"Atheist"--the term itself

[Mister Emu]

That's just your opinion.

Can you give me a use of implicit atheism that doesn't ring the same bells as calling babies atheists?

It can explain the evolution from atheism to theism in more detail then just the names themselves.

That presumes an evolution from atheism to theism.

And I would not call how you describe your child as absurd, even if I disagreed. [ I know your not directly or indirectly] My daughter was born an atheist as no one taught her theism yet.

I'm at a loss to respond. This debate is funny and ridiculous and I laugh every time I come to this thread that there is a serious defense of the idea that babies are atheists. And now you brought your family into it. I know you don't mean to stifle the discussion, but... that is what it sure seems like. Help me here.

If I defined an implicit theism around the idea that if you haven't expressed or created atheistic ideation you are a theist, would you just as whole heartedly support and vigorously defend labeling babies as theists?

 

[Augustus]

atheism" is the "lack of belief in all/any deity", so your sun example doesn't make much sense. I

You hold the belief that the sun is not god; you don't lack belief that the sun exists. See the difference?

the "a" prefix merely means "without theism".

It also means not. a theos - not god. So everyone is atheist as no one is god.

It's fallacious to reason that you can appeal to letters to establish the meaning of a word, it is only about usage. If it was about the letters then the word was used 'wrongly' for 2500 years until someone 30 years ago noticed the 'true' definition based on the letters.

It shouldn't be confusing either, because, as with theism, atheism as subcategories (strong, weak, gnostic, agnostic, militant, etc.).

It shouldn't be confusing that atheism is a belief either. Many people seem to see it a pejorative or a move to discredit atheism. Neither is remotely true. It's just you can't have an absence of belief regarding things you are aware of.

Belief is neural activity. Absence of belief is absence of additional neural activity. You don't have an absence of neural activity as regards the existence of god(s)

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.

Withholding judgement until you get more evidence is a belief. You believe there is insufficient evidence to render the statement true.

I find it quite amazing about the amount of words people can write about an absence of belief: literally nothing.

People can write lengthy posts about why there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of god, then with a perfectly straight face claim that they have a total absence of belief on the subject of god's existence.

Does this not strike you as slightly absurd? To write hundreds of words justifying their total absence of thought about a particular issue that they have spent years researching and discussing on the internet.

 

[prometheus11]

It also means not. a theos - not god. So everyone is atheist as no one is god.

That's why the "ist" / "ism" suffixes are there. Instead of "no God" it means "no God belief"

It's fallacious to reason that you can appeal to letters to establish the meaning of a word, it is only about usage. If it was about the letters then the word was used 'wrongly' for 2500 years until someone 30 years ago noticed the 'true' definition based on the letters.

I've corrected you on this before, more than once.

We're not dealing with letters, we are dealing with groups of letters.

We're talking about molecules, not atoms.

It shouldn't be confusing that atheism is a belief either. Many people seem to see it a pejorative or a move to discredit atheism. Neither is remotely true. It's just you can't have an absence of belief regarding things you are aware of.

Of course you can. Don't be ridiculous. It may be that some people cannot put that fine a point on their position, but that lack of ability doesn't bother those of us that can. Not everyone can skip rope.

Belief is neural activity. Absence of belief is absence of additional neural activity. You don't have an absence of neural activity as regards the existence of god(s)

That's just false.

Mowing your yard is a chore. Not mowing your yard is absence of that chore. It's not that you suddenly don't exist or all chores in the world cease to exist if you don't now your yard.

Withholding judgement until you get more evidence is a belief. You believe there is insufficient evidence to render the statement true.

Yep. A belief about evidence. Not God.

I find it quite amazing about the amount of words people can write about an absence of belief: literally nothing.

Strawman.

People who lack belief in something can discuss ideas about that hypothetical being as presented by believers. They aren't discussing "literally nothing." How preposterous.

People can write lengthy posts about why there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of god, then with a perfectly straight face claim that they have a total absence of belief on the subject of god's existence.

What sort of face should they have when making a perfectly sensible statement? The listener's incredulity doesn't affect the speaker's rationality.

Does this not strike you as slightly absurd? To write hundreds of words justifying their total absence of thought about a particular issue that they have spent years researching and discussing on the internet.

No. Certainly it's nowhere as absurd as claiming that belief about certain proposed evidence is somehow the same as belief about the subject of that evidence as you have.

 

[Augustus]

We're not dealing with letters, we are dealing with groups of letters.

That's my favourite post since someone argued that if the Biblical account of the crucifixion was accuarate, then Pilate's sympathy for Jesus would have led to him being crucified "with dignity and respect".

No. Certainly it's nowhere as absurd as claiming that belief about certain proposed evidence is somehow the same as belief about the subject of that evidence as you have.

"I believe that god's existence is currently unproven due to lack of evidence."

That's not a belief about god's existence?

Suit yourself.

 

[prometheus11]

That's my favourite post since someone argued that if the Biblical account of the crucifixion was accuarate, then Pilate's sympathy for Jesus would have led to him being crucified "with dignity and respect".

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. When someone is talking about a couch, do you refuse to use that term in favor of "wood-and-foam-and-upholstery?" We're talking about prefixes and suffixes, not letters.

"I believe that god's existence is currently unproven due to lack of evidence."

That's not a belief about god's existence?

Suit yourself.

Strawman.

You worded it wrong.

That wording doesn't represent the claim you are arguing against.

Let me help you:

Due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, I lack belief in any gods.


......

So no real response to my pints, huh?

 

[ArtieE]

"I believe that god's existence is currently unproven due to lack of evidence."

That's not a belief about god's existence?

No it isn't. It's a belief that god's existence is currently unproven due to lack of evidence not a belief that god exists or that god doesn't exist.

 

[Augustus]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. When someone is talking about a couch, do you refuse to use that term in favor of "wood-and-foam-and-upholstery?" We're talking about prefixes and suffixes, not letters.

You are basically arguing that groups of letters get their meaning from their current and historical usage unless that group of letters is 'atheism'. Atheism, uniquely, gets its meaning from the way some of its letters are sometimes used in some other words.

Due to insufficient and contradictory evidence, I lack disbeliefve in [the existence of] any gods.

You are arguing that objectively occurring neural activity can be negated through alternative grammatical constructs.

Suit yourself.

 

[prometheus11]

You are basically arguing that groups of letters get their meaning from their current and historical usage unless that group of letters is 'atheism'. Atheism, uniquely, gets its meaning from the way some of its letters are sometimes used in some other words.

No. I'm not.

You are arguing that objectively occurring neural activity can be negated through alternative grammatical constructs.
.

No. I'm not.

Debate must be easy when you erect and destroy your own strawmen.

 

[leibowde84]

If one understands that a word is practically meaningless and useless perhaps we should consider its use at all? Especially, when its use appears to be solely based on the absurd.

The only valid use of implicit atheism I can conjure is the idea of a non-human intellectual civilization wherein the concept of God does not exist at all and therefore they are all cognitively bereft of the idea and are "implicit atheists". I'll refer back to the end of my last paragraph and add that if the best use of your word is describing hypothetical alien societies perhaps it is best shelved.


I didn't say anything fairness. I was just asking if it was so much to avoid the absurdity of claiming animals, babies and inanimate objects as atheists. If ridicule is what you are seeking, go for it, you'll get it in spades with that.

I never said that we should identify toasters and babies as atheists. I merely said that, technically, they COULD BE identified as such. And, it is certainly not a legitimate reason to change the meaning of the term atheism, as it doesn't matter one iota whether an infant/toaster can be considered an atheist or atheistic.

 

[ArtieE]

I never said that we should identify toasters and babies as atheists. I merely said that, technically, they COULD BE identified as such. And, it is certainly not a legitimate reason to change the meaning of the term atheism, as it doesn't matter one iota whether an infant/toaster can be considered an atheist or atheistic.

Just remove all theists from the planet and all those who are left are atheists (not theists) no matter nationality or gender or age. But since as far as we know only humans are capable of being theists it only applies to humans not toasters.

 

[leibowde84]

Just remove all theists from the planet and all those who are left are atheists (not theists) no matter nationality or gender or age. But since as far as we know only humans are capable of being theists it only applies to humans not toasters.

Fair point. Don't see why babies and toasters matter though.

 

[ArtieE]

Fair point. Don't see why babies and toasters matter though.

Me neither. If you removed all car owners from the planet those who are left are per definition not car owners including babies. I have no idea why any rational person would mix in toasters and claim that they would be not car owners too.

 

[viole]

It would. It is in our biology and psychology to produce religion. Our "default" state as humans is religious-indeterminate.

Yes, homo Spiritualis. A sort of necessary arttribute for homo sapiens.

In a sense, I agree. I think it is an evolutionary adaptation that improves the fitness of any being that has a brain capable to potentially realize the pointlessness of the Universe. A sort of natural defense that creates purpose, among other things, that, despite being imaginary, allow us to live long enough to transmit a few replicators.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, homo Spiritualis. A sort of necessary arttribute for homo sapiens.

In a sense, I agree. I think it is an evolutionary adaptation that improves the fitness of any being that has a brain capable to potentially realize the pointlessness of the Universe. A sort of natural defense that creates purpose, among other things, that, despite being imaginary, allow us to live long enough to transmit a few replicators.

Ciao

- viole

Well, you've convinced me. That makes perfect sense. Well-put.

 

[viole]

Well, you've convinced me. That makes perfect sense. Well-put.

Thanks. But I expect you will be the only theist to agree with that

Ciao

- viole

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

They hold some form of belief as regards the existence of flying saucers, you just don't know what it is yet. Maybe 'they exist', maybe 'we don't know' or whatever else. They don't lack belief as they are aware of the concept of flying saucers.

It is perfectly logical to not know whether flying saucers exist or not. This does not mean I have to have a belief about flying saucers. It just means that I am aware of the concept of flying saucers. A belief is held, in the absence of absolute and complete knowledge. If I choose not to believe a claim until proven, my lack of belief is in itself not a belief, it just means I am skeptical.

Belief and knowledge are two very separate concepts, and I think you are having a hard time distinguishing between the two.

As soon as someone becomes aware of a god concept, they hold some kind of belief about the existence of god(s) that will put them into one of the atheist/agnostic/theist/etc. camps. A lack of belief is not possible, it is simply an absence of something. If you can comprehend the meaning of 'do god(s) exist?' You have some form of answer, some kind of belief as regards the existence of god(s): 'Yes, of course'; 'I find it improbable', 'that question can not be answered'. What you don't have though is the absence of a belief, a mental vacuum, there is something there no matter how small and unconsidered.

That would be like saying that as soon as you are aware of the concept of a stock market, you have to have a belief about how a particular stock is going to perform tomorrow.

Let consider this:
Person 1 : Stock A is going to increase 2000% tomorrow
Person 2: I don't believe you.

In this situation, does Person 2 need to have any belief about Stock A's performance? Why is "I don't know" not a good answer in this situation? Why is Person 2's lack of belief in itself a belief?
Person 2 simply doesn't have enough information to have a belief about a particular stock's performance. You may form an opinion or a belief after following the performance trend of a particular stock for a long time, but it is not reasonable to expect someone to hold a belief about a stock either way just because they are aware of the concept.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's why the "ist" / "ism" suffixes are there. Instead of "no God" it means "no God belief"

No. -ism doesn't mean that.

ism
ˈizəm/
noun
informalderogatory
noun: ism; plural noun: isms

1. a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
   "of all the isms, fascism is the most repressive"

Origin

late 17th century: independent usage of -ism.

-ism
suffix
suffix: -ism

1. 1.
   forming nouns:
2. 2.
   denoting an action or its result.
   "baptism"
   • denoting a state or quality.
     "barbarism"
3. 3.
   denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement.
   "Anglicanism"
   • denoting a basis for prejudice or discrimination.
     "racism"
4. 4.
   denoting a peculiarity in language.
   "colloquialism"
5. 5.
   denoting a pathological condition.
   "alcoholism"

Alcoholism isn't belief in alcohol.

Besides, agnosticism isn't "lack of belief in knowledge" either.

And also, atheos is the root word. -ism is the later attachment. So if -ism meant belief, the proper translation would be "belief in not God".

 

[leibowde84]

No. -ism doesn't mean that.


Alcoholism isn't belief in alcohol.

Besides, agnosticism isn't "lack of belief in knowledge" either.

And also, atheos is the root word. -ism is the later attachment. So if -ism meant belief, the proper translation would be "belief in not God".

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

I think you missed the point.

 

[ArtieE]

Besides, agnosticism isn't "lack of belief in knowledge" either.

You can say gnosticism = having knowledge. Agnosticism = not having knowledge. Theism = having belief. Atheism = not having belief.