"Humans are born as atheists"

[ImmortalFlame]

I did, right there. You responded to it.

So, it had no relation whatsoever to anything I said?

 

[Willamena]

So, it had no relation whatsoever to anything I said?

Only in that it referred to what you said.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well explained, thanks. The crux of the argument at the moment varies from author to author, but I think the real problem lies in that some want to interpret atheism as negating having a belief, while others want to negate the belief.

It's the same old story.

I think the crux is really that some have the opinion that implicit atheism is a functional term, while others, like me, don't think it's useful at all. My personal preference is that atheism was only to signify explicit atheism and up, and not implicit or default. Years ago, the "implicit atheist" were rather labelled non-believer or non-theist, to signify that they didn't belong to any particular group of "-ism"s. And I'm still stuck in that view that an -ism is something you become or pick, not something you're assigned by others.

 

[atanu]

In this case, it is a matter of definitions. ...

Surely. That is understood clearly. A definition about a lack that needs defending.

Why would it be "more appropriate"? What makes a particular label "more appropriate" than another if both apply? It may be more accurate, ..

Yeah. Yes there any reason for adopting a meaningless definition that accords atheist status to stones and babies?

Sure, to claim it does. But it doesn't matter that the marble itself knows, or is even capable of knowing, which category it belongs to. No claim needs to even be made. Philosophically, the category "not white" exists independant of any ability to adopt such a position.

But that is what we are talking about. A marble cannot take a stand on theism or atheism, but in your eyes a marble is an atheist.

That's a pretty exceptional claim. How do you know that there aren't theists who know God?

Only egoists will stick to the claim that they know God, since by all scripture, it is God that knows.

The same way you can not believe the position "carrots are delicious" without ever having eaten a carrot. Absence of belief in a proposition is the default.

No. I believe in valid testimony and so I believe that carrots can be tasty. I know what carrots are. But whose testimony a baby or a stone accept? And then, when an atheist does not know God, how does he lack belief in it?

I repeat that a statement "I lack belief in love", implies a knowledge of love.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Only in that it referred to what you said.

So in what way is defining theism as "possessing the thought that there is a god" a reference to something I said?

 

[Augustus]

Since we've already discussed the word "atheism" to death, I'll just focus on "agnosticism":

agnosticism: the belief that the existence of gods is unknowable.

Surely it is just a 'lack of gnosticism'? One describes a belief the other the absence of a belief

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah. Yes there any reason for adopting a meaningless definition that accords atheist status to stones and babies?

Yes - because it correctly establishes atheism as the default position. Also, since the definition usually includes "a person" - or, at the very least, implies one - it's asinine to say it applies to stones.

But that is what we are talking about. A marble cannot take a stand on theism or atheism, but in your eyes a marble is an atheist.

Since a marble isn't a person, no it isn't. But even if we remove that clause from the definition, would you really argue that marbles don't lack a belief that there is a God? How many theist marbles have you met?

Only egoists will stick to the claim that they know God, since by all scripture, it is God that knows.

And only an egoist would claim to speak either for God or for all people who may or may not claim to know God.

No. I believe in valid testimony and so I believe that carrots can be tasty.

But even if you had never heard of a carrot, you would still, by default, not hold the belief that "carrots are tasty". You don't have to rely on anything, testimony included, to lack a belief.

I know what carrots are. But whose testimony a baby or a stone accept? And then, when an atheist does not know God, how does he lack belief in it?

That's exactly my point: if you have not accepted any position, based on testimony or otherwise, you by definition lack a belief in that position. In the exact same way as if you have no idea that blue coats exist, it is a reasonable conclusion that you don't own one.

I repeat that a statement "I lack belief in love", implies a knowledge of love.

You're confusing the statement with the position. You don't need to make a statement of a position in order to hold a position. I'm certain you have never actively stated that the Sun isn't made from jam-covered hermaphrodites, yet I doubt it is a position that you hold.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Surely it is just a 'lack of gnosticism'? One describes a belief the other the absence of a belief

Oh God, please don't draw us deeper down the rabbit hole!

 

[Thief]

not able to form a belief would be the lack thereof.....

belief is a thoughtful action....though sometimes shallow
if you take a stance....even a shallow one.....it is a belief

babies lack the ability and therefore lack belief

but an atheist will have made a choice....and taken a stance
it might be shallow
but a choice none the less

 

[Augustus]

Or they're just not aware of them, I suppose.

Don't you think it is possible that many of the atheists and agnostics here who prefer the disbelief definition aren't in fact prejudiced?

For example, an agnostic might prefer that people didn't call them 'implicit' atheists. Or an atheist might consider that expanding a term to cover people unaware of god or lacking the capability to understand the concept isn't really an improvement.

When words describe you personally, it is perfectly normal to disagree with others who use them in a way you disagree with, not a sign of prejudice.

I've not seen too much of that. It ultimately always seems to boil down to "A broad definition is somehow inherently less meaningful/appropriate than a more specific definition". I, personally, don't have an issue with people having their own, more specific definition of atheism - just with when they accuse another, less specific definition of somehow having less value or worth; as if a word's value is anything other than the definition under which it is being used in the particular topic of discussion. It just seems bizarre to me.

For me, it's more the consequences of the definition. It's not that the definition is broad, it's that it seems to make people think less clearly about the issue. The 'lack of belief' definition enables people to make certain arguments that I think are a woeful misrepresentation of reality that have potentially negative effects.

It is common here for people to say that atheism is simply the absence of belief and thus has no potential consequences whatsoever. So if someone says 'Lenin's atheism was one of the causes of his anti-theism', they will reply that atheism can't affect anything as it is literally nothing, the absence of a belief (even this is a flawed usage of the 'lack of belief definition as that one says 'disbelief or a lack of belief').

I personally believe it is impossible to have an absence of belief as to a concept that you understand. You can consider it true, false, unknown, unproven, likely but not certain, unlikely, etc. but you hold a belief regarding it.

Any belief can potentially affect other beliefs, therefore atheism can affect other beliefs. None of these subsequent beliefs are necessary or unavoidable, just potential.

So for 2000 years atheism was 'something', but in the 1980s it magically become nothing. In a world shaped by 'theisms' though, atheism (in the disbelief sense) can never be 'nothing'.

*in my opinion

 

[ArtieE]

Yeah. Yes there any reason for adopting a meaningless definition that accords atheist status to stones and babies?

But that is what we are talking about. A marble cannot take a stand on theism or atheism, but in your eyes a marble is an atheist.

Are you ever gonna stop making yourself look ridiculous? The definition of theist is:

1. (Theology) a person who believes in the doctrine of theism
2. (Theology) a person who believes in the existence of God or gods
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Theist

PERSON! NOT STONES!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Surely it is just a 'lack of gnosexplanation of what One describes a belief the other the absence of a belief

The word was coined as a riff on the idea of gnosis, but since we have plenty of explanat

Don't you think it is possible that many of the atheists and agnostics here who prefer the disbelief definition aren't in fact prejudiced?

For example, an agnostic might prefer that people didn't call them 'implicit' atheists. Or an atheist might consider that expanding a term to cover people unaware of god or lacking the capability to understand the concept isn't really an improvement.

Just because a person dislikes a term doesn't mean it can't apply to them.

When words describe you personally, it is perfectly normal to disagree with others who use them in a way you disagree with, not a sign of prejudice.

You mean like the way I disagree with you using the term in a way that implies that a person has to be a fool to be an atheist?

For me, it's more the consequences of the definition. It's not that the definition is broad, it's that it seems to make people think less clearly about the issue. The 'lack of belief' definition enables people to make certain arguments that I think are a woeful misrepresentation of reality that have potentially negative effects.

It is common here for people to say that atheism is simply the absence of belief and thus has no potential consequences whatsoever. So if someone says 'Lenin's atheism was one of the causes of his anti-theism', they will reply that atheism can't affect anything as it is literally nothing, the absence of a belief (even this is a flawed usage of the 'lack of belief definition as that one says 'disbelief or a lack of belief').

If you want to know why someone who rejects gods believes what he does, you can just ask him in a straightforward way instead of imposing your definition on him and tarring an entire group of people with the same brush.

I personally believe it is impossible to have an absence of belief as to a concept that you understand. You can consider it true, false, unknown, unproven, likely but not certain, unlikely, etc. but you hold a belief regarding it.

I believe that the term "god" is defined so incoherently that it can't be called a concept. What does this tell you about my belief in gods?

Any belief can potentially affect other beliefs, therefore atheism can affect other beliefs.

... if atheism was a belief.

There are plenty of beliefs that can result in atheism. Why not focus on those?

So for 2000 years atheism was 'something', but in the 1980s it magically become nothing. In a world shaped by 'theisms' though, atheism (in the disbelief sense) can never be 'nothing'.

I question your history.

... but yes: when we have a theistic background, atheism stands out against it... like white space in a newspaper.

 

[atanu]

Why would it be "more appropriate"? What makes a particular label "more appropriate" than another if both apply? It may be more accurate,

Yes - because it correctly establishes atheism as the default position. Also, since the definition usually includes "a person" - or, at the very least, implies one - it's asinine to say it applies to stones....

So, although, a stone may be called accurately as grey, you will call it 'not-white', in order to establish atheism as the default position. There is nothing to do with truth of the situation.

I agree. It is asinine to categorise a stone 'an atheist'. Is it not then asinine to call a baby an 'atheist'?

 

[ArtieE]

I agree. It is asinine to categorise a stone 'an atheist'. Is it not then asinine to call a baby an 'atheist'?

No, because the definition of theist is: "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods" and a baby is a person. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Theist

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not sure if you've utterly failed to understand what I'm saying or if you're being obtuse on purpose.
When I say that atheism is based on lack of belief, this does not mean that an atheist has no beliefs; it just means that of all the beliefs that the person holds, none of them are belief in a god, and this fact implies that he is an atheist.
Adult atheists, like all adults, hold beliefs about all sorts of things.

"it just means that of all the beliefs that the person holds"
What other belief one holds? Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[atanu]

Are you ever gonna stop making yourself look ridiculous? The definition of theist is:

1. (Theology) a person who believes in the doctrine of theism
2. (Theology) a person who believes in the existence of God or gods
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Theist

PERSON! NOT STONES!

Artie. I am ridiculous? I have always stated that stones and babies are not capable of being called atheists. It is not me but many atheists who have defended that stones are atheists. Further, Wikipedia gives this definition:

"Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

By this definition only stones and babies are true atheist, since no thinking person can harbour 'lack of belief in deity', without knowing the deity.
........

We can discuss in a civil manner once you stop clinging to your ridiculous notions.

 

[ArtieE]

Artie. I am ridiculous? I have always stated that stones and babies are not capable of being called atheists.

The definition of theist is: "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods". A baby is per definition a person. Hence a baby is per definition an atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods simply because a baby is too young to understand the concept of gods.

 

[`mud]

hey ArtieE,
and then comes knowledge !
~
'mud

 

[Augustus]

The word was coined as a riff on the idea of gnosis, but since we have plenty of explanat

Yes I know the word was created to have a specific meaning that isn't a 'lack', the (in conjunction with all of my previous arguments) was meant to show this beyond any doubt.

I was satirising the point that atheism must mean something simply because of the letters it is made up from rather than any actual usage of the term, an argument that many people have made (no idea if you are one of them or not).

Just because a person dislikes a term doesn't mean it can't apply to them.

... if atheism was a belief.

If you want to know why someone who rejects gods believes what he does, you can just ask him in a straightforward way instead of imposing your definition on him and tarring an entire group of people with the same brush.

A touch ironic that you appear to imposing your definition on others.

On the other hand, I have repeatedly said there are many potential definitions, I just prefer one of them for the reasons I've given.

You mean like the way I disagree with you using the term in a way that implies that a person has to be a fool to be an atheist?

Of course.

Just that I think you are relying on a unique and very flawed reasoning to hold the view that it is necessary to disbelieve in every potential god concept in the universe to say you disbelieve in god.

It takes all sorts.

I believe that the term "god" is defined so incoherently that it can't be called a concept. What does this tell you about my belief in gods?

Based on this sentence alone I'd say that you reject the term 'I believe in god' as meaningful. As to whether this is atheism depends on your definition of atheism, attitudes towards cognition, etc.

Based on the totality of your posts, I'd say it illustrates your lack of understanding that words can have multiple definitions. You usually argue that because polytheistic gods and monotheistic gods can't be described with the same definition that this makes the word meaningless.

I'd have more sympathy for your position if it was that the monotheistic God can't be conceptualised, as polytheistic gods readily can. Simply that they require an additional definition doesn't invalidate the term god.

I question your history.

This is where we move slightly beyond subjective preference.

What is your history that shows atheism as being nothing?

 

[atanu]

But even if you had never heard of a carrot, you would still, by default, not hold the belief that "carrots are tasty". You don't have to rely on anything, testimony included, to lack a belief.

No. When I say "I lack belief in love", it is implied that I know what love is.

That's exactly my point: if you have not accepted any position, based on testimony or otherwise, you by definition lack a belief in that position.

If I have not taken a position based on testimony or otherwise, I neither hold a position nor not hold a position.

You're confusing the statement with the position. You don't need to make a statement of a position in order to hold a position. I'm certain you have never actively stated that the Sun isn't made from jam-covered hermaphrodites, yet I doubt it is a position that you hold.

What? A statement "I lack a belief in deity" cannot come without a position, just as "I lack a belief in love" cannot without gnosis of love.

I will reverse the the odd statement that you made above, since statements follow position and not the other way around. If I have never actively considered whether sun is or is not made of 'X', I will say I hold no belief in the matter. I have neither belief nor disbelief.