I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

It should, at very least, say that I don't believe in Bigfoot.

Right, but that in no way means that you don't believe in the possibility of Bigfoot. It simply says that you haven't been convinced yet, but your mind is open to the possibility.

 

[Willamena]

According to your cited explanation, a lack of belief in God would be "the part that neither speaks in favor of nor against A".

Yes.

These would be weak atheists, which are included in the parent category "atheism" in general. That is my argument. Thus, "atheist", which must include both weak and strong atheists, must be general enough to include those that neither speaks in favor nor against the existence of God. Right?

If you insist; whatever works for you. I'm happy with just categories of atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes.


If you insist; whatever works for you. I'm happy with just categories of atheists.

And, you agree that the parent term, "atheism", must be general enough to include all subcategories, right? The second and third option for belief in God?

 

[ArtieE]

Actually, basic logic includes three possibilities: "Figuratively, a proposition A divides the agent's knowledge or belief base into three mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: a part that speaks in favor of A,

Theism.

a part that speaks against A (i.e., in favor of W \ A)

Strong atheism

and a part that neither speaks in favor of nor against A."

Weak atheism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree with that.

However, when I say, "I don't believe in Bigfoot," I am asserting that, as far as I'm concerned, I believe there are none. That's just English as I learned it.

Fine, but it's not what the statement actually implies. If I say "I don't drink wine", it could mean "I don't like the taste of wine", or it could mean "I am a recovering alcoholic and no longer drink wine", or it could mean "I have never and will never drink wine regardless of the taste". However, these positions are not necessarily implied in the statement "I don't drink wine", from which the only implication we can really draw is that the person saying it, for whatever reason, does not drink wine. In exactly the same way, you may equate "I don't believe in bigfoot" to saying "I don't believe bigfoot exists", but when someone tells you they don't believe in bigfoot, the only necessary conclusion to draw is that they don't believe in bigfoot, not that they believe bigfoot does not exist.

It is simply to say that my beliefs lie elsewhere than with the stated belief that there are Bigfoot. My beliefs, which compose the world I know, lie with a world that does not include Bigfoot in it.

This is identical to saying "I don't believe in bigfoot", but not the same thing as saying "I believe bigfoot doesn't exist".

Actually, basic logic includes three possibilities: "Figuratively, a proposition A divides the agent's knowledge or belief base into three mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts: a part that speaks in favor of A, a part that speaks against A (i.e., in favor of W \ A), and a part that neither speaks in favor of nor against A." (Formal Representations of Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And those positions can be divided into two: accepting A and not accepting A. Where is the contradiction?

 

[Willamena]

Fine, but it's not what the statement actually implies.

Yes, it is--it does actually mean that to me.

If I say "I don't drink wine", it could mean "I don't like the taste of wine", or it could mean "I am a recovering alcoholic and no longer drink wine", or it could mean "I have never and will never drink wine regardless of the taste". However, these positions are not necessarily implied in the statement "I don't drink wine", from which the only implication we can really draw is that the person saying it, for whatever reason, does not drink wine. In exactly the same way, you may equate "I don't believe in bigfoot" to saying "I don't believe bigfoot exists", but when someone tells you they don't believe in bigfoot, the only necessary conclusion to draw is that they don't believe in bigfoot, not that they believe bigfoot does not exist.

This is identical to saying "I don't believe in bigfoot", but not the same thing as saying "I believe bigfoot doesn't exist".

I agree that no added implications are necessary when one speaks. But if I say to anyone around me now, "I don't believe in God," they'll understand it just the same way I do. Nothing more, nothing less. The only implication one need draw from it is that I don't believe in God. I've hung up my sign, and it says, "No God necessary." Just as I don't believe in Bigfoot.

And yes, the implication is about Bigfoot's existence. The phrase, "believe in," carries that implication. We believe in things because they have the appearance of being true.

And those positions can be divided into two: accepting A and not accepting A. Where is the contradiction?

That there's three.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, it is--it does actually mean that to me.


I agree that no added implications are necessary when one speaks. But if I say to anyone around me now, "I don't believe in God," they'll understand it just the same way I do. Nothing more, nothing less. The only implication one need draw from it is that I don't believe in God. I've hung up my sign, and it says, "No God necessary." Just as I don't believe in Bigfoot.

And yes, the implication is about Bigfoot's existence. The phrase, "believe in," carries that implication. We believe in things because they have the appearance of being true.


That there's three.

But, don't you disregard the third option as not being possible (not taking a position either way on the existence of God ... not believing that God exists and not believing that God does not exist)?

 

[Curious George]

Fine, but it's not what the statement actually implies. If I say "I don't drink wine", it could mean "I don't like the taste of wine", or it could mean "I am a recovering alcoholic and no longer drink wine", or it could mean "I have never and will never drink wine regardless of the taste". However, these positions are not necessarily implied in the statement "I don't drink wine", from which the only implication we can really draw is that the person saying it, for whatever reason, does not drink wine. In exactly the same way, you may equate "I don't believe in bigfoot" to saying "I don't believe bigfoot exists", but when someone tells you they don't believe in bigfoot, the only necessary conclusion to draw is that they don't believe in bigfoot, not that they believe bigfoot does not exist.


This is identical to saying "I don't believe in bigfoot", but not the same thing as saying "I believe bigfoot doesn't exist".


And those positions can be divided into two: accepting A and not accepting A. Where is the contradiction?

I appreciate your appreciation of semantics.

"I don't drink wine" means just that. There is no I don't drink wine and I don't not drink wine camp. And implicit non-wine drinkers, would never say they don't drink wine because they wouldn't know what wine is.

 

[ArtieE]

That there's three.

Three.
1. Theism (accepting A)
2. Weak atheism (not accepting A)
3. Strong atheism (not accepting A)

Two positions: accepting A and not accepting A

See post 644

 

[Curious George]

Three.
1. Theism (accepting A)
2. Weak atheism (not accepting A)
3. Strong atheism (not accepting A)

Two positions: accepting A and not accepting A

See post 644

You understand that this is arbitrary right?

1. Disbelief in God (atheism)
2. Not having a disbelief in God (weak theism)
3. Believing in God (theism).

 

[ArtieE]

I appreciate your appreciation of semantics.

"I don't drink wine" means just that. There is no I don't drink wine and I don't not drink wine camp. And implicit non-wine drinkers, would never say they don't drink wine because they wouldn't know what wine is.

I don't drink wine. Not that I have anything against wine-drinking, I just don't like the taste.

 

[Curious George]

I don't drink wine. Not that I have anything against wine-drinking, I just don't like the taste.

Then you don't drink wine do you? You don't also not-not drink wine.

 

[ArtieE]

You understand that this is arbitrary right?

1. Disbelief in God (atheism)
2. Not having a disbelief in God (weak theism)
3. Believing in God (theism).

If you start out with strong atheism you have

1. Belief that god doesn't exist. (Strong atheism)
2. Absence of belief god doesn't exist, absence of belief god does exist. (Weak atheism)
3. Belief that god does exist. (Theism)

 

[Nakosis]

If you start out with strong atheism you have

1. Belief that god doesn't exist. (Strong atheism)
2. Absence of belief god doesn't exist, absence of belief god does exist. (Weak atheism)
3. Belief that god does exist. (Theism)

So what is the difference between a "week atheist" and an agnostic?

 

[Willamena]

But, don't you disregard the third option as not being possible (not taking a position either way on the existence of God ... not believing that God exists and not believing that God does not exist)?

The third option, to neither believe nor not believe, is entirely possible. But when I say, "I don't believe in God," my little voice has "spoken against proposition A."

Right, but that in no way means that you don't believe in the possibility of Bigfoot. It simply says that you haven't been convinced yet, but your mind is open to the possibility.

I don't believe in the possibility of Bigfoot, and I won't, until and unless I see some evidence that hasn't been contaminated by the possibility of forgery.

My mind is open, but only to the possibility of that evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

So what is the difference between a "week atheist" and an agnostic?

Apples and oranges. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism about knowledge. When we talk about theism/atheism we only talk about belief, when we talk about gnosticism/agnosticism we talk about knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

I suppose one can also say I have no belief in the concept of no God?

If you did, it would make no-God a positive.

 

[JoStories]

Yes. I'm fine with others thinking differently.
I'm just offering up what it means to me. Nothing more.

Just so you know, I feel,the same way you do, and one generalized term for all atheists is just dandy with me.

 

[ArtieE]

The third option is entirely possible. But when I say, "I don't believe in God," my little voice has "spoken against proposition A."

No it hasn't. You have used the third logical option. By not saying "I believe god doesn't exist" which is against proposition A, you have used the third logical option. You might as well have said: "I don't believe in God, and I don't believe that god doesn't exist." That is what people knowing this logic will think.

 

[outhouse]

1. Disbelief in God (atheism)

That goes against the definition.

You seem to ignore the definition that also includes implicit atheism.


One can be an atheist without conscious rejection of the concept.