"Humans are born as atheists"

[Demonslayer]

To lack a believe in 'X', you need to know what 'X' is.

Untrue.

Prior to this moment, my guess is you've never heard of Pellervionen. Pellervoinen is an old Finnish God who had domain over fields and trees.

One either believes in Pellervoinen, or one doesn't. Yesterday you lacked belief in Pellervoinen.

I mean this idea is crazy, that we need to know what something is to "lack belief" in it. There are an infinite number of things you don't know...you don't believe in any of them.

 

[ArtieE]

It is funny. Whether the stone or the baby or the person that you are labelling as atheist has considered the question or not, in your eyes a stone is an atheist and so is a baby. That puts a self proclaimed weak atheist in good company.

Look at the video again at around 5 minutes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is truly non sensical. Weak atheists, babies, and stones are atheists in non-thinking mode. Ha. Ha.

Let us examine the anomaly for the last time. If you engage in stock broking, you are a stock broker. If you do not, you are a non stock broker. It pertains to action.

If you believe in deity you are theist. If you lack a belief or you disbelieve you are atheist. To lack a believe in 'X', you need to know what 'X' is. I will repeat. A statement "I lack love in life", implies a knowledge of what love is. It pertains to knowledge.
....

You're misrepresenting things. You're conflating the self-reflection inherent in statements about onesself with the term being used.

Any time we apply a term to onesself, it's implied that we have thought about the term. If I say "I'm tall", you can infer that I've thought about what it means to be tall and decided that it applies to me. However, this self-reflection is not inherent in the word "tall".

When we talk about someone else (e.g. "he lacks love in life") we can recognize that we aren't saying anything about the subject's awareness.

Same for atheism: I can say "she's an atheist" about someone who has no idea what "atheist" means. All that matters is that you and I understand the terms I'm using.

 

[Willamena]

Untrue.

Prior to this moment, my guess is you've never heard of Pellervionen. Pellervoinen is an old Finnish God who had domain over fields and trees.

One either believes in Pellervoinen, or one doesn't. Yesterday you lacked belief in Pellervoinen.

I mean this idea is crazy, that we need to know what something is to "lack belief" in it. There are an infinite number of things you don't know...you don't believe in any of them.

Yesterday, you could judge him lacking belief in Pellervoinen. It's only today that he could judge himself that. That's because until today "X" did not exist for him, though it did for you. So while "X" exists that judgement of "lack of X" can be made, and while it doesn't, that judgement of "lack of X" cannot be made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yesterday, you could judge him lacking belief in Pellervoinen. It's only today that he could judge himself that. That's because until today "X" did not exist for him, though it did for you. So while "X" exists that judgement of "lack of X" can be made, and while it doesn't, that judgement of "lack of X" cannot be made.

So your answer is:

- solipsism
- people can't call other people atheists unless they call themselves atheists

Really?

 

[Valjean]

So yesterday he was a weak a-Pellervionist. Now that he's heard of Pellervion he might be either a weak or strong apervellionist.
Unless, of course, he now believes in Pellervion.

He might be in a sauna with Peller as we speak.

 

[Willamena]

So your answer is:

- solipsism
- people can't call other people atheists unless they call themselves atheists

Really?

No. Classical logic.

Edit: I never proposed that people can't call others atheist. In fact, I asserted the opposite.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Classical logic.

You flatter yourself.

 

[ArtieE]

No. Classical logic.

Edit: I never proposed that people can't call others atheist. In fact, I asserted the opposite.

I can call everybody who's not theist "not theist" right? Or I can use the word "atheist", which literally means the same: "not theist".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Edit: I never proposed that people can't call others atheist. In fact I asserted the opposite.

This is the second time today that you've claimed to say something that you didn't actually say. Maybe you should work on expressing your intended meaning more effectively.

 

[Willamena]

You flatter yourself.

Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with solipsism.

 

[Willamena]

This is the second time today that you've claimed to say something that you didn't actually say. Maybe you should work on expressing your intended meaning more effectively.

I'll do that (not).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with solipsism.

This is solipsism:

That's because until today "X" did not exist for him

 

[Willamena]

This is solipsism:

It's really not. It's just relative.

Solipsism holds that there is an external world, but that it is entirely uncertain. That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's really not. It's just relative.

Solipsism holds that there is an external world, but that it is entirely uncertain. That has nothing to do with what I said.

Whatever you call it, your position is based on the premise that something does not exist if the person in question isn't aware of it. This is an absurd position. More to the point for effective communication, this position is not widely accepted.

 

[Willamena]

Whatever you call it, your position is based on the premise that something does not exist if the person in question isn't aware of it. This is an absurd position. More to the point for effective communication, this position is not widely accepted.

Close. To exist is to be known to exist, or verified if you like. That's just sound epistemology.

We have other words for things that are said to exist but cannot be confirmed to exist (fiction, fantasy, imagination, speculation, etc).

 

[ArtieE]

Close. To exist is to be known to exist, or verified if you like. That's just sound epistemology.

Is this another example of your personal logic? Things that are not known to exist, don't exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Close. To exist is to be known to exist, or verified if you like. That's just sound epistemology.

It is not sound epistemology not to allow for the possibility of the existence of things beyond our current sphere of knowledge.

 

[`mud]

There are a lot of left-handed threads here,
aren't there ?
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

Is this another example of your personal logic? Things that are not known to exist, don't exist?

It is not sound epistemology not to allow for the possibility of the existence of things beyond our current sphere of knowledge.

Those are covered in the line that you deleted from my post (fiction, fantasy, imagination, speculation, etc).

I don't believe in non-existent things.