"Humans are born as atheists"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Speculation deals with what might exist. How do you make the leap to dismiss it as non-existent?

Even more impressive: how do you dismiss as non-existent all the things that you've never even thought of?

 

[ArtieE]

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.

You said and I quote: "To exist is to be known to exist". So if something isn't known to exist it doesn't exist. That is what your sentence means. Would you like to rephrase?

 

[Willamena]

Speculation deals with what might exist. How do you make the leap to dismiss it as non-existent?

I don't. I specifically said I don't believe in non-existent things. I have no problem with things being speculative.

Even more impressive: how do you dismiss as non-existent all the things that you've never even thought of?

As a fantasy. Not as non-existent.

 

[Willamena]

You said and I quote: "To exist is to be known to exist". So if something isn't known to exist it doesn't exist.

Non-existent things don't exist. The world is positive--to try to negate it creates an absurdity. Hence the introduction of words to speak about speculation, imagination, fiction, fantasy, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't. I specifically said I don't believe in non-existent things. I have no problem with things being speculative.


As a fantasy. Not as non-existent.

When you're ready to be coherent, let me know and maybe we can continue this conversation.

 

[ArtieE]

Non-existent things don't exist. The world is positive--to try to negate it creates an absurdity. Hence the introduction of words to speak about speculation, imagination, fiction, fantasy, etc.

This is another example of a post that probably makes sense in your head but makes no sense to us because your logic and reasoning doesn't resemble what we use. Your logic and reasoning is uniquely your own.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must agree. Whatever parameters you are using, @Willamena , are simply not working to help you create statements that make sense far as we are concerned.

They probably follow some sort of logical rigor by your own standards for the meaning of the concepts involved, but those are both unclear and of questionable practical value.

 

[`mud]

hey Willie,
Is everyone drunk ?
where's me beer !
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

If someone wants to get back on topic, I'd be more than happy to oblige.

 

[atanu]

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".

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 t.

You seem to have no idea of nature of 'measure'.

If measures such as 'atheism' and 'theism' can be used similarly as 'tall' or 'short', without referring to the actual belief of the subject, then anything goes. Like stones are atheists.

Theism and atheism pertain to belief/non-belief of the subject person and is different from measures such as weight, length etc.

As long as you employ ego, you will not agree to this.

 

[atanu]

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".

What a claim.

There is a class 'neither theist nor atheist', which describes all stones and babies.

 

[leibowde84]

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).

Isn't this limited to subjective existence though ... our perception of our own existence?

 

[atanu]

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.

Your idea is inane and crazy too. The position is simple. I neither believe nor disbelieve in Pellervoinen.

If I have not judged about 'X' at all, it does not make me a disbeliever or a believer. I neither believe nor disbelieve 'X'.

 

[allfoak]

hey Willie,
Is everyone drunk ?
where's me beer !
~
'mud

Now, Now @'mud
If you want to join in then do so, just don't make a spectacle of yourself.

 

[leibowde84]

Your idea is inane and crazy too. The position is simple. I neither believe nor disbelieve in Pellervoinen.

If I have not judged about 'X' at all, it does not make me a disbeliever or a believer. I neither believe nor disbelieve 'X'.

It all depends on whether you define atheism as the "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (obviously would include any person who, for whatever reason, doesn't believe or know about God) or "active and considered belief that God does not exist".

 

[atanu]

It all depends on whether you define atheism as the "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (obviously would include any person who, for whatever reason, doesn't believe or know about God) or "active and considered belief that God does not exist".

Will a statement "I lack belief in love" be meaningful if I did not know what love was?

We have discussed this earlier. There is a category where 'neither belief nor disbelief' applies. A baby has 'neither a belief nor a dis-belief' regarding deity.

This classification reflects the true situation.

 

[Draka]

I thought about reading this entire thread, then realized I would likely drive myself batty. So, without trudging through all the muck I'll give my answer here...babies aren't born atheist or theist, they are simply ignorant at best. Both atheism and theism are stances upon a particular subject. Information must be present to have a stance. Babies lack this information to have a stance in the first place, so they are neither. And not only is information required, but the cognitive skills to decipher said information, which babies clearly do not have. So, no, we are not all born atheists. We aren't born theists. We are born ignorant to the subject entirely.

 

[leibowde84]

Will a statement "I lack belief in love" be meaningful if I did not know what love was?

We have discussed this earlier. There is a category where 'neither belief nor disbelief' applies. A baby has 'neither a belief nor a dis-belief' regarding deity.

This classification reflects the true situation.

I agree that a baby neither believes or disbelieves. My argument is that "atheism" includes anyone who "lacks belief". To lack means to be without. Thus, a baby would be included as a baby is without a belief in the existence of God. The term atheism isn't very meaningful at all. It merely refers to those without belief in any deities.

 

[leibowde84]

Will a statement "I lack belief in love" be meaningful if I did not know what love was?

We have discussed this earlier. There is a category where 'neither belief nor disbelief' applies. A baby has 'neither a belief nor a dis-belief' regarding deity.

This classification reflects the true situation.

And, we are talking about implicit classification. So, once any claim of belief or disbelief is made, we are outside the realm of implicit atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

I thought about reading this entire thread, then realized I would likely drive myself batty. So, without trudging through all the muck I'll give my answer here...babies aren't born atheist or theist, they are simply ignorant at best. Both atheism and theism are stances upon a particular subject. Information must be present to have a stance. Babies lack this information to have a stance in the first place, so they are neither. And not only is information required, but the cognitive skills to decipher said information, which babies clearly do not have. So, no, we are not all born atheists. We aren't born theists. We are born ignorant to the subject entirely.

Can you support your claim that "atheism" is necessarily a statement? Those that are ignorant of the concept of God still lack, or are without a belief in God, right?