"Atheist"--the term itself

[Ouroboros]

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.

How do you know that Koko can ponder about the existence of God and be "lacking" belief from it?

 

[Willamena]

Do your own research.

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

Then you only need understand that something that something unknown and unknowable is not something that one can believe in, and that the negation of belief isn't something unique from belief.

 

[prometheus11]

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.

Unknown means unknown, not non existent. Just because you don't know that someone's an atheist doesn't mean they aren't.

Can you make those three statements in active voice without switching to passive voice on the last one?

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

They are atheists because they will have the capacity to believe and might do so at some point. They are also apolitical since they don't engage in politics but they will be able to later.

 

[prometheus11]

Then you only need understand that something that something unknown and unknowable is not something that one can believe in, and that the negation of belief isn't something unique from belief.

No. I don't "need" to know that.

Negation isn't required. Neither is refusal. Neither is rejection

Non belief means there's no belief.

 

[prometheus11]

How do you know that Koko can ponder about the existence of God and be "lacking" belief from it?

I don't. I said it is possible.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the terminology we are discussing.

You don't believe that we are as a species predisposed to spirituality has anything to do with whether atheism is the default position or not?

I didn't say "demanded."

No, you said insisted. Very different. Would you like to answer the question?

 

[Willamena]

No. I don't "need" to know that.

Negation isn't required. Neither is refusal. Neither is rejection

Non belief means there's no belief.

"Non" and "no" are negation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense. See, also, here.

Exactly the sort of monotheistic-normative baggage I was talking about:

Atheism
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

Edit:
[...]
Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

(though even your source defines an atheist as one who "does not believe" rather than Augustus's "actively disbelieves")

 

[Ouroboros]

Unknown means unknown, not non existent.

For a rock it's non-existent.

Just because you don't know that someone's an atheist doesn't mean they aren't.

Just because you don't know that someone's an atheist or theist doesn't mean their atheist.

Can you make those three statements in active voice without switching to passive voice on the last one?

Unknown is unknown. To claim that a person, being, baby, rock, or a cloud is somehow atheist because we don't know is to assume things that are unknowable and undefined.

They are atheists because they will have the capacity to believe and might do so at some point.

No. Until they have the capacity they're neither. To be an atheist is to have the capacity. You can't be something now that you can only be later. You don't fall of the rock now because you will fall of it tomorrow.

They are also apolitical since they don't engage in politics but they will be able to later.

Which is stupid because they're also afairist, asmokist, afoodist, aEarthist, auniversists, aphysicists, a-anything-ists.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't. I said it is possible.

You don't know, so therefore you don't know. To say that you know because we don't know is irrational.

 

[prometheus11]

You don't believe that we are as a species predisposed to spirituality has anything to do with whether atheism is the default position or not?

Lol

Reread what I wrote.

No, you said insisted. Very different. Would you like to answer the question?

Yes, it's a different term. Different meaning.

Understand the difference between the terms, then see how you need to rephrase your question.

 

[prometheus11]

"Non" and "no" are negation.

Atheism deals with belief. No belief.

As in zero. None.

No negation. Merely value. Zero.

 

[prometheus11]

You don't know, so therefore you don't know. To say that you know because we don't know is irrational.

Yes. Good thing I never said that. Ever.

A coin is heads or tails. You might not know which, but that doesn't change that it's one or the other.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. Good thing I never said that. Ever.

Good.

A coin is heads or tails. You might not know which, but that doesn't change that it's one or the other.

Or the coin is still in the air spinning and neither side has been decided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are deity neutral, not atheists.

The label "atheist" includes the "deity neutral".

Everyone is "deity neutral" to the vast majority of deities that humanity has believed in.

 

[prometheus11]

For a rock it's non-existent.


Just because you don't know that someone's an atheist or theist doesn't mean their atheist.


Unknown is unknown. To claim that a person, being, baby, rock, or a cloud is somehow atheist because we don't know is to assume things that are unknowable and undefined.


No. Until they have the capacity they're neither. To be an atheist is to have the capacity. You can't be something now that you can only be later. You don't fall of the rock now because you will fall of it tomorrow.


Which is stupid because they're also afairist, asmokist, afoodist, aEarthist, auniversists, aphysicists, a-anything-ists.

1. Duh.
2. Duh. But they either believe or they don't.
3. I can't reply to nonsense. You're mixing ideas and suppositions. Separate, codify, clarify.
4. No, to be an atheist means to lack belief. Belief or unbelief is irrelevant UNLESS at some point n time you can believe. If at any point in time you can believe, then it's relevant. Therefore, babies and people who are brain dead are atheists. At one time or another, they could be theists/believers, but aren't now.
5. Yep, where those positive beliefs are viable and popular in the individual's culture as "isms" worldview/belief sets.

 

[prometheus11]

Good.


Or the coin is still in the air spinning and neither side has been decided.

If the person is undecided, then they haven't settled on "belief" and are currently an atheist. I'm undecided on gods I haven't heard about. But, on those gods, I also lack belief, since I don't know about them, so I'm an atheist with regards to them, also.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

.

I'm very much in the active disbelief camp, as I find the 'lack of belief' view nonsensical. It defines atheism as literally nothing, the word has no referent and is therefore just a symbolic symbol with no meaning. The disbelief definition describes something and therefore has some degree of meaning.

I also think it is impossible to lack belief in god, unless you don't understand what the word means. People don't lack belief in unicorns, they hold the belief that they are fictitious horse like creatures created by the imagination of people of old. I consider the same to be true about god, particularly for active posters on a religious debate forum. That such a person could have an absence of belief is not plausible.

A lack of belief doesn't need to be a belief in itself. A simple illustration

Person 1: "I saw a flying saucer."
Person 2: "I don't believe you."

Person 2 does not hold a belief that flying saucers don't exist. He just doesn't believe that Person 1 saw a flying saucer. There is a fundamental difference between believing something is not true ( let's call it active atheism) and not believing something is true (passive atheism).

See the difference? When you believe something is not true, you must have reasons for that belief.

Whereas not believing until proven is the default and logical stance.

Not believing the existence of God is what i define as atheism. Therefore I think that atheism under this definition is not only nothing, it is the default, logical position to hold. You might argue that it is a symbolic symbol, but I think atheists are forced into this position by society where a god structure is all pervasive, and therefore a reaction is almost mandated. There is no other context where I would be forced to make my position clear to society, except maybe sexuality. Maybe we need a better word for it?

 

[Sunstone]

...I think atheists are forced into this position by society where a god structure is all pervasive, and therefore a reaction is almost mandated. There is no other context where I would be forced to make my position clear to society, except maybe sexuality.

Fascinating point! It reminds me of the Texas custom of asking people, especially people you've just met, which church they attend.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Fascinating point! It reminds me of the Texas custom of asking people, especially people you've just met, which church they attend.

Exactly!