If atheism is a 'lack of a position', then it can't be the default position

[buddhist]

and yet still neither one believes....

That's fine, but one does not even ponder the concept, whereas the other does.

The former has extinguished the concept from his mind and can be said to neither believe nor not believe.

The latter dwells on the concept and actively disbelieves.

 

[McBell]

If you prefer, I differentiate between two types of atheists then.

yeppers.
But they are are still atheists.

 

[McBell]

That's fine, but one does not even ponder the concept, whereas the other does.

yet both are still non-believers

 

[buddhist]

yet both are still non-believers

One holds the concept of anti-belief, the other does not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree.

One might (actively) say "I am convinced that I do not believe that 1+1=3".
Another might (passively) say "I don't care, e.g. I do not believe, nor do I believe, that 1+1=3; it is not in my realm of concern".

Does the person believe? It's a true or false question. If true, the person believes. If false, the person does not believe.

"I neither believe nor not believe" implies that the answer is simultaneously both true and false, which is self-contradictory nonsense.

 

[McBell]

One holds the concept of anti-belief, the other does not.

anti-belief is a sub-category of non-belief

 

[buddhist]

Does the person believe? It's a true or false question. If true, the person believes. If false, the person does not believe.

"I neither believe nor not believe" implies that the answer is simultaneously both true and false, which is self-contradictory nonsense.

You'd have to understand the intricacies of Buddhism, where the third possibility exists.

E.g. the fourth meditation ayatana is the "Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception", or there is neither self nor non-self. The third position in both examples represents nibbana.

 

[buddhist]

anti-belief is a sub-category of non-belief

Not from the perspective of early Buddhism.

 

[McBell]

You'd have to understand the intricacies of Buddhism, where the third possibility exists.

E.g. the fourth meditation ayatana is the "Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception", or there is neither self nor non-self. The third position in both examples represents nibbana.

except it is not a third possibility.
It is a sub-category of one of the possibilities.

 

[McBell]

Not from the perspective of early Buddhism.

you can humpty dumpty it all you like.
Does not change the truth of it.

 

[viole]

I've always had an issue with the point that all babies are atheists.

Newborns are incapable of considering the question of theism.

So in a sense they are atheists. But it is as meaningless as saying a rock is an atheist.

Correct. Anyone who classifies babies as atheists, is as fallacious as anyone who classifies them as not holding a political position, ergo the default political position is to hold no political position. As if that were an indication that holding no political position is somehow a good thing, in general.

It is not. The existence of God is serious matter, and can only be assessed when the intellectual preconditions are present.

Ciao

- viole

 

[buddhist]

you can humpty dumpty it all you like.
Does not change the truth of it.

I could say the same for your claim.

There's a third position identified by the Enlightened One, and "you can humpty dumpty it all you like, doesn't change the truth of it".

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you prefer, I differentiate between two types of atheists then.

Wow, resolution on an RF thread. We just caught Ahab's white whale.

People tend to use the words hard and soft atheist to make that distinction, but I find the word 'antitheist' to be more clear terminology to describe the former.

I am both.

 

[buddhist]

Wow, resolution on an RF thread. We just caught Ahab's white whale.

People tend to use the words hard and soft atheist to make that distinction, but I find the word 'antitheist' to be more clear terminology to describe the former.

I am both.

So you admit as well that there is a third choice?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So you admit as well that there is a third choice?

Sigh. No.

What?

 

[buddhist]

Sigh. No.

What?

Call it whatever you wish ... "hard atheist" vs "soft atheist", if you'd like, but they are two separate positions, in addition to "theist". Three positions.

 

[Willamena]

One holds the concept of anti-belief, the other does not.

If I may interject a comment...

On one hand you have the one that holds an epistemological stance, and on the other you have both getting roped into a set by virtue of taking a strictly ontological view of the terminology. It's belief vs. set theory. Your objectors are insistent that 'atheist' is not about belief but about groups of people who happen to believe, and that 'atheism' is nothing more than a convenient category for defining that set.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You'd have to understand the intricacies of Buddhism, where the third possibility exists.

And you'd have to understand the law of non-contradiction.

E.g. the fourth meditation ayatana is the "Dimension of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception", or there is neither self nor non-self. The third position in both examples represents nibbana.

I've met plenty of Buddhists who were capable of logical thought, so I'm going to have to take your suggestion that Buddhism somehow requires its adherents to reject the laws of logic with a grain of salt.

 

[buddhist]

If I may interject a comment...

On one hand you have the one that holds an epistemological stance, and on the other you have both getting roped into a set by virtue of taking a strictly ontological view of the terminology. It's belief vs. set theory. Your objectors are insistent that 'atheist' is not about belief but about groups of people who happen to believe, and that 'atheism' is nothing more than a convenient category for defining that set.

Yes, and we happen to define the sets differently.

 

[McBell]

Call it whatever you wish ... "hard atheist" vs "soft atheist", if you'd like, but they are two separate positions, in addition to "theist". Three positions.

this is just flat out wrong.
but since you are not interested in the truth of the matter, you win.
Fly on home claiming your "victory".