"Atheist"--the term itself

[outhouse]

I'm sorry, but the use of circular reasoning like this is frustrating.

Get used to it.

I have found said person likes to word things in his own personal context, with a complete refusal to accept anything else.

 

[outhouse]

Because it describes a state of mind, not an objective truth.

You don't know that

Seeing as atheism is a statement of belief

WRONG AGAIN

Implicit atheism REQUIRES no conscious rejection of any deity concept or mythology.

 

[Mister Emu]

So a person who has not been convinced of anything and has never encountered a god belief (e.g. a baby) would be an atheist by your definition.

No, someone who has not encountered a God concept is in a state of potential, not a state of disbelief.

. The argument at hand is whether or not "atheism" is necessarily a "statement of belief".

They are merely unconvinced that any deity exists.

Which is a statement of belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just to bring in some other sidetrack thoughts into this thread, what about Ramachandran's split brain research showing a patient having one brain half being atheist and the other half theist? Is it one person being both atheist and theist at the same time, or is a split brain person actually two persons? People with split brain can show having opposing will and beliefs in the two brain halves. So what is "Bob" (my fictitious name for such a person)? Is he an atheist, theist, or two people in one body?

 

[Augustus]

I'm sorry, but the use of circular reasoning like this is frustrating. The argument at hand is whether or not "atheism" is necessarily a "statement of belief". I would strongly argue that it is not always a belief, as many self-designated atheists do not actively believe anything about God's existence. They are merely unconvinced that any deity exists.

That is a belief, not an absence of one.

 

[leibowde84]

That is a belief, not an absence of one.

Being without a belief is not a belief. The absence of belief is not belief, iow. So, I fail to see your point as being valid.

 

[leibowde84]

Which is a statement of belief.

Not true. The absence of belief is not a belief. If one is withholding belief due to lack of evidence, that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe said belief to be wrong, but, instead, merely presently unsubstantiated.

 

[outhouse]

Not true. The absence of belief is not a belief. If one is withholding belief due to lack of evidence, that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe said belief to be wrong, but, instead, merely presently unsubstantiated.

Exactly.


It is like saying I have to have a belief that Santa does not exist.

There is also a difference between belief and knowledge

With certainty a belief turns into knowledge

 

[Mister Emu]

Not true.

Yes it is. Just a very mild one.

If one is withholding belief due to lack of evidence, that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe said belief to be wrong, but, instead, merely presently unsubstantiated.

And that is a belief.

No, someone who has not encountered a God concept is in a state of potential, not a state of disbelief.

I actually believe my previous statement was somewhat in error. I will remove the quality of having encountered a god as a necessity and instead interpose the requirement for the intellectual capacity to understand god concepts.

I will acknowledge under your absurdly wide-spread definition that any lack of positive assent to deity is atheism that yes, babies and toasters are atheists. But I have to suggest that such a definition has rendered the meaning if not entirely valueless, at least of a substantially limited value.

 

[leibowde84]

And that is a belief.

What is the belief, specifically?

I will acknowledge under your absurdly wide-spread definition that any lack of positive assent to deity is atheism that yes, babies and toasters are atheists. But I have to suggest that such a definition has rendered the meaning if not entirely valueless, at least of a substantially limited value.

According to the definition of the term "atheist", it only applies to people. I guess you could say that a toaster is atheistic in that they don't have the capacity for belief, but I don't see why anyone would do that, and, as such, I don't see it causing any real issue.

 

[outhouse]

absurdly wide-spread definition

It is easy to label people as either implicit or explicit and it solves most real problems with said definition

 

[leibowde84]

It is easy to label people as either implicit or explicit and it solves most real problems with said definition

Never really understood why the subcategories of atheism are ignored so often on RF. Theists here tend far too often to put words into the mouths of people who identify as "atheists". That is why I feel strongly that the broad definition for the term is reasonable and necessary.

 

[outhouse]

Never really understood why the subcategories of atheism are ignored so often on RF. Theists here tend far too often to put words into the mouths of people who identify as "atheists". That is why I feel strongly that the broad definition for the term is reasonable and necessary.

It is personal to many. They cannot stand atheism being the default position, because it implies the truth of learning theism, NOT growing into theism.

 

[Curious George]

Yup. I've seen those, and I agree with them. The philosophical position of atheism represents all those. Modern neo-atheists reject those definition though, and I think the term "atheism" belongs to the atheists to define. If they want it to mean just "lack of belief in God/gods", so be it. I can disagree on the usefulness of such a weak definition, but it is after all their word to use.

Which atheists get to define it? The ones who believe God doesn't exist or the ones who just lack belief either way?

 

[Curious George]

So you think belief and knowledge are the same? Wow.

What is knowledge?

 

[Mister Emu]

What is the belief, specifically?

That you can neither assent nor deny the existence of God; fence sitting is a position, not a non-position.

According to the definition of the term "atheist", it only applies to people. I guess you could say that a toaster is atheistic in that they don't have the capacity for belief, but I don't see why anyone would do that, and, as such, I don't see it causing any real issue.

Bully for atheists, they made sure their definition doesn't include toasters. Interestingly enough, they don't see why it might be an issue that it needs to be clarified that the definition only applies to people.

The thing is, a baby is only an atheist in the same sense that a toaster is. I don't see why anyone would call a baby an atheist and therefore normatively we wouldn't have an issue, but here we are with people calling babies atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

fence sitting is a position, not a non-position.

It is a position/state of being, sure. But, how do you think it qualifies as a "belief"?

 

[Curious George]

We have been around this circle before. I am an atheists who does precisely what you say is impossible. This is done because we categorize. I do not have to try every piece of chocolate in the world to know that I don't like chocolate, nor do I have to examine every human to know that no human can exist without water.

 

[leibowde84]

The thing is, a baby is only an atheist in the same sense that a toaster is. I don't see why anyone would call a baby an atheist and therefore normatively we wouldn't have an issue, but here we are with people calling babies atheists.

I don't think this is fair. Babies being atheists is only being brought up to illustrate the general meaning of the term "atheist". No one really cares whether babies are actually atheists or not.

 

[outhouse]

What is knowledge?

Belief that has become truth and evolved to the point of knowledge