Atheism is not a default position

[Monk Of Reason]

Citing a definition is not the same as giving reasoning for that definition, unlessyou are suggesting the reason is that "because he says so" (an appeal to authority...and yet another fallacy).

Stating the definition of a word is not an appeal to authority. Just as citing facts are not appeals to authority. What you mean to say is that this isn't an argument. That I haven't provided an argument as to why the definition is that way.

I have before and I shall again.

Number one the roots of the word literally mean "lack of theism". The philosophical point of atheism is that we do not have theistic beliefs. It isn't about a belief that there is no god but rather a doubt and skepticism of belief in god. Theism and its scale is totally rooted in beliefs and specifically the beliefs held about god and other supernatural or potentially ontological views. Keeping the concept of god at a pragmatic level we can determine if people are theists by the presence of the belief in these deities. Those that do not have a belief in these deities, (this is the really really really really really really really really really important part where about 100% of people that don't understand it get lost) it is not a belief in the opposite. While it is often possible for there to be a belief in the opposite it is not required. In this state in which the opposite is not deemed to be true but the notion in question is not considered to be true, we are still "without" positive belief required for theism.

There have been those that advocate that we need a third term for all of those that do not actively believe in either one. This is not needed as the definition and usage of the term extends to catch those that are "unsure" or "middle ground" as the only requirement for atheism in this broadest sense is to simply lack theism.

Agnosticism and the development of this word is a peculiar one. It has been used, usually by those that don't understand the history of the word, to mean the middle ground. However it doesn't have anything to do with beliefs, at least not directly. It has to do with knowledge and the capacity of the limits of our knowledge. People often believe in things they don't know about all the time. Its an intriguing quality of belief that it is not necessarily tied to what we "know" or at least can stand in contrast to what we "know".

And even beyond that, the Gnostic/agnostic issue covers WHERE the knowledge comes from.

 

[Willamena]

You started this thread.
what was your intent?

2,500+ postings and we have a carrousel....around and around we go.

Lack of belief is not ignorance.
Lack of belief is a choice.
An atheist lacks belief for he chooses a line of reason that led him to think so.

Babies and rocks are not part of this.
Babies are ignorant.....rocks are just rocks.

Now if an atheist would like to step up and plead ignorance......ok.
But I suspect doing so before God and heaven.....won't work.

The topic was exhausted in the first few pages. It's never more than people throwing ideas at each other.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

she might (more likely) have in mind the teaching she would deal unto her child.
the child would be raised up.....no god.

Its possible. OR it could be raised as a sacrifice to the almighty spaghetti monster in the sky. As would be the traditional way of atheists. It depends if she is a orthodox Atheist or not.

 

[ArtieE]

Citing a definition is not the same as giving reasoning for that definition, unlessyou are suggesting the reason is that "because he says so" (an appeal to authority...and yet another fallacy).

If a person tells you he's an atheist it tells you that this person is not a theist, that he doesn't believe gods exist. Can you give some reasons why you have defined an atheist as a person who is not a theist, who doesn't believe gods exist?

 

[Thief]

Its possible. OR it could be raised as a sacrifice to the almighty spaghetti monster in the sky. As would be the traditional way of atheists. It depends if she is a orthodox Atheist or not.

sounds like ignorance to me.....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

sounds like ignorance to me.....

I've gone back and forth about you. Sometimes you post things that seem to have some semblance of meaning and others it seems like you just live in your own world. Today is one of the latter.

 

[Thief]

I've gone back and forth about you. Sometimes you post things that seem to have some semblance of meaning and others it seems like you just live in your own world. Today is one of the latter.

I'm doing well.....thank you.

 

[McBell]

Lack of belief is not ignorance.
Lack of belief is a choice.
An atheist lacks belief for he chooses a line of reason that led him to think so.

Lack of belief is not always a choice.
Or are you claiming that infants CHOOSE to have a lack of belief..?

The thing is, it is not nearly as black and white as you try to make it appear here.

 

[McBell]

Shifting the noun of discussion is just more sidestepping.

Atheist has a meaning.
a declaration .....no god.

Atheist has more than one meaning.
Ignoring the meaning(s) you dislike doe snot help your case and merely makes you look like an extremist.

 

[outhouse]

who doesn't believe gods exist?

Many children and babies and a few isolated tribes on south America.

But lack of belief is a better descriptor then doesn't believe that can be taken out of context as a belief.

 

[outhouse]

. Sometimes you post things that seem to have some semblance of meaning and others it seems like you just live in your own world.

Typical for him.

He's off on his own little thing.

 

[outhouse]

Atheist has a meaning.
a declaration .....no god.

False you get to define nothing here.

I keep you on ignore because you NEVER source your opinions. It takes a page to define atheism because its not just about rejection of mythology.

It can be lack of knowledge of mythology.

Simple put there are many ways to not be a theist, a declaration is FACTUALLY not required to not be a theist.

 

[Curious George]

sounds like ignorance to me.....

Absolutely.

All of us agree that whatever the definition is, it is at least a person who believes god does not exist. This aspect of the definition is the starting point of agreement and therefore the default in this discussion.

 

[Copernicus]

Stating the definition of a word is not an appeal to authority. Just as citing facts are not appeals to authority. What you mean to say is that this isn't an argument. That I haven't provided an argument as to why the definition is that way.

The problem is that you are citing a dictionary definition that has been called into question. Instead of explaining why you believe the dictionary definition is accurate, you have merely repeated it as if it were correct by virtue of being in the dictionary. At best, you are just begging the question with this kind of response. You need to motivate the definition in some other way than just by saying that it exists in some dictionaries. The issue you are avoiding is how one comes to validate a dictionary definition--through actual usage. By your own reasoning process, ordinary usage should validate your claim that babies are called atheists. Since we all know they are not normally considered atheists, the usage test fails. By the normal standards of lexicography, such a definition would be considered poor for the very reason that it is used to motivate a ridiculous assumption about the word meaning--viz. that it applies to individuals who lack an understanding of what deities are.

I have before and I shall again.

Number one the roots of the word literally mean "lack of theism". The philosophical point of atheism is that we do not have theistic beliefs. It isn't about a belief that there is no god but rather a doubt and skepticism of belief in god. Theism and its scale is totally rooted in beliefs and specifically the beliefs held about god and other supernatural or potentially ontological views. Keeping the concept of god at a pragmatic level we can determine if people are theists by the presence of the belief in these deities. Those that do not have a belief in these deities, (this is the really really really really really really really really really important part where about 100% of people that don't understand it get lost) it is not a belief in the opposite. While it is often possible for there to be a belief in the opposite it is not required. In this state in which the opposite is not deemed to be true but the notion in question is not considered to be true, we are still "without" positive belief required for theism.

Yes, you and others have repeated that argument. It has already been disqualified as an etymological fallacy. Continuing to repeat a discredited argument is known as argumentum ad nauseam, or a "repetition fallacy".

There have been those that advocate that we need a third term for all of those that do not actively believe in either one. This is not needed as the definition and usage of the term extends to catch those that are "unsure" or "middle ground" as the only requirement for atheism in this broadest sense is to simply lack theism.

If "atheism" means more than mere "lack of belief", then "nontheism" would seem to fit the bill. Or people could just agree to extend the meaning of "atheism" so that it really meant nothing more than "lack of belief". However, you need to show actual instances of usage to validate the claim, and those cannot just be doctrinaire claims about how people ought to use the word.

Agnosticism and the development of this word is a peculiar one. It has been used, usually by those that don't understand the history of the word, to mean the middle ground. However it doesn't have anything to do with beliefs, at least not directly. It has to do with knowledge and the capacity of the limits of our knowledge. People often believe in things they don't know about all the time. Its an intriguing quality of belief that it is not necessarily tied to what we "know" or at least can stand in contrast to what we "know".

The word "agnostic" was first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley as a denial of the ability to know whether God existed. Its meaning has changed over time so that the more popular usage now is, in the words of Philosopher William Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God". Of course, Rowe was ignoring the broader sense in which atheists deny the existence of gods generally, but people are used to thinking just in terms of the deities that they are most familiar with.

And even beyond that, the Gnostic/agnostic issue covers WHERE the knowledge comes from.

I prefer to use it that way, myself, but it would be an etymological fallacy to claim that the word can only be used in its earliest sense. Meanings can change over time, and we discover that by looking at actual usage, not desired or recommended usage. That's why the "baby" argument is central to the discussion--because babies are thought to lack the knowledge to be able to affirm or deny the existence of gods.

 

[Bunyip]

The problem is that you are citing a dictionary definition that has been called into question. Instead of explaining why you believe the dictionary definition is accurate, you have merely repeated it as if it were correct by virtue of being in the dictionary. At best, you are just begging the question with this kind of response. You need to motivate the definition in some other way than just by saying that it exists in some dictionaries. The issue you are avoiding is how one comes to validate a dictionary definition--through actual usage. By your own reasoning process, ordinary usage should validate your claim that babies are called atheists. Since we all know they are not normally considered atheists, the usage test fails.

No offence, but given your experience as a lexicographer - that is an extraordinary misconception. There is no 'usage test', the idea of implicit atheism has been thoroughly published and discussed. Suggesting that referring to babies as atheists fails some sort of 'usage test' is just plain wrong. There is no 'usage test' that the concept of implicit atheism fails.

By the normal standards of lexicography, such a definition would be considered poor for the very reason that it is used to motivate a ridiculous assumption about the word meaning--viz. that it applies to individuals who lack an understanding of what deities are.

That is not the 'normal standards of lexicography' at all. Implicit atheism is a well understood concept.

Yes, you and others have repeated that argument. It has already been disqualified as an etymological fallacy. Continuing to repeat a discredited argument is known as argumentum ad nauseam, or a "repetition fallacy".

Again, you are mislead - that is not an etymological fallacy at all. It is just an examination of the meaning of the word and what it is intended to convey.

If "atheism" means more than mere "lack of belief", then "nontheism" would seem to fit the bill. Or people could just agree to extend the meaning of "atheism" so that it really meant nothing more than "lack of belief". However, you need to show actual instances of usage to validate the claim, and those cannot just be doctrinaire claims about how people ought to use the word.

What? What made you think people need to validate their usages? To whom? Who is the authority there?

The word "agnostic" was first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley as a denial of the ability to know whether God existed. Its meaning has changed over time so that the more popular usage now is, in the words of Philosopher William Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God". Of course, Rowe was ignoring the broader sense in which atheists deny the existence of gods generally, but people are used to thinking just in terms of the deities that they are most familiar with.


I prefer to use it that way, myself, but it would be an etymological fallacy to claim that the word can only be used in its earliest sense. Meanings can change over time, and we discover that by looking at actual usage, not desired or recommended usage. That's why the "baby" argument is central to the discussion--because babies are thought to lack the knowledge to be able to affirm or deny the existence of gods.

Sure, hence 'implicit atheism'.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Believing is a verb, as is Donald Trumping.

Or Tebowing?

That doesn't make it something we do.

Sorry. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I am going to maintain that verbs are by definition something we do.

Please explain the following sentence:

"I do believe that I've heard just about enough of this irksome twaddle!"

Do you see the inherent relationship between the words "do" and "believe?" I hate to rain on your parade here, but belief is still an action and actions involve doing. You are cordially invited to provide evidence to the contrary, as long as the process doesn't involve any verbs. That'd automatically disprove your argument, wouldn't it?

... belief is, regardless of us, the truth of the world that our consciousness has assigned to the information available to us.

I'd hesitate to say that belief is the truth of anything. If (for example) you believe that the world is flat, does your belief have any real relationship with the truth? It almost sounds like you're trying to say the truth is contingent upon belief (instead of the other way 'round).

We cannot examine truth as long as truth is one of the instruments we use to examine.

Please unpack that assertion and elaborate on it ... because it isn't making any sense to me. None whatsoever.

Apart from their essential capacity to be true in form, concepts like belief, doubt, and certainty are all informed in definition by truth-value

I don't see how concepts are essentially true in form. They can be, of course. But they can also be essentially false, right? Aren't four-cornered circles a concept?

But we do examine them, and to do so we bring them into the world as if the word could conjure them in being.

Is it just me, or is the atmosphere in here is getting pretty gruesomely woo-some?

We talk about beliefs, but as is the case

You mean "As is the world" right?

they do not differ from us as conscious beings participating in the world.

Or are they participating in The Case?

Never mind. Are you actually saying that beliefs are conscious beings that exist independently from the believer?

The world can mean a lot of different things to a lot of people.

In a poetic sense, perhaps. It's still just a huge mass of matter circling the sun when you get right down to it.

The case carries less baggage

If The Case = The World, then it must by definition carry the exact same amount of baggage. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

... and generally presents a more complete picture. For instance, some would deny that ideas are part of the world.

Unless you can convincingly demonstrate that thoughts have an independent, concrete, physical existence outside the confines of the human mind ... then I fail to see how one can do anything but deny that ideas are somehow "part of the world."

My argument not a case for whether consciousness is distinct from the world. The very use of "belief" to contrast with omnipotence indicates it.

It's how we use the word, we use the world to hold our meager consciousness states of insufficient knowledge distinct from a world of full and complete property and characteristic.

"Captain, there's a woo-based anomaly off the port bow that's causing sever distortions in the grammatical space/time continuum! Fascinating!"

My argument continues that, rather than belief being a thing we do in terms of theism and atheism, and especially the discussions and arguments about theism and atheism, what we do is state beliefs.

"I do believe that you're out to lunch" vs. "I do state that I believe you're out to lunch?"

Which seems like the bigger put-on?

We put the propositions out there to be examined, and when we fling them at each other, that's when theism and atheism enter the picture as entities in their own right.

Theism and atheism would not even enter the picture at all if humans were not actively carrying them around in their minds.

Just simply believing in god, there is no need for theism.

Theism is believing in god. It's like you're saying "Just simply wearing pants, there is no need for clothing."

Not knowing what a god is, there is no need for atheism.

So you're saying that ignorance is a belief?

Investing in those words as if our words were the world, we participate in being the theist and the atheist.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Curious George]

Absolutely.

All of us agree that whatever the definition is, it is at least a person who believes god does not exist. This aspect of the definition is the starting point of agreement and therefore the default in this discussion.

Crap, this was supposed to be @ArtieE

 

[Curious George]

Stating the definition of a word is not an appeal to authority. Just as citing facts are not appeals to authority. What you mean to say is that this isn't an argument. That I haven't provided an argument as to why the definition is that way.

I have before and I shall again.

Number one the roots of the word literally mean "lack of theism". The philosophical point of atheism is that we do not have theistic beliefs. It isn't about a belief that there is no god but rather a doubt and skepticism of belief in god. Theism and its scale is totally rooted in beliefs and specifically the beliefs held about god and other supernatural or potentially ontological views. Keeping the concept of god at a pragmatic level we can determine if people are theists by the presence of the belief in these deities. Those that do not have a belief in these deities, (this is the really really really really really really really really really important part where about 100% of people that don't understand it get lost) it is not a belief in the opposite. While it is often possible for there to be a belief in the opposite it is not required. In this state in which the opposite is not deemed to be true but the notion in question is not considered to be true, we are still "without" positive belief required for theism.

There have been those that advocate that we need a third term for all of those that do not actively believe in either one. This is not needed as the definition and usage of the term extends to catch those that are "unsure" or "middle ground" as the only requirement for atheism in this broadest sense is to simply lack theism.

Agnosticism and the development of this word is a peculiar one. It has been used, usually by those that don't understand the history of the word, to mean the middle ground. However it doesn't have anything to do with beliefs, at least not directly. It has to do with knowledge and the capacity of the limits of our knowledge. People often believe in things they don't know about all the time. Its an intriguing quality of belief that it is not necessarily tied to what we "know" or at least can stand in contrast to what we "know".

And even beyond that, the Gnostic/agnostic issue covers WHERE the knowledge comes from.

Thank you for taking the time to post this. Unfortunately, this argument amounts to an etymological fallacy.

And yes, citing a dictionary definition when I ask for a reason is an appeal to authority.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem is that you are citing a dictionary definition that has been called into question. Instead of explaining why you believe the dictionary definition is accurate, you have merely repeated it as if it were correct by virtue of being in the dictionary. At best, you are just begging the question with this kind of response. You need to motivate the definition in some other way than just by saying that it exists in some dictionaries. The issue you are avoiding is how one comes to validate a dictionary definition--through actual usage. By your own reasoning process, ordinary usage should validate your claim that babies are called atheists. Since we all know they are not normally considered atheists, the usage test fails.

No offence, but given your experience as a lexicographer - that is an extraordinary misconception. There is no 'usage test', the idea of implicit atheism has been thoroughly published and discussed. Suggesting that referring to babies as atheists fails some sort of 'usage test' is just plain wrong. There is no 'usage test' that the concept of implicit atheism fails.

First of all, the exchange between Monk of Reason and Curious George was about the definition of "atheism", not "implicit atheism". Secondly, what makes you think that you know enough about the subject to lecture me on it? What is your experience? Have you ever seen or filled out a citation form? Ever debated the merits of a definition? Ever attended courses in the subject or lectures in a lexicography workshop?

If you had any experience, you would know that dictionary publishers employ usage panels to judge definitions, and the panels do that on the basis of citations. That is the 'usage test' I was referring to. A panel looks at references from newspapers, literature, recorded speech, and other sources. Normally, people think it bizarre to call babies "atheists", which is why these discussions typically generate so much heat. The only time people take the idea seriously is when they start arguing over dictionary definitions. When lexicographers criticize dictionary definitions, they do so on the basis of bizarre claims of that nature.

By the normal standards of lexicography, such a definition would be considered poor for the very reason that it is used to motivate a ridiculous assumption about the word meaning--viz. that it applies to individuals who lack an understanding of what deities are.

That is not the 'normal standards of lexicography' at all. Implicit atheism is a well understood concept.

Again, we were not discussing the meaning of "implicit atheism", which someone made up in the context of a dispute over definitions.

Yes, you and others have repeated that argument. It has already been disqualified as an etymological fallacy. Continuing to repeat a discredited argument is known as argumentum ad nauseam, or a "repetition fallacy".

Again, you are mislead - that is not an etymological fallacy at all. It is just an examination of the meaning of the word and what it is intended to convey.

That is based on the historical and morphological composition of the word. That is exactly what an etymological fallacy is. I provided a link to the Wikipedia page, so you can go look up examples of this type of genetic fallacy.

If "atheism" means more than mere "lack of belief", then "nontheism" would seem to fit the bill. Or people could just agree to extend the meaning of "atheism" so that it really meant nothing more than "lack of belief". However, you need to show actual instances of usage to validate the claim, and those cannot just be doctrinaire claims about how people ought to use the word.

What? What made you think people need to validate their usages? To whom? Who is the authority there?

As I have made plain, the authority is based on citations of usage, which are used by lexicographers to differentiate proposed word senses in need of definition in a dictionary entry. Crafting definitions involves more than citations, however, so you'll find that dictionaries tend to use different (copyrighted) definitions for the same words. Lexicologists are more concerned with meaning, so they tend to base research on more comprehensive surveys of usage and expertise about the nature of lexical semantics.

The word "agnostic" was first coined by Thomas Henry Huxley as a denial of the ability to know whether God existed. Its meaning has changed over time so that the more popular usage now is, in the words of Philosopher William Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God". Of course, Rowe was ignoring the broader sense in which atheists deny the existence of gods generally, but people are used to thinking just in terms of the deities that they are most familiar with.

I prefer to use it that way, myself, but it would be an etymological fallacy to claim that the word can only be used in its earliest sense. Meanings can change over time, and we discover that by looking at actual usage, not desired or recommended usage. That's why the "baby" argument is central to the discussion--because babies are thought to lack the knowledge to be able to affirm or deny the existence of gods.

Sure, hence 'implicit atheism'.

Again, we were not talking about the definition of a technical term that was invented just to be able to classify people ignorant of deities as "atheists". To use an invented term like that to validate the claimed usage under dispute is simple question begging.

 

[Thief]

Too many people walking on a fence.

wish I could photo.....