Atheist by birth?

[Willamena]

Atheist = not theist

Not atheist = not not theist = theist

A false dichotomy.

If all an atheist is is "not theist," why do we even need a word for it? Why not just say they're not theist? I'm going to start a new thread.

But that aside, how does "not having heard the proposition" make a person "not an atheist"? Why is it necessary for a person to have heard "the proposition" before we acknowledge that the person has not accepted it?

From my point of view, it's a given that a person has not accepted any proposition he hasn't heard of. Do you disagree?

Well, you misquote me. I said in having no proposition a person is not an atheist. That speaks to having never heard of the subject at issue.

With no proposition in which to invest belief, a person has no opportunity to get to the point where they either believe or not.

Proposition -> Understanding -> Belief

 

[Willamena]

What do you think it means to lack something? It means to not have it, to be without.

I dunno... the dictionary's quite clear about it: "to be deficient in; to fall short of."

Be happy in your God-belief deficiency, ye who fall sort of being theists.

Me, I'd rather be an atheist.

It doesn't just mean "missing" as you seem to be focused on. Anyway, "missing" is just referring to something missing vs. being present. The absence of a belief.

Yeah, it's easy to make definitions justify your position when you take half of it out of context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A false dichotomy.

If all an atheist is is "not theist," why do we even need a word for it? Why not just say they're not theist? I'm going to start a new thread.

The same could be said about any arrangement that's mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive: if one - and only one - of a set of terms necessarily applies, then you could eliminate the term for one group and instead define it as not a member of any other group.

You're right in that there probably isn't a need - the fact that we use distinct terms for a thing and its complement/negation probably comes down to aesthetic preference and not actual need, but unless you're also going to insist, for instance, that we call the back of a coin "not heads" instead of "tails", I'd wonder why you're singling out atheism.

Well, you misquote me.

I did? I don't see where.

I said in having no proposition a person is not an atheist. That speaks to having never heard of the subject at issue.

With no proposition in which to invest belief, a person has no opportunity to get to the point where they either believe or not.

Proposition -> Understanding -> Belief

So... a person who doesn't have the proposition necessarily doesn't have the understanding and therefore necessarily doesn't have the belief. This is has been my position all along, and why I say that the baby is an atheist: in not having any proposition of gods, we know that he or she doesn't have any belief in gods. Since not having belief in gods is the sole criterion for atheism, the baby is an atheist.

 

[outhouse]

It still behooves me what part of your a theist or your not these people cannot get through their heads.

they read the definition of atheist as if they were reading the bible and conjure up their own personal interpretation.

when asked to back their belief they act like creationist being questioned at a science fair.



why does your definition of atheist differ from the dictionary definition???

 

[Sirktas]

I've heard of some kind of research evidence that some particular personality types are more likely to be atheistic than others.

 

[Willamena]

So... a person who doesn't have the proposition necessarily doesn't have the understanding and therefore necessarily doesn't have the belief.

No, that would be ill-logic. A more proper interpretation would be that with no proposition, there is no understanding, and so no belief and, hence, nothing to "lack."

You can't "lacK" something that doesn't exist.

 

[Tristesse]

No, that would be ill-logic. A more proper interpretation would be that with no proposition, there is no understanding, and so no belief and, hence, nothing to "lack."

You can't "lacK" something that doesn't exist.

So, in your opinion atheism cannot be implicit. It necessarily requires that you understand the belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that would be ill-logic. A more proper interpretation would be that with no proposition, there is no understanding, and so no belief and, hence, nothing to "lack."

You can't "lacK" something that doesn't exist.

I haven't been using the term "lack" to define atheism.

Tell you what: instead of "lack of belief in gods", how about we go with "absence of belief in gods"? What objection do you have then? If a thing is non-existent, then it's certainly absent.

 

[Willamena]

I haven't been using the term "lack" to define atheism.

Tell you what: instead of "lack of belief in gods", how about we go with "absence of belief in gods"? What objection do you have then? If a thing is non-existent, then it's certainly absent.

It works just as well for absence. You'd have to work very hard to convince me of the existence of non-existent things.

 

[Willamena]

So, in your opinion atheism cannot be implicit. It necessarily requires that you understand the belief.

Yes, the term was coined relatively recently to describe just such a misuse of concepts as I've been arguing against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It works just as well for absence. You'd have to work very hard to convince me of the existence of non-existent things.

Come again?

 

[laffy_taffy]

I dunno... the dictionary's quite clear about it: "to be deficient in; to fall short of."

Be happy in your God-belief deficiency, ye who fall sort of being theists.

Me, I'd rather be an atheist.


Yeah, it's easy to make definitions justify your position when you take half of it out of context.

So, is your whole hangup on the word "lack'? We don't have to use that word if it confuses you.

We can instead say, for the following statement:

Statement A: God exists

We are without a belief in statement A
We do not have a belief in Statement A

Additionally, you can call us non-believers, unbelievers, non-theists, atheists, whatever. Same difference.

 

[idav]

It works just as well for absence. You'd have to work very hard to convince me of the existence of non-existent things.

Best reason to not believe it exists.

 

[Valjean]

Let's just take "lack" off the table, why don't we? The needfullness aspect's clearly a stumbling block.

Basically atheism is a simple absence of belief. Weather this definition's useful in discussions or meaningful is irrelevant. Weather an infant's pre-wired for religion or not is, while interesting, also irrelevant.
I think we're making mountains out of molehills, arguing about angels dancing on pinheads.

 

[idav]

Basically atheism is a simple absence of belief.

This is the best way of putting it. The 'absence of' takes belief off the table but more specifically for a person never introduced to the concept of gods.

Interestingly it applies differently to a person who has been introduced to the concept of a god when absence of a belief somehow makes it an opinion. Part of the argument is whose perception we are talking about.

 

[Willamena]

Come again?

You had said, "If a thing is non-existent, then it's certainly absent." I say there are no non-existent things. Absent things are actually things.

 

[Willamena]

So, is your whole hangup on the word "lack'? We don't have to use that word if it confuses you.

We can instead say, for the following statement:

Statement A: God exists

We are without a belief in statement A
We do not have a belief in Statement A

Additionally, you can call us non-believers, unbelievers, non-theists, atheists, whatever. Same difference.

I'm not confused. I'm quite firm in my beliefs that led me to atheism. I just object to equivocation.

 

[Willamena]

Weather this definition's useful in discussions or meaningful is irrelevant.

Yeah, it's not like words have to be meaningful to be useful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You had said, "If a thing is non-existent, then it's certainly absent." I say there are no non-existent things. Absent things are actually things.

If a thing does not exist, it is nowhere. If a thing is nowhere, it is not present. If a thing is not present, it is absent.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, it's not like words have to be meaningful to be useful.

OK lets cut the horse pucky

whats your special very own personal definition of A atheist???