"Lack of belief"

[ArtieE]

I believe you cannot have a lack/absence of belief in the existence of god if you can understand the concept "god exists".

So what you are saying is that if you understand the concept "god exists" you have to believe god exists.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, ArtieE's statement is wrong.

No it isn't. Why do you think it's wrong?

 

[Valjean]

And I'm in agreement.

Belief, disbelief, and ignorance (lack of belief) all have different brain patterns.

But so what? We're not talking about brain patterns. We're talking about semantics. We're talking about definitions of a term.

 

[Ouroboros]

Babies probably do not identify themselves as anything, depending on how young they are.

To the best of my learning, they identify themselves with the whole of existence early on before learning to perceive themselves as separate beings.

Agree.

However, they are for all intents and purposes (besides express self-identification, I guess) atheists until and unless they have enough cognition and abstract reasoning to learn of some conception of deity and manifest some form of inclination to either believe or disbelieve in its applicability to reality.

Well, obviously, that's where we disagree. I see them as ignorant. Are they non-believers, yeah, sure. They are. They lack belief in anything and everything, and we don't assign any a-whatever to label them as lacking beliefs in those other things. It would be ridiculous, even though we know they lack belief in all those things. They lack belief in government, naturalism, universe, and existence, simply because in the first few years, there isn't even neurological pathways formed yet to believe or not. For all sakes and purposes, their brain is more mud than brain. So we differ in the use of the generic term (or implied atheism).

Put it simpler. We just disagree on the invention and use of the term "implied atheism". I don't think atheism is something that is implied, but it is something that you make up your mind about.

 

[atanu]

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

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

Yes, ArtieE's statement is wrong. If anyone's beating up on you it's because you keep pushing a definition of strong atheism when what we're talking about is weak atheism.

Huh. Weak or strong, if you assert lack of love, you must know what love is.

 

[Ouroboros]

But it's analagous to a-unicornism. Atheism can be a dismissal of theism, but it need not be, that's not the essential concept.

And the "unicorn" or "unicornism" have some meaning to you and me. It's not just something unknown to us both.

I have no problem with atheists saying that they're atheists because they lack in belief in God, but they do have a concept of what it is.

If I said that I believe gurka exists. You don't know what it is (I assume), and hence you don't believe gurka exists. It doesn't make you an a-gurkist. It's a term that doesn't even exist and has no need. The need for atheism and the word is based on theism, and as such, it is a reflection of the knowledge we all have about theism and the concepts of god/gods.

Yes, ArtieE's statement is wrong. If anyone's beating up on you it's because you keep pushing a definition of strong atheism when what we're talking about is weak atheism. You're argument is a straw man.

I wasn't pushing a definition of strong atheism. I was actually reflection on his comment that atheists who say they lack belief do have a concept about what they lack belief in. Weak atheism isn't defined as "ignorant of god/gods". It's "lack of belief in god/gods" which implies that there's a meaning or understanding of what god/gods are, even if the meaning is very general.

If I said that bananas were god, you would come back and tell me that bananas aren't god. Then, I have to ask, why? And you will tell me, because no one call bananas god, and they never been called god, so it's a ridiculous definition of god. But then, how do you know? Well, because you have learned these things and know these things, and are not just ignorant of what god/gods are and that they're not bananas. You know bananas are not god, that's why you won't agree on such a silly claim. It's not just a general lack of belief, but it's a knowledge behind that lack of belief.

This has been explained a dozen times in this thread. You can find many definitions of atheism is an ordinary dictionary, but only one is being used here. Why do you keep ignoring it?

I'm not ignoring the "lack of belief" definition at all. I'm expanding on the part that says "in god/gods" which is undefined. There's an implied understanding of what "god/gods" are in the definition, and that's what ArtiE actually touched upon by saying that atheists who identify themselves as atheists are not just ignorant about what "god/gods" are supposed to be.

--edit

If I could, I would rather have the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god/gods, but not ignorant of."

--edit2
Changed sentence above to properly represent ArtiE's quote.

 

[Ouroboros]

But so what? We're not talking about brain patterns. We're talking about semantics. We're talking about definitions of a term?

I was talking to Augustus. If you don't like the exchange he and I had, then just ignore it.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not discussing semantics or the definition of the word atheist. Language is use of language after all.

I'm discussing whether or not there is a substantial difference between total ignorance of the concept 'god exists' and coming to a conscious decision that you do not wish to make a judgement on whether or not god exists.

But this whole thread revolves around definition! The OP and the atheists here are using one definition, and several posters are trying to impose another.
Of course there's a difference between total ignorance of the concept and rejection of the concept, but so what? Atheism, per se, comprises both, because the one, definitive feature is absence of belief, which is common to both.
If you're talking about more than just an absence of belief use modifiers. .

No it isn't.

'tis

 

[ArtieE]

I wasn't pushing a definition of strong atheism. I was actually reflection on his comment that atheists who lack belief do have a concept about what they lack belief in.

You are misrepresenting me. I actually said and I quote: "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are." That doesn't mean the same as "atheists who lack belief do have a concept about what they lack belief in." Please retract.

 

[Grumpuss]

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?

He works in mysterious ways. We're all too little and insignificant in the general scheme of things.

Yes, God loves each and every one of us.

Yes, we can all have a very personal relationship with Jesus - the one and only savior of the human race.

Yes, the lack of hope and proposal of no spiritual belief is one of Satan's tools to disenfranchise God, along with mass genocide of babies, promotion of soy milk and attempted legalization of horse bestiality, child pornography and hard drugs.

 

[Grumpuss]

You are misrepresenting me. I actually said and I quote: "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are." That doesn't mean the same as "atheists who lack belief do have a concept about what they lack belief in." Please retract.

Yes, I agree. Highly offensive!

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, obviously, that's where we disagree. I see them as ignorant. Are they non-believers, yeah, sure. They are.

Agreed so far.

They lack belief in anything and everything, and we don't assign any a-whatever to label them as lacking beliefs in those other things.

That I see as a direct result of the lack of social expectations of belief in other entities beyond gods.

Except for social expectations, atheism is really no different from lack of belief in any fictional entities.

It would be ridiculous, even though we know they lack belief in all those things. They lack belief in government, naturalism, universe, and existence, simply because in the first few years, there isn't even neurological pathways formed yet to believe or not. For all sakes and purposes, their brain is more mud than brain. So we differ in the use of the generic term (or implied atheism).

Put it simpler. We just disagree on the invention and use of the term "implied atheism". I don't think atheism is something that is implied, but it is something that you make up your mind about.

That I find a misleading, even abusive misuse of the term, so I guess we will indeed have to agree to disagree. Implied atheism, or even degenerate atheism (such as that from rocks) is very much atheism.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are misrepresenting me. I actually said and I quote: "All atheists who say they lack belief in the existence of gods have a conception of what gods are." That doesn't mean the same as "atheists who lack belief do have a concept about what they lack belief in." Please retract.

Ah. Sorry.

Ok. Editing my post.

 

[Valjean]

And the "unicorn" or "unicornism" have some meaning to you and me. It's not just something unknown to us both.

I have no problem with atheists saying that they're atheists because they lack in belief in God, but they do have a concept of what it is.

And that makes them strong atheist (note the modifier), but he's just as much an athesit if he's entirely ignorant of the concept of God.
The definitive characteristic is absence, and that includes ignorance or unawareness.

If I said that I believe gurka exists. You don't know what it is (I assume), and hence you don't believe gurka exists. It doesn't make you an a-gurkist.

Yes it does! -- that's the whole point. It doesn't make me an antigurkist, or a strong a-gurkist, but if the single, definitive feature of all who don't believe in gurkas is lack of belief, then I am a basic/essential/ definitive/weak a-gurkist.
This is how the word atheist has been used by the atheists throughout this thread. It's the sense assumed by the OP.
How many times must we keep repeating this?

And just for general interest: .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha

I wasn't pushing a definition of strong atheism. I was actually reflection on his comment that atheists who lack belief do have a concept about what they lack belief in. Weak atheism isn't defined as "ignorant of god/gods". It's "lack of belief in god/gods" which implies that there's a meaning or understanding of what god/gods are, even if the meaning is very general.

Ignorance is a subset of "lack."

 

[Ouroboros]

That I find a misleading, even abusive misuse of the term, so I guess we will indeed have to agree to disagree. Implied atheism, or even degenerate atheism (such as that from rocks) is very much atheism.

We can agree then to disagree.

 

[Ouroboros]

And that makes them strong atheist (note the modifier), but he's just as much an athesit if he's entirely ignorant of the concept of God.
The definitive characteristic is absence, and that includes ignorance or unawareness.

So, to you, weak atheism is the same as ignorance? Someone who is ignorant of gods is therefore a weak atheist? Well. Ok. That's how you use it, but that's not how I see it.

Yes it does! -- that's the whole point. It doesn't make me an antigurkist, or a strong a-gurkist, but if the single, definitive feature of all who don't believe in gurkas is lack of belief, then I am a basic/essential/ definitive/weak a-gurkist.

Ok. That's your view. I think it's useless word to assign to people. Agurkist, ablurbist, aglogist, asmurphist, in other words, to do it in a form of regular expressions, something like: a{.+}ist. Something we all are to some degree or less.

This is how the word atheist has been used by the atheists throughout this thread. It's the sense assumed by the OP.
How many times must we keep repeating this?

A million times, until you realize what the other people are trying to say.

And just for general interest: .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha

Sorry, but wrong.

Gurka is the Swedish word for cucumber.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ignorance is a subset of "lack."

To clarify something here. I have no issue with atheism at all. I was an atheist, strong atheist for 10-15 years, and I still consider myself a form of atheist (mystical atheist perhaps is a term), but one thing that I never was, was ignorant of why. I was very educated and understood very well why I was an atheist and identified myself as one. Ignorant atheists need to educate themselves. I compare them to Christians who never read the Bible. They don't know what they believe in. Ignorant atheist don't know what they lack belief in. To call yourself an atheist, you need to pick up some knowledge first and not just slap a label on your sleeve without any considerations.

 

[Willamena]

No. A lack of belief is not like having a belief. Having a lack of belief is not having a belief. Nothing vague or subjective about that.

I didn't say it's like having a belief, I wrote that it's like having a concept of god to believe in. The claim that the concept of god is vague rests on the diversity of interpretations people have of it. Evidently, there are as many interpretations possible of "having a lack of belief."

 

[ArtieE]

Ok. That's your view. I think it's useless word to assign to people.

I think the word "people" is a useless word to assign to people. All it tells us is that the entities in question are members of the human race nothing else. It tells us even less about people than if we call them atheists.

 

[Augustus]

But this whole thread revolves around definition! The OP and the atheists here are using one definition, and several posters are trying to impose another.
Of course there's a difference between total ignorance of the concept and rejection of the concept, but so what? Atheism, per se, comprises both, because the one, definitive feature is absence of belief, which is common to both.

And my point is about your definition.

I want to know why the advocates of this definition consider total ignorance of a concept and a reasoned decision to be uncommitted as both constituting the same 'lack of belief'.

Do you believe that it is possible to have an absence of belief even if you understand the concept 'god exists'? What is your view towards the article that I posted that suggests this is cognitively impossible? If you understand the concept, then you must form a belief about it, even if that belief is to be undecided/uncommitted. In Spinoza'a words: "I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception".

If you're talking about more than just an absence of belief use modifiers. .

Such as the strong atheist characterised by both their absence of belief in the existence of god and their belief that he doesn't exist?

Think I'll pass on those.