Atheism is not a default position

[leibowde84]

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

Of course. But, I would argue that the Baby is in the default position, as the Baby has not contemplated the issue at all (nothing done).

 

[atanu]

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.

Barren mother's son applies to you also?

You must be joking man.

(That was meant to apply as a synonym for a baby holding a belief or disbelief. I did not know that it applied to you equally.)

 

[atanu]

Of course. But, I would argue that the Baby is in the default position, as the Baby has not contemplated the issue at all (nothing done).

Agree. Our pristine consciousness is the default.

 

[leibowde84]

Barren mother's son applies to you also?

You must be joking man.

(That was meant to apply as a synonym for a baby holding a belief or disbelief. I did not know that it applied to you equally.)

"Baron mother's son"? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

[leibowde84]

Agree. Our pristine consciousness is the default.

Yes.

 

[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?

This is nonsensical. You don't have to have the ability to believe to be without a specific belief. That is the whole point. You are reading something into the word "lack" that isn't there.

 

[atanu]

I can also say "I lack a belief in every concept I am not familiar with repectively". .

Then it is as meaningless as is the question of barren mother's son.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are correct that I don't understand this firm belief in non-existent things.

You are very lost indeed if that is what you have taken away from this.

Logic doesn't allow for non-existent things.

It can actually. But this isn't the issue. If the concept didn't exist then this forum wouldn't exist. The concept exists rather objectively.

 

[Willamena]

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".

"To lack" is a relation.

 

[leibowde84]

Then it is as meaningless as is the question of barren mother's son.

Nevertheless. "Atheism" is not a very meaningful term, as it only requires to be without something.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

"Belief" is the acceptance of a given proposition as true. It is a specific position on a specific subject. If you lack the position, then you lack the belief.

For example, Ted accepts the proposition that John's car is red. He has seen John's car, and he has seen that it is red. He accepts the proposition "John's car is red" to be true. Ted believes John's car is red.

However, Ted's friend Derrick has not seen John's car. He does not know the colour of the car, and nobody has told him the colour. He does not accept the proposition "John's car is red" to be true. Derrick does not believe John's car is red.

 

[Willamena]

It can actually. But this isn't the issue. If the concept didn't exist then this forum wouldn't exist. The concept exists rather objectively.

That's not an example of a nonexistent thing.

 

[leibowde84]

"To lack" is a relation.

Ok. But the subject doesn't have to be aware of the relation.

 

[Blastcat]

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.

You seem to be having some difficulty understanding how words work in the real world.
Talking about words by using words gets very confusing to us all.

Allow me to try to untangle what I see is confusion on your part.

1. Relations are first of all CONCEPTS ( thoughts with WORD LABELS )
We will need some way to form a concept.. what we know is that HUMANS have a way to form concepts.
Using BRAINS, humans can THINK .. and then label those thoughts with WORDS.

2. Some of the BEST concepts are those which match closely to what we can observe in nature.
These can be said to be BEST because of their USEFULNESS in our day to day lives. Like the concept of petroleum, for example.

But concepts don't HAVE to be about nature at all.. ( god, for example is a concept that isn't found in nature )
Concepts that don't have much USE are not as good as concepts that do.

3. A connection is ALSO a concept.

Humans make connections .. and the very BEST kinds of connections are those that we can observe in nature.
The very BEST kind of thinking matches nature... The very BEST kind of thinking tries to DESCRIBE nature.

4. One of these BEST kinds of DESCRIPTIONS are "connections" between things.
There is a connection between fossils and fuel, for example. Now we know where best to LOOK for those very useful fuels. Because we have made very good CONNECTIONS.

5. ALL good concepts are descriptions of the real world.
If a concept doesn't match the real world in any appreciable way.. it's usefulness is... less.
That's WHY some concepts are so good.. the better they DESCRIBE the real world, the MORE USEFUL these concepts tend to BE.

But the actual "connections" that we are DESCRIBING with words ARE REAL.. that's why they tend to be so useful in the first place. And that's why we BOTHER creating a LABEL for those events called "connections".

There are REAL things in the world that we can DESCRIBE to ourselves USING WORDS.. or concepts.

There IS a real "connection between fossils and fuel, for example. THE WORDS we use to describe this connection are merely LABELS that we use to COMMUNICATE to one another what we can observe in nature.

Hope that helps to clarify some confusion between words and reality.

 

[atanu]

This is nonsensical. You don't have to have the ability to believe to be without a specific belief. That is the whole point. You are reading something into the word "lack" that isn't there.

Lacking means lacking 'something'. In this case, the 'something' is a belief of a Deity. And that is in your mind.

For stones and babies that matter is altogether different.

 

[leibowde84]

Lacking means lacking 'something'. In this case, the 'something' is a belief of a Deity. And that is in your mind.

For stones and babies that matter is altogether different.

The fact that rocks don't have minds and they are unable to hold beliefs means that, by definition, they lack all beliefs, as they lack the ability to believe period.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's not an example of a nonexistent thing.

Good. Now we can move on from your confusion and discuss this existent thing.

 

[Willamena]

Nevertheless. "Atheism" is not a very meaningful term, as it only requires to be without something.

To those for whom it is meaningful, though, it is specifically meaningful.

 

[leibowde84]

To those for whom it is meaningful, though, it is specifically meaningful.

Strong atheism is far more meaningful.

 

[atanu]

The fact that rocks don't have minds and they are unable to hold beliefs means that, by definition, they lack all beliefs, as they lack the ability to believe period.

Agreed. We are progressing.

So how would you distinguish a sentence involving a 'lack of belief in deity' when applied in respect of a stone and when applied in respect of you.