is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''?

[Desert Snake]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''? Is there implicit theism? Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism? If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position, then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier? That makes no sense, without the signifier, it means nothing.


have a nice day!

 

[Quintessence]

It's quite frankly debatable whether the terms "theism" and "atheism" have any meaning at all, but if they're to even approach having meaningfulness, it makes no sense to include "implicit" standards in either term. More often than not, we talk about "theism" and "atheism" in terms of self-identity. If a person is not self-identifying as either of these, the term is vacuous.

 

[viole]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''? Is there implicit theism? Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism? If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position, then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier? That makes no sense, without the signifier, it means nothing.

It depends. Are you an implicit a-bluefairist?

have a nice day!

Given my time zone, it is a bit too late for that. But thanks nevertheless.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

It's quite frankly debatable whether the terms "theism" and "atheism" have any meaning at all, but if they're to even approach having meaningfulness, it makes no sense to include "implicit" standards in either term. More often than not, we talk about "theism" and "atheism" in terms of self-identity. If a person is not self-identifying as either of these, the term is vacuous.

Yes..

It depends. Are you an implicit a-bluefairist?



Given my time zone, it is a bit too late for that. But thanks nevertheless.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not an implicit theist or atheist, no. That's pretty much the point/topic of the thread.

 

[viole]

Yes..


I'm not an implicit theist or atheist, no. That's pretty much the point/topic of the thread.

Cool. So, what does implicit means to you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jumi]

Can you have atheism without theism? If no one talked about gods, the terms wouldn't exist, but everyone would be without(a) gods(theists). It doesn't matter if you identify as atheist or don't. People who use the words theist or atheist "implicitly" do so for the reason of identification. It's become quite obvious though that not everyone has the same idea what God or gods mean. Your god might just be my universe and our difference would only be... words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More often than not, we talk about "theism" and "atheism" in terms of self-identity. If a person is not self-identifying as either of these, the term is vacuous.

Depends on what's being discussed. "Atheist" is no more vacuous than terms like "non-smoker", "vegetarian", or "civilian", and nobody bats an eye when these other terms are used to describe people who don't self-apply those terms.

I don't see it as "vacuous" to include children too young to have taken a position on the merits of military service when talking about civilian deaths in a war, for instance. I don't see why talking about people who haven't given much (or any) thought to gods would be categorically different.

 

[Desert Snake]

Cool. So, what does implicit means to you?

Ciao

- viole

That would depend on the context. In this instance, though, for atheism, it would not apply, imo. It ends up not making sense.

 

[ArtieE]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''?

Yes.

Is there implicit theism?

No.

Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism?

Yes.

If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position,

It's the absence of a specific position.

then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier?

We use the signifiers "weak" and "strong" to differentiate between people who have taken no position (weak atheists) and people who have taken the position that gods don't exist. (Strong atheists). Both are atheists of course because both weak and strong are not theists.

 

[Jumi]

Depends on what's being discussed. "Atheist" is no more vacuous than terms like "non-smoker", "vegetarian", or "civilian", and nobody bats an eye when these other terms are used to describe people who don't self-apply those terms.

Very much this. You could always say you don't eat meat, but you're no vegetarian. It can sometimes be entertaining to see why someone doesn't want certain descriptions for themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''?

Yes. If you've never thought about a thing, then you don't believe in that thing.

Is there implicit theism?

No. You can't believe in a thing without ever having thought about it.

Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism?

Of course.

If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position, then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier? That makes no sense, without the signifier, it means nothing.

Do you have the same mental roadblocks with the term "non-smoker"? Do you understand how the word can be used to describe not only someone who believes smoking is wrong, but also to someone who has never seen a cigarette and to someone who thinks smoking is wonderful but can't smoke for health reasons?

The term "atheism" works the same way. All it tells you is that the person isn't a theist. For anything else you want to know, you'll have to dig deeper.

 

[viole]

That would depend on the context. In this instance, though, for atheism, it would not apply, imo. It ends up not making sense. So, it has no meaning in this context. It might from a non-position context, but not as a position or description// ie as a description, it is not tenable

I am not sure I am following you.

Can you define what you mean with implicit atheism?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would depend on the context. In this instance, though, for atheism, it would not apply, imo. It ends up not making sense.

"Atheism" is not a position. Neither is "theism". Both are umbrella terms that describe a range of positions. In the case of atheism, the range also includes no position.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not sure I am following you.

Can you define what you mean with implicit atheism?

Ciao

- viole

Implicit means implied, afaik. This is problematic, because what could ''imply'' atheism, aside from....atheism. It seems like an arbitrary and mixed up method to derive at an atheistic stance, where, unless, it is implied explicitly, you really can't assume a stance of atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Implicit means implied, afaik. This is problematic, because what could ''imply'' atheism, aside from....atheism. It seems like an arbitrary and mixed up method to derive at an atheistic stance, where, unless, it is implied explicitly, you really can't assume a stance of atheism.

Strong atheists assume the stance that gods don't exist, (weak) atheists don't assume neither the stance that gods exist nor the stance that gods don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Implicit means implied, afaik. This is problematic, because what could ''imply'' atheism, as ide from....atheism.

That's right: all you can take from someone saying "I'm an atheist" (or "he's an atheist") is that the person ddoesn't believe in any gods. For any other question from their position on same-sex marriage to their attitude toward religion to their favourite sport, you'll have to - horror of horrors - actually talk to them.

It seems like an arbitrary and mixed up method to derive at an atheistic stance, where, unless, it is implied explicitly, you really can't assume a stance of atheism.

It sounds like you're just upset that you can't pigeon-hole people once you find out that they're atheists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''? Is there implicit theism? Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism? If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position, then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier? That makes no sense, without the signifier, it means nothing.


have a nice day!

"Implicit" atheism isn't atheism in any meaningful sense. It adds no useful information, nor does it actually have any relation to how the word and concept is actually applied in the real world.

It seems to be nothing more than a misguided attempt to reconcile semantic consistency with bizarre and untenable positions. All the discussion on this topic over time has repeatedly borne this out.

 

[HonestJoe]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''? Is there implicit theism? Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism? If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position, then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier? That makes no sense, without the signifier, it means nothing.

I think you're making the all too common error of thinking of the terms atheism/theism as verbs rather than the nouns they are. Neither describes what a person does, only (a tiny part of) what a person is. They're just like blonde/brunette or tall/short. It is only the massive weight of hundreds of years of socio-religious politics that leads us to treat them differently.

There is obviously much more to the concepts of god-belief (or lack thereof) and neither atheism nor theism exist within an individual's mindset in a vacuum but all of that individual stuff is above and beyond those terms. Of course it is generally only atheism that is given so much additional meaning (usually negatively). Everyone recognises that theism alone doesn't mean very much and that there will be some form of more developed belief system it is a part of. Atheism is exactly the same in that context but those more developed belief systems so often lead us to treat people who believe differently to ourselves by different standards.

 

[leibowde84]

Is implicit atheism actually ''atheism''? Is there implicit theism? Can you have implicit atheism without implicit theism? If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position, then how can you have the same word describe a declarative stance, an implicit stance, yet also be used without a signifier? That makes no sense, without the signifier, it means nothing.


have a nice day!

Without the clarifier, it simply covers everyone who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. Implicit atheism exists, as does strong atheism, weak atheism, agnostic atheism.

Why would this surprise you when there are many more subcategories of theism?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If atheism essentially has no meaning ie not a declarative position

Atheism is certainly a declarative position regarding a single proposition (read: "At least one divine being exists"). That declarative position probably runs something like "I'm not convinced."

That's it. It's no more complicated than refusing to buy whatever garbage the snake oil salesman is hawking on your doorstep. Or are you arguing that refusing to buy snake oil is somehow a worldview?