Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

Yes, but that is the problem - you can not get much more meaningless and useless a definition that that. It does not even specify what 'God' means.

Of course the definition of theism or atheism doesn't specify what "God" means and it isn't meant to either. For that you would have to look up the definition of "God".

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is a reaction to theism, not the so-called "default", which is neither atheism nor theism. The default is ignorance of the concept of a god.

And if you are ignorant of the concept of a god you obviously can't believe in the existence of gods which automatically makes you an implicit atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

Citation needed.
Oh! There it is!

Bunyip, I've only known you a short while and I already love you like a brother-and/or-sister-but-demographically-most-likely-brother, but you've let a bunch of schoolchildren bat you around like a shuttlecock for going on five pages now. You've let them define every term, fix every goalpost, and set every standard. Enough playing defense, ya?

Some people require a reason to believe something. If a person has no reason to believe in invisible, weightless fairies, he lacks belief in invisible, weightless fairies---he does not have to be ignorant of the idea of invisible, weightless fairies, he merely has to lack a reason to believe in them. If a person has no reason to believe in very sneaky unicorns, she lacks belief in very sneaky unicorns---she does not have to be ignorant of the idea of very sneaky unicorns to lack belief in them.

Now: If, by the very same logic, a person has no reason to believe in a very sneaky god, you've got yourself an atheist.

It really is that simple.

This whole "are babies atheists?" is an asinine red herring: Yes, babies have no reason to believe in god, and are thus technically atheists. They also have no reason to believe you'll reappear during a game of peek-a-boo, and thus may burst into tears and soil themselves when subjected to your unexpected disappearance. In neither case do babies contribute anything to the discussion, which is why atheists don't invest a great deal of time in belabouring this ridiculous semantic minutia.

Absent a reason---the default position---a person does not believe. This is true of literally everything. Literally. Everything. Including, for example, the belief this person has that it's absolutely, unequivocally insane that he's currently typing the one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-nineteenth post in this ongoing saga of monumental absurdism.

Atheism is, by relevant authority (see Dawkins, Harris), by logic, by literal dictionary definition, the lack of belief in gods.

Period.

If I have been batted around it is with an imaginary weapon buddy. No offence , but you make the same mistake they do by insisting that there is a correct definition of atheism.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

 

[Bunyip]

Legion is merely pointing out that word meanings are determined by how people use those words, not how we would like them to use the words.

Actually no - that is what I am pointing out. That is the position I am arguing for - and the one Legion is contesting (which makes him liking your response rather amusing.)

Nobody other than those pushing the special "lack of belief" definition thinks of babies as atheists.

What madness is this 'definition pushing' nonsense? You are contradicting the claim in the first sentence.

That is the procrustean argument of those who have painted themselves into a semantic corner. Why should it even matter so much to us atheists that we can claim babies among our number?

It doesn't matter. What made you think I thought otherwise? That rocks and babies are as atheist was Legion's concern, not mine.

Theism is a very natural human response to the mystery of why things are the way they are. Atheism is a reaction to theism, not the so-called "default", which is neither atheism nor theism. The default is ignorance of the concept of a god.

You mean 'implicit atheism'?

 

[Bunyip]

Of course the definition of theism or atheism doesn't specify what "God" means and it isn't meant to either. For that you would have to look up the definition of "God".

There is no standard definition of that either buddy, which is why people need to specify the God they are referring to.

 

[Bunyip]

Sadly there is no single official standard definition for words - like 'God', 'atheism' or 'football'.
I do wonder why this simple fact of language is so hard to grasp. Dictionaries record usages, they do not dictate definitions something I am amazed that so many people do not understand.

So the main weapon I am being beaten about with is an elementary misconception about how language works.

 

[ArtieE]

The Bible has a definition of an atheist:

"Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."

Most atheists define an atheist as a person without belief in the existence of god(s).
"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist."
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

I can understand why religious people promote the Biblical definition but I am hard pressed to understand why some atheists seem to prefer and promote the Biblical one to the detriment of every atheist.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Sadly there is no single official standard definition for words - like 'God', 'atheism' or 'football'.
I do wonder why this simple fact of language is so hard to grasp. Dictionaries record usages, they do not dictate definitions something I am amazed that so many people do not understand.

Oh, absolutely, exalt the vicissitudes of the English language---that'll surely make a dent on the fact that a person who says "I have no reason to believe in unicorns, fairies, or gods" is, by general usage, strict definition or just about anything in between... an atheist.

Period.

(Did I already say that?)

 

[ArtieE]

There is no standard definition of that either buddy, which is why people need to specify the God they are referring to.

A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Of course none of them need to specify which god(s) they do or don't believe in the existence of.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

The Bible has a definition of an atheist:

"Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good."

Most atheists define an atheist as a person without belief in the existence of god(s).
"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist."
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm

I can understand why religious people promote the Biblical definition but I am hard pressed to understand why some atheists seem to prefer and promote the Biblical one to the detriment of every atheist.

You and me both, ArtieE. The rationalist perspective at the heart of atheism precludes a positive belief against the existence of god for the same reason it precludes a positive belief for the existence of god: No evidence, either way.

Cue accusation of agnosticism in 3... 2... 1...

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Of course none of them need to specify which god(s) they do or don't believe in the existence of.

This is the kind of refreshing, clear-headed logic that makes me think there might be another one-eyed man in this kingdom of the blind.

 

[Bunyip]

A theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Of course none of them need to specify which god(s) they do or don't believe in the existence of.

That is a great definition mate - what is your point?

I keep, pointing out that there is no official correct definition - you keep giving me definitions. What for?

 

[ArtieE]

That is a great definition mate - what is your point?

I keep, pointing out that there is no official correct definition - you keep giving me definitions. What for?

Define "official". If there's no "official" definition of atheist then we have to adopt the "unofficial" one supported by most atheists. "The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist." This is then the "unofficially" correct one.

 

[ArtieE]

Oh, absolutely, exalt the vicissitudes of the English language---that'll surely make a dent on the fact that a person who says "I have no reason to believe in unicorns, fairies, or gods" is, by general usage, strict definition or just about anything in between... an atheist.

Period.

(Did I already say that?)

An agnostic atheist not just an atheist.

 

[Thief]

let's toss a rock at the baby.....one atheist to another
hehehehe

OR draw the line as it should be.
Line drawn AS declaration.

Gotta have something going on in your head......
or it's just ignorance.

 

[Shad]

Well of course they do - they are free to do so. Philosophical glossaries do not dictate usages. Why would you think they did? What is the point of 'refuting' a word usage?

That they are misusing the word and the definition they put forward is illogical. This lead to evidence they do not know what the word they are using means.

I understand that is what you have been doing, but why? You attack the attempt made to describe the position I hold, not the position. What does this acheive, other than to prevent any meaningful discussion?

A meaningful discussion should use words properly. This prevents your description of your position from being incoherent when put to the test. Once this has been established it undermines position that babies are or are not atheists which is part of the OP. So my point because two birds and one stone.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I would call failure to have a belief in gods "nontheism", not "atheism". A better definition of atheism, IMO, is "rejection of belief in gods", not "lack of belief in gods".

How is "nontheism" any different from the literal meaning of atheism?

I mean, isn't a word like "nontheism" just a redundant way to say "atheism"?

As I've covered before, the etymology of the word "atheist" specifically means "not a theist"
Atheism, literally, is not theism. Don't you think you're just wasting your time by trying to find a different or more appealing way to say the exact same thing?

I really don't understand how there can be this much conversation over something so simple...
The only conversation we should really be having is what type of atheist someone is. Admittedly, there is an ocean of difference between an Atheist and an atheist. That's what we should be talking about - not spending 97 pages debating the personal baggage we attach to a factual statement.

This whole conversation, IMHO, is based on people simply disliking the fact that labels can be applied to things, especially vile labels like "atheist" to a baby.

As I've said before, if we started a thread about babies not being mathematicians, no one would bat an eye. No one would argue for endless posts about babies actually being mathematicians or try to redefine the meaning of "without mathematical training"... No one would do that because we all recognize that babies are, factually, not mathematicians.

Babies, I think we would all admit, are not theists. That's a factual statement.
By definition, anyone or any thing that is not a theist is an.......................atheist.

Atheism is a reaction to theism,

Yes. Atheism is a useless term without theism as it's directly related to theistic claims... Before a theistic claim is made we all simply exist in a null state, at least in this case, neither atheist or theist. But since we live in a world defined by theistic claims, anything and everything can be defined in relation to that apparent global theism.

So, as the word clearly states, anything that is not theism is, by default and by it's very definition, atheism.

But let's get the whole quote:

Atheism is a reaction to theism, not the so-called "default", which is neither atheism nor theism. The default is ignorance of the concept of a god.

You just stated that the default position was not theism... You know there's a word for that, right?

It's atheism.
(It's not Atheism...It's atheism.)

By being ignorant of the concept of god, we obviously cannot believe in that god, correct?
And since we do not believe in said god, through ignorance or whatever else, we are, by the very origin of the word, literally, atheists.

 

[Thief]

How is "nontheism" any different from the literal meaning of atheism?

I mean, isn't a word like "nontheism" just a redundant way to say "atheism"?

As I've covered before, the etymology of the word "atheist" specifically means "not a theist"
Atheism, literally, is not theism. Don't you think you're just wasting your time by trying to find a different or more appealing way to say the exact same thing?

I really don't understand how there can be this much conversation over something so simple...
The only conversation we should really be having is what type of atheist someone is. Admittedly, there is an ocean of difference between an Atheist and an atheist. That's what we should be talking about - not spending 97 pages debating the personal baggage we attach to a factual statement.

This whole conversation, IMHO, is based on people simply disliking the fact that labels can be applied to things, especially vile labels like "atheist" to a baby.

As I've said before, if we started a thread about babies not being mathematicians, no one would bat an eye. No one would argue for endless posts about babies actually being mathematicians or try to redefine the meaning of "without mathematical training"... No one would do that because we all recognize that babies are, factually, not mathematicians.

Babies, I think we would all admit, are not theists. That's a factual statement.
By definition, anyone or any thing that is not a theist is an.......................atheist.


Yes. Atheism is a useless term without theism as it's directly related to theistic claims... Before a theistic claim is made we all simply exist in a null state, at least in this case, neither atheist or theist. But since we live in a world defined by theistic claims, anything and everything can be defined in relation to that apparent global theism.

So, as the word clearly states, anything that is not theism is, by default and by it's very definition, atheism.

But let's get the whole quote:


You just stated that the default position was not theism... You know there's a word for that, right?

It's atheism.
(It's not Atheism...It's atheism.)

By being ignorant of the concept of god, we obviously cannot believe in that god, correct?
And since we do not believe in said god, through ignorance or whatever else, we are, by the very origin of the word, literally, atheists.

The default position is ignorance.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The default position is ignorance.

Correct.

Is ignorance of a topic the same as actively believing in a topic?
Is not knowing of a god Theism?

No. It is not.

And anything that is "not theism" is called............................atheism.