"Lack of belief"

[LuisDantas]

It's not because you don't lack belief in gods as rocks.

I do not? How so?

Someone saying gods are rocks have the wrong definition, and it's not unbelief or lack of belief that you reject in that situation but rather the definition. Lack of belief in gods mean that you lack of belief in the concepts of gods, not just any definition of gods. Some definitions of gods you would have to reject as proper definitions rather than "unbelieving" the concepts. You do believe rocks exist, don't you? So the god as rocks claim would be a rejection of the claim of rocks being gods rather than unbelief in rocks.

I thought the claim was not that we disbelief in rocks, but rather that rocks and babies are by default atheists?

Here's the deal.

1. "God" and "gods" are words.
2. They have meanings.
3. The meaning points to a concept.

An atheist lacking belief in god/gods lacks belief in all those things in different ways, but lacking belief in "god" as a word really means rejection of arbitrary definitions of the word, not lacking belief in a word (which would be ludicrous).

More like lacking belief in the need or usefulness of the concept, really.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, you don't. I don't believe in countess things I have never heard of.

Of course you don't believe in those things, but those things aren't the definition of atheism

Atheism is lack of belief in ... specifically something you call God or gods. Not unbelief in paper cuts or unbelief in pink unicorns. It's specifically lack of belief in "god" or "gods" which have meanings and concepts, and not just out of the blue and arbitrary whatever.

I've said this before, and say it again, pantheist believe in the universe as God. Now, the atheists don't believe in Gods of any definition, which means atheists don't believe in the universe or ... they don't accept the use of the word God for the universe. They don't believe the universe is God, which means that there's a meaning and concept to the word God that is used, and not any arbitrary use.

 

[Ouroboros]

I do not? How so?
I thought the claim was not that we disbelief in rocks, but rather that rocks and babies are by default atheists?

You missed the point.

More like lacking belief in the need or usefulness of the concept, really.

What need and what use? It still means that you have a concept you're thinking of. The concept of need and usefulness. You're referring to something when you say these things. You're talking about things that you know something about. This is why babies aren't atheists, they don't have any of the concepts of need, usefulness, rocks being gods or not, and so on.

The key here is that you know what rocks are, and you know that rocks aren't gods, so therefor your lack of belief is educated and not based on ignorance.

 

[PackJason]

Of course you don't believe in those things, but those things aren't the definition of atheism

If a person has never heard of the concept of a god, then that person, by default, lacks belief in a god.

This isn't very difficult.

 

[Ouroboros]

No you don't. It's my natural state to not believe in gods or anything else for that matter until I've heard of them and only then can I decide to start believing or continue not believing or even start believing the opposite.

Well, that's your opinion.

Problem is though, you said earlier, "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are."

 

[Ouroboros]

If a person has never heard of the concept of a god, then that person, by default, lacks belief in a god.

This isn't very difficult.

So basically you disagree with ArtiE's statement earlier, "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are."

That's not me. I just responded to that post and agree. Then you and ArtiE suddenly tell me it's wrong...

Why wasn't he wrong when he said it?

 

[Ouroboros]

All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are.

Apparently, you're wrong according to Luis, Pack, and yourself?

I said, "But you have to know what it means with "gods" to not have belief in them."

And the response was:

No you don't. It's my natural state to not believe in gods or anything else for that matter until I've heard of them and only then can I decide to start believing or continue not believing or even start believing the opposite.

So which is it? Your first post or the second?

 

[McBell]

So basically you disagree with ArtiE's statement earlier, "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are."

That's not me. I just responded to that post and agree. Then you and ArtiE suddenly tell me it's wrong...

Why wasn't he wrong when he said it?

so in order to be an atheist one must actually physically say they lack belief in the existence of gods?
And if they do not actually say it, what does that make them?

 

[McBell]

So which is it? Your first post or the second?

False dichotomy

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is lack of belief in ... specifically something you call God or gods.

To not have a belief in the existence of cars doesn't even require you to know what a belief in the existence of cars is or what cars are.

 

[PackJason]

Why wasn't he wrong when he said it?

Because if you ask a person if they are an atheist, and they say, "yes." Then it's obvious they have an understanding of the idea of theology. Having an understanding of the concept of theology is not a prerequisite for not believing in a god.

I was an atheist before I even knew what the word meant.

 

[Ouroboros]

To not have a belief in the existence of cars doesn't even require you to know what a belief in the existence of cars is or what cars are.

So you're continuing to contradict your earlier post?

All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are.

Which is it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Because if you ask a person if they are an atheist, and they say, "yes." Then it's obvious they have an understanding of the idea of theology. Having an understanding of the concept of theology is not a prerequisite for not believing in a god.

I was an atheist before I even knew what the word meant.

So ArtiE was wrong about "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are."

Beat him up instead of me. I only agreed with him. Then he disagree with me for some reason.

 

[McBell]

So you're continuing to contradict your earlier post?



Which is it?

Seems to me it is only a contradiction to you because you insist on including your arbitrary conditional modifier to the definition of the word atheist.

 

[McBell]

seems Ouroboros has me on ignore or something.

 

[Ouroboros]

All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are.

Atheists, is this right or wrong?

 

[PackJason]

So ArtiE was wrong about "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are."

Beat him up instead of me. I only agreed with him. Then he disagree with me for some reason.

I think you're trying too hard.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think you're trying too hard.

Then I'm going to try less.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, that's your opinion.

Problem is though, you said earlier, "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are."

What's the problem?

 

[PackJason]

Atheists, is this right or wrong?

If a person identifies as an atheist, then obviously that person is familiar with the concept of a god or gods.

Is there a point you're trying to make here?