Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

Both "lack belief" in the same exact way, as "lack" merely means "without".

No, this context of "lack" is in the same way that I "lack being" everything I'm not. But there is no way that that's meaningfully me.

 

[leibowde84]

No, this context of "lack" is in the same way that I "lack being" everything I'm not. But there is no way that that's meaningfully me.

Why would that matter? The term "atheist" doesn't really say too much about someone necessarily. That's the point.

 

[atanu]

One has cognitive function, the other doesn't. It is therefore more meaningful to say it in relation to a human, since they can actually enter into the debate, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still an accurate description of a rock, and both a rock and a human can lack a belief in exactly the same way. The exact same is true of "They don't have a degree" or "They don't eat cake" or "They didn't vote Liberal Democrat". All of these statements are true of a rock, but pointing that out doesn't really mean anything.

This does not apply same way. While it is true that "They didn't vote Liberal Democrat" may mean nearly same for a man and a stone, in case of 'presence or absence of belief' that does not apply. You only said: One has cognitive function, the other doesn't.

Which is why I'm still curious as to why it is you think bringing it up all the time is meaningful. Why does it matter if rocks can be described as lacking a belief?

Just to show that rocks cannot be described as having a lack of belief, since in the first place they cannot have a belief.

 

[Blastcat]

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.

That is true.
A stone and a baby and a chair and an atheist and a giraffe and a toaster ALL LACK a belief in existence of Deity.

Stones and babies and chairs and atheists ALSO LACK the ability to fly without help.
Stones and babies and chairs and atheists ALSO LACK the belief in gods.

You can't HAVE what you don't HAVE.

Did barren mother had a son?

No, and that is the reason why a barren mother and stones CAN'T have sons.

But those who DO not have sons simply DO NOT HAVE THEM.

Stones don't have sons.. BECAUSE of one reason.
The barren mothers don't have sons BECAUSE of another reason.

But they STILL BOTH DON'T HAVE SONS. ( unless the mom adopts a son )

 

[leibowde84]

This does not apply same way. While it is true that "They didn't vote Liberal Democrat" may mean nearly same for a man and a stone, in case of 'presence or absence of belief' that does not apply. You only said: One has cognitive function, the other doesn't.



Just to show that rocks cannot be described as having a lack of belief, since in the first place they cannot have a belief.

This is where your logic is flawed. There is no requirement for the ability to believe to lack a belief. The same goes for anything.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, this context of "lack" is in the same way that I "lack being" everything I'm not. But there is no way that that's meaningfully me.

The general concept of lacking everything is a meaningless concept. But lacking a specific belief that the majority of the population has is meaningful. It sets one apart from the rest. Its like saying we can't define O- blood based on what it lacks. We know it lacks the A, B and + markers. Therefore it is O-. This is a case in which we have defined something in a meaningful way based on what it lacks.

And as an addition to this I would like to say that to make it more meaningful we should describe that we are talking about Atheism in people. Or you can talk about persons who are atheists. The concept then becomes clear if it wasn't already.

 

[Blastcat]

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

No, I can understand the question.

Do babies have beliefs in gods?
NO .. babies DON'T have beliefs in gods.

What is so meaningless about the question OR the answer?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This does not apply same way. While it is true that "They didn't vote Liberal Democrat" may mean nearly same for a man and a stone, in case of 'presence or absence of belief' that does not apply. You only said: One has cognitive function, the other doesn't.

Yes. So why does it matter that stones lack a belief in a God? A stone lacks a belief in a God because they are incapable of accepting any claim, but in exactly the same way a human being who has never considered the claim, or lacks the necessary brain function to do so, is incapable of accepting the claim. I don't see why this is a problem.

Just to show that rocks cannot be described as having a lack of belief, since in the first place they cannot have a belief.

If they cannot have a belief, then they CAN be described as having a LACK of belief. Is it inaccurate to say that, because a stone cannot eat, stones do not eat cake? Is "stones do not eat cake" an accurate statement or not?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. So why does it matter that stones lack a belief in a God? A stone lacks a belief in a God because they are incapable of accepting any claim, but in exactly the same way a human being who has never considered the claim, or lacks the necessary brain function to do so, is incapable of accepting the claim. I don't see why this is a problem. Just as stones do not believe in God. They aren't able to do either.


If they cannot have a belief, then they CAN be described as having a LACK of belief. Is it inaccurate to say that, because a stone cannot eat, stones do not eat cake? Is "stones do not eat cake" an accurate statement or not?

Stones definitely don't eat cakes.

 

[Blastcat]

This does not apply same way. While it is true that "They didn't vote Liberal Democrat" may mean nearly same for a man and a stone, in case of 'presence or absence of belief' that does not apply. You only said: One has cognitive function, the other doesn't.

One has cognitive function and the other has no cognitive function.
HOWEVER, the question isn't ABOUT cognition. It's about a LACK of cognition.

Anything LACKING in cognition cannot HAVE cognition.

Just to show that rocks cannot be described as having a lack of belief, since in the first place they cannot have a belief.

It's the same way as having a million dollars.

IF you lack a million dollars you don't NEED to have a million dollars in order to lack it.

It's the same way as having no water.

If you LACK WATER you don't NEED to have water in order to lack the water.
If you HAVE the water, you don't LACK the water.

I think you are having difficulty understanding the weighty concepts of HAVING and NOT HAVING...

We do not NEED a belief in god in order to NOT believe in god.
It's the same thing.

If you LACK a belief you don't NEED to have a belief in order to lack the belief.
In order to be WITHOUT a belief, you need to NOT HAVE a belief.

And rocks DO NOT HAVE a belief.

Notice the sentence structure is the same for a million dollars and water and beliefs .

 

[Blastcat]

Stones definitely don't eat cakes.

I concur about stones not eating cakes.

Most definitely.

When I grow up, I want to be wise like you.
and then I'll be able to say things about stones not doing stuff, too.

 

[leibowde84]

I concur about stones not eating cakes.

Most definitely.

When I grow up, I want to be wise like you.
and then I'll be able to say things about stones not doing stuff, too.

I always enjoy discussing the shortcomings of stones. I feel bad for them, really.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I always enjoy discussing the shortcomings of stones. I feel bad for them, really.

I don't. I regularly go down the local quarry to laugh at the stones, mock them, and taunt them with my superior human brain.

 

[atanu]

No, I can understand the question.

Do babies have beliefs in gods?
NO .. babies DON'T have beliefs in gods.

What is so meaningless about the question OR the answer?

It is wrong in the same way as asking whether a stone has taken its meal is a meaningless question.

To ask whether a stone has belief or not is meaningless.

OTOH, a statement such as "a stone has neither a belief nor a disbelief" is faultless.

 

[Willamena]

The general concept of lacking everything is a meaningless concept. But lacking a specific belief that the majority of the population has is meaningful. It sets one apart from the rest. Its like saying we can't define O- blood based on what it lacks. We know it lacks the A, B and + markers. Therefore it is O-. This is a case in which we have defined something in a meaningful way based on what it lacks.

Yes. Just so.

And the set of things that are unknown is indivisible, making everything unknown a set of one. The god we don't know about is not just in the same set as the rock we don't know about and the baby we don't know about, they are indistinguishable, making "atheism" that includes ignorance no longer meaningfully "about god."

And as an addition to this I would like to say that to make it more meaningful we should describe that we are talking about Atheism in people. Or you can talk about persons who are atheists. The concept then becomes clear if it wasn't already.

It's not even necessary to specify atheism in people, as people are what have beliefs, and beliefs are what make people.

 

[leibowde84]

It is wrong in the same way as asking whether a stone has taken its meal is a meaningless question.

To ask whether a stone has belief or not is meaningless.

OTOH, a statement such as "a stone has neither a belief nor a disbelief" is faultless.

That is called a statement. Not a question. And this is a straw man anyways. Who is asking rocks anything. You brought that into the discussion. It doesn't matter BECAUSE it is meaningless to say that a rock is atheistic in everything because a rock does not have the ability to believe.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. Just so.

And the set of things that are unknown is indivisible, making everything unknown a set of one. The god we don't know about is not just in the same set as the rock we don't know about and the baby we don't know about, they are indistinguishable, making "atheism" that includes ignorance no longer meaningfully "about god."


It's not even necessary to specify atheism in people, as people are what have beliefs, and beliefs are make people.

Atheism doesn't require the separation you speak of. That's the point. The lack of belief in God can well be wrapped up with a fellow lack of belief in anything else based on ignorance.

 

[atanu]

One has cognitive function and the other has no cognitive function.
HOWEVER, the question isn't ABOUT cognition. It's about a LACK of cognition.

Okay. You have a cognition that you lack a particular belief. A rock cannot have that cognition.

If you LACK a belief you don't NEED to have a belief in order to lack the belief.
In order to be WITHOUT a belief, you need to NOT HAVE a belief.

Ha. If You simply have a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. You have a cognition that you lack a particular belief. A rock cannot have that cognition.



Ha. If You simply have a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking.

Our entire point is that cognition of the fact that one doesn't believe is not necessary. No statement is necessary. No thought at all is necessary to be without any belief. The reason being that you are not necessarily making the declaration that something doesn't exist.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. You have a cognition that you lack a particular belief. A rock cannot have that cognition.



Ha. If You simply have a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking.

There doesn't need to be any argument. Ignorance provides the lack of belief. There is no requirement for a declaration of a lack of belief.