"Atheist"--the term itself

[prometheus11]

What god? Whether it exists or not seems pretty relevant to your hypothetical.

Oh, I understand, now. You can't deal with hypotheticals. No wonder. I won't bother you after this post.

Well, if you could understand hypotheticals, I would say that the issue is your belief or lack of belief in the God whether or not it exists.

That's just it. I'm not an atheist to non-existent things, only to gods.

Yeah, I can't help you understand the term if you insist that there's only atheists if The God they lack belief in actually exists.

If you were able to grasp the concept of belief versus disbelief, I would explain that the particular God is irrelevant. Your lack of belief determines your atheism.

Because I don't take your view, and I believe someone can lack belief in gods whether or not they actually exist or not just like someone can lack belief in Bigfoot, regardless of whether or not it actually exists, I think when a person lacks belief in a God, whether the person is a baby r the best theologian in the world, they are an atheist with regards to any gods they lack belief in.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, I can't help you understand the term if you insist that there's only atheists if The God they lack belief in actually exists.

A God that doesn't exist is a non-existent. You don't get to be an atheist for believing in non-existents. That's not how it's defined.

I think I grasp the concept of belief better than you do.

Edit: We do believe in non-existents. It's just not something that makes us an atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lack of belief is atheism.

Are you seriously claiming that the default position is belief, and people are, by default, believing in the thousands of gods they don't know about?

There's a third position. The position of undefined. Look for tri-state, three state, or three value logic.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm supplying reasons for pages and pages, here. You've yet to give one.

There's the difference.

You've claimed that because babies are born without positive assent to the idea of Gods that they are born Atheists... that claim itself has a few instabilities in itself.

First, an ad absurdum: are babies also default holocaust deniers because they lack positive assent to the idea of the holocaust? They don't believe in the holocaust the same way they don't believe in deity.

This brings me to the next point. A rejection of deity requires encountering the concept of deity, which babies have no yet had. You are correct that they don't believe in deity yet, but leave off that they don't disbelieve in deity either. They are deity neutral, not atheists.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, neurological evidence suggests that we are, as a species, biologically predisposed to spirituality. Ergo, the spiritual is the default not atheism.

 

[prometheus11]

Atheists are those who do not believe, no matter the reason, be it ignorance, infancy, or brain defect; rejection and denial are separate topics.

Anything else?

 

[prometheus11]

There's a third position. The position of undefined. Look for tri-state, three state, or three value logic.

Correct.

I'm working off the framework theology has insisted on. You believe or you don't.

 

[Mister Emu]

Atheists are those who disbelieve

Exactly, and babies don't disbelieve. They're neutral.

Anything else?

Nothing in response to neurology pointing towards spirituality being a part of our collective biology?

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm working off the framework theology has insisted on. You believe or you don't.

Whose theology has demanded that framework? And why should anyone else be beholden to them?

 

[prometheus11]

Exactly, and babies don't disbelieve. They're neutral.


Nothing in response to neurology pointing towards spirituality being a part of our collective biology?

Sorry, I thought I had typed unbelief.

See the revised post.

We have a term for "spirituality" because we place importance on feelings of transcendence and the sublime. Seems cool to me. I'm not sure what that has to do with the terminology we are discussing.

 

[prometheus11]

Whose theology has demanded that framework? And why should anyone else be beholden to them?

I didn't say "demanded."

Power forces submission.

 

[Willamena]

Atheists are those who do not believe, no matter the reason, be it ignorance, infancy, or brain defect; rejection and denial are separate topics.

Anything else?

Atheists are those with a reasoned position.

 

[Ouroboros]

Correct.

I'm working off the framework theology has insisted on. You believe or you don't.

Three state is: 1) you believe, 0) you don't believe, or ø) the state of a person's belief is unknown.

 

[prometheus11]

Atheists are those with a reasoned position.

I disagree.

When it comes to Thor, you either believe he throws a hammer and makes lightening or you don't. Whether or not you have ever heard of him.

 

[prometheus11]

Three state is: 1) you believe, 0) you don't believe, or ø) the state of a person's belief is unknown.

Are you claiming that the unknown both believe and lack belief?

Can you make those same statements without switching to the passive voice on the third position?

 

[Willamena]

I disagree.

When it comes to Thor, you either believe he throws a hammer and makes lightening or you don't. Whether or not you have ever heard of him.

What is this "Thor" you speak of?

Bertrand Russell argued against such illogic a hundred years ago.

 

[prometheus11]

What is this "Thor" you speak of?

Bertrand Russell argued against such illogic a hundred years ago.

Do your own research.

I'll only understand if something is illogical if it is demonstrated as such in a compelling manner.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you claiming that the unknown both believe and lack belief?

No. The unknown is neither.

Can you make those same statements without switching to the passive voice on the third position?

Check out the three state logic.

 

[prometheus11]

No. The unknown is neither.


Check out the three state logic.

Unknown implies there is a state, we just don't know it at this time.

Again, can you make the same three statements without switching to the passive voice verb construction?

 

[prometheus11]

I would agree that inanimate objects and animals without the ability to ever ponder godness, can be neither. But mammals that have the ability to ponder a god at any time (some primates may at times be able to do this), either hold a belief in God or they don't hold a belief in God.

 

[Ouroboros]

Unknown implies there is a state, we just don't know it at this time.

Exactly. So to say that the default of the unknown state is off, it's to say that it is somehow known. Unknown means unknown.

Again, can you make the same three statements without switching to the passive voice verb construction?

Babies are neither theists nor atheists. They don't have the ability to form a judged opinion on the subject.