.

Your author over-generalizes, he confuses SOME for ALL.
but since SOME is NOT ALL... we can ignore his characterization.

3. Your author seems to NOT understand why people write books about atheism. There ARE good reasons for atheism, people write whole BOOKS on the subject. People ALSO have to deal with idiotic arguments LIKE the one your author here put out.

We don't have to allow BAD thinking go unchecked. We can write books about the books.. and explain our atheistic POSITION.. because there are many, even though your author seems to be oblivious to them.

4. Of course, your author's last point is a ridiculous straw man and a childish attempt to poison the well. No, this IS NOT the position of a thinking atheist. So, we should ignore that last mis-characterization completely.

Your author should make an effort to represent actual positions that people DO hold, instead of fabricating straw man arguments.

 

[Willamena]

Why would "relation" require thought? I am "without" many things that I don't know exist.

Relations are connections drawn from observation. Any connection between things is not inherent. Consciousness organizes the information it garners about the world and makes connections.

The world as we understand it to be does not match the "objective" world. Relations are an understanding about the world.

 

[Blastcat]

Feeling of superiority is so pervasive ....

People get what they deserve. No?

What on EARTH are you talking about?
How does this relate in any way to the topic?

 

[leibowde84]

How can an empty mind hold a concept of 'lack of belief'?

What does 'Without a belief' mean? Belief needs a subject here, for example, a particular deity. To say "I lack a belief in the particular deity" you must hold a concept of the particular deity in your mind.

......
Btw, that is how the Deity exists -- inside consciousness. Where else Jesus exists? Ha ha.

Again, you do not have a grasp of what being "without" something means. One does not have to say that they "lack a belief in a deity" for it to be true, as it merely means that the belief is absent from that persons worldview. There is no necessity for one who "lacks" a belief in something to hold a "concept" of what that thing is in their mind. The baby in this example "lacks a belief in God" BECAUSE the baby is ignorant of the concept. Since it is impossible to hold a belief in something that you are unaware of, anyone who is unaware of the concept of God, does not hold a belief in God's existence. And, anyone who does not hold a belief in the existence of God is "without" a belief in God, as that belief is "absent". Thus, there is no requirement for any kind of conceptual knowledge for someone to lack a belief in anything. It merely means "without" or "absent".

 

[leibowde84]

Relations are connections drawn from observation. Any connection between things is not inherent. Consciousness organizes the information it garners about the world and makes connections.

The world as we understand it to be does not match the "objective" world. Relations are an understanding about the world.

A relation is not necessary to lack something. I lack belief in many things that I am not aware of, as I do not "hold" those beliefs. The reasoning doesn't matter, as the only requirement is to be "without".

 

[atanu]

A lack of a belief is just a lack of a belief.. the REASONS for that lack of belief are AN OTHER MATTER.

But as per you and others, a stone and a baby and a chair and an atheist all lack a belief in existence of Deity.

DID the baby have a belief in god?

Did barren mother had a son?

 

[leibowde84]

How can an empty mind hold a concept of 'lack of belief'?

What does 'Without a belief' mean? Belief needs a subject here, for example, a particular deity. To say "I lack a belief in the particular deity" you must hold a concept of the particular deity in your mind.

......
Btw, that is how the Deity exists -- inside consciousness. Where else Jesus exists? Ha ha.

"Without a belief" means everyone and everything that does not actively hold said belief. A baby would certainly qualify as a baby, presumably, does not hold a belief in the existence of God, as the baby is not aware of the concept and has not been given a chance to contemplate the issue.

 

[atanu]

Again, you do not have a grasp of what being "without" something means. One does not have to say that they "lack a belief in a deity" for it to be true, as it merely means that the belief is absent from that persons worldview. There is no necessity for one who "lacks" a belief in something to hold a "concept" of what that thing is in their mind. The baby in this example "lacks a belief in God" BECAUSE the baby is ignorant of the concept. Since it is impossible to hold a belief in something that you are unaware of, anyone who is unaware of the concept of God, does not hold a belief in God's existence. And, anyone who does not hold a belief in the existence of God is "without" a belief in God, as that belief is "absent". Thus, there is no requirement for any kind of conceptual knowledge for someone to lack a belief in anything. It merely means "without" or "absent".

So. What does 'lacking a belief' in itself mean? What is the belief about?

 

[leibowde84]

But as per you and others, a stone and a baby and a chair and an atheist all lack a belief in existence of Deity.




Did barren mother had a son?

Exactly. Anyone and anything that does not actively believe in the existence of God is "without" said belief. Why is that such an issue for you? Atheism is an extremely general term.

 

[atanu]

"Without a belief" means everyone and everything that does not actively hold said belief. A baby would certainly qualify as a baby, presumably, does not hold a belief in the existence of God, as the baby is not aware of the concept and has not been given a chance to contemplate the issue.

So, the question whether baby has belief of a deity is meaningless.

 

[leibowde84]

So. What does 'lacking a belief' in itself mean? What is the belief about?

"Lacking a belief" is being "without a belief". I could also say "I lack a Mercedes to drive to work in". I can also say "I lack a belief in every concept I am not familiar with repectively". The word in this context merely means to be "without" ... that the belief isn't held.