Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[leibowde84]

In what sense does this change the import of my post? Obviously, when I said it was asinine to discuss the beliefs of babies, I was also including what they don't believe under that heading. As I said:

Their powers of reasoning are not even developed to the level of a child of five or six, and besides it would be hard to comment on just what they believe, even if this wasn't true.

Besides it being highly dubious that atheism is the human default in a psychological sense, this is all conflating psychological default with a logical one and trying, implicitly at least, to derive the latter from the former. The two are distinct, and even if humans did tend to be default atheists, that would not make atheism the rational default position.

Why would you think that these comments weren't just as much aimed at claims about their lack of beliefs? I was, after all, quite obviously most critiquing the atheists, who seem to most wish to enter into these discussions.

We aren't discussing the "rational default position", we are discussing the "actual/factual default position". And, while I agree that it is meaningless to discuss such things in regards to babies, that does not make it any less true. Keep in mind, I am a theist. I have no reason to fraudulently add more people into the atheist group. I am just arguing for accuracy in the use of terms, even if it is caused by mere technicalities.

 

[atanu]

You still haven't provided your definition of "lack of". Can you provide that? I agree that it isn't "meaningful" to assign the term "implicit atheism" in general. It is a pretty useless classification, but that doesn't mean that it is untrue, technically. If I can see how you are defining "lack of", I can start to figure out what your objection really is, as we agree that the term "implicit atheism" is pretty meaningless. It doesn't speak at all to what a child has considered or thinks. It is "implicit" by nature, in that it is true by definition alone.

Why? 'Lack' means deficiency or complete absence of a thing. In our context, 'thing' is 'belief in existence of deity' and 'thing' is substituted by 't'. The meaning of 'lack of t' was given earlier and is repeated below:

The expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then he/she knows the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t

 

[leibowde84]

Why? 'Lack' means deficiency or complete absence of a thing. In our context, 'thing' is 'belief in existence of deity' and 'thing' is substituted by 't'. The meaning of 'lack of t' was given earlier and is repeated below:

The expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then he/she knows the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t

This is irrelevant though, as we are talking about implicit classification, or "automatic" classification by definition alone. And, I never claimed that it was a meaningful classification, just a factual/technically accurate one.

 

[atanu]

This is irrelevant though, as we are talking about implicit classification, or "automatic" classification by definition alone. And, I never claimed that it was a meaningful classification, just a factual/technically accurate one.

It is not a meaningful classification, yet it is factual and accurate?

Well man..... It is like division by zero.

 

[leibowde84]

It is not a meaningful classification, yet it is factual and accurate?

Well man..... It is like division by zero.

Nope. You just don't understand what "meaningful" means in this context. It means that the classification is technically accurate, but doesn't REALLY say anything about the individual being classified, as it merely indicates an absence of something.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

We aren't discussing the "rational default position", we are discussing the "actual/factual default position". And, while I agree that it is meaningless to discuss such things in regards to babies, that does not make it any less true. Keep in mind, I am a theist. I have no reason to fraudulently add more people into the atheist group. I am just arguing for accuracy in the use of terms, even if it is caused by mere technicalities.

You mean what is psychologically default as opposed to rationally default? I don't think a baby is a psychological atheist. We don't really know what babies believe, but they seem to lack the ability to draw a worldview and are not atheists, even in the sense of implicit atheism, that an adult might be. Atheism is not just lacking a belief in God, or rocks would be atheists. It is having an ability to believe in God and not believing in him, surely.

 

[atanu]

Nope. You just don't understand what "meaningful" means in this context. It means that the classification is technically accurate, but doesn't REALLY say anything about the individual being classified, as it merely indicates an absence of something.

We have already noted that those who believe that babies and people can be atheists without conscious decision on the matter of existence or non existence of deity/deities are implicitly of superior intelligence and education. Many have time and again stressed that. You merely add to that.

But sorry. I do not understand why a definition (of Implicit atheism) is meaningless (as per your own admission the definition fails to say anything about the individual being classified as Implicit atheist) and yet is factually accurate?

How is it is factually accurate when it fails to say anything about the individual labelled?

 

[Bunyip]

You mean what is psychologically default as opposed to rationally default? I don't think a baby is a psychological atheist. We don't really know what babies believe, but they seem to lack the ability to draw a worldview and are not atheists, even in the sense of implicit atheism, that an adult might be. Atheism is not just lacking a belief in God, or rocks would be atheists. It is having an ability to believe in God and not believing in him, surely.

What have rocks got to do with it? Atheism and theism are about HUMAN BELIEFS, forget about rocks.

Ever notice how you never see anybody try to refute liberalism by saying 'yeah but rocks aren't liberals!'.

The definitions people are applying to atheism all refer to people, not inanimate objects.

 

[Curious George]

What have rocks got to do with it? Atheism and theism are about HUMAN BELIEFS, forget about rocks.

Ever notice how you never see anybody try to refute liberalism by saying 'yeah but rocks aren't liberals!'.

The definitions people are applying to atheism all refer to people, not inanimate objects.

That is probably because no one tries to define liberalism as a lack of conservatism.

 

[Bunyip]

That is probably because no one tries to define liberalism as a lack of conservatism.

Ok, but do you think that if they did - you could disprove liberalism by applying it to rocks?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You are ignoring content by this member.

 

[Curious George]

Ok, but do you think that if they did - you could disprove liberalism by applying it to rocks?

lol, no. I am not trying to disprove atheism. Nor, are others here doing so. What they have done, however, is show why using the definition "not theist" is not a good definition for atheism.

Even proponents of such a definition only claim implicit atheists on a "technicality" a technicality based off of begging the question, but a technicality nonetheless.

Not one has offered how such a definition adds anything but semantic play to the discussion. And, when we get to the heart of the matter (people want to say "I was born atheist and nothing changed), we find a nest of equivocation.

Atheism does not need bad arguments because we have good arguments. As you pointed out there are no perfect definitions, but this doesn't mean we should use a less correct definition, because they are all flawed. Such would only be true if they were equally flawed. And they are not.

The people who bring up babies and rocks do so only because the definition of implicit atheist allows for such. Want that to stop, then do not use a definition that allows it.

And while I understand that definitions are "flawed" we must rely upon definition to have a discussion. And if we are going to rely on definitions should not we rely on the better definition?

 

[Curious George]

You are ignoring content by this member.

What, I am not ignoring anyone.

i don't get it.

 

[Bunyip]

lol, no. I am not trying to disprove atheism. Nor, are others here doing so. What they have done, however, is show why using the definition "not theist" is not a good definition for atheism.

Which is a truly futile exercise. A pointless approach based upon a fundamental misconception of how language works.

Even proponents of such a definition only claim implicit atheists on a "technicality" a technicality based off of begging the question, but a technicality nonetheless.

Not one has offered how such a definition adds anything but semantic play to the discussion. And, when we get to the heart of the matter (people want to say "I was born atheist and nothing changed), we find a nest of equivocation.

Atheism does not need bad arguments because we have good arguments. As you pointed out there are no perfect definitions, but this doesn't mean we should use a less correct definition, because they are all flawed. Such would only be true if they were equally flawed. And they are not.

The people who bring up babies and rocks do so only because the definition of implicit atheist allows for such. Want that to stop, then do not use a definition that allows it.

Actually no it does not. It is just a fatuous red herring that is getting endlessly perpetuated. The definition of atheism in which babies are considered atheists does not refer to inanimate objects.

And while I understand that definitions are "flawed" we must rely upon definition to have a discussion. And if we are going to rely on definitions should not we rely on the better definition?

Why rely on defintions? Why not rely on an argument/idea/position/proposal etc, rather than all the endless, pointless argument about 'correct' definitions.


The statement 'babies are atheist' is true under some definitions and contexts, and false under others. Same goes for all statements.
There is no definition that will cover all circumstances.

 

[Curious George]

Which is a truly futile exercise. A pointless approach based upon a fundamental misconception of how language works. Actually no it does not. It is just a fatuous red herring that is getting endlessly perpetuated. The definition of atheism in which babies are considered atheists does not refer to inanimate objects.

Why rely on defintions? Why not rely on an argument/idea/position/proposal etc, rather than all the endless, pointless argument about 'correct' definitions.


The statement 'babies are atheist' is true under some definitions and contexts, and false under others. Same goes for all statements.
There is no definition that will cover all circumstances.

Last I checked, argument relies on words, and words rely on definition. Without definition, we do not have communication.

 

[Bunyip]

Last I checked, argument relies on words, and words rely on definition. Without definition, we do not have communication.

Yeah, so the trick is to just ask whoever you are talking to what definition they are using - then you understand what they mean.
But just attacking the definition they used to describe their position is an indication of a fundamental error of logic. A barrier to any me6aningful exchange.

Sure we rely on mutually understood word meanings - but there is no 'correct' definition, so we just need to ask people what they mean. Attacking the definition only serves to prevent people from even describing their position.

What you are doing is attacking the way people have described their position, not their position. Attacking definitions is pointless. Words have many different definitions - you need to find out which one somebody is using, but there is no correct definition.

You and a couple of others are going to great lengths to prove that a certain definition is illogical in some contexts - well sure, same goes for all definitions. What is the point?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What, I am not ignoring anyone.

i don't get it.

I was referring to Bunyip. Just letting him know he is on ignore and I have no intention of replying.

 

[Bunyip]

I was referring to Bunyip. Just letting him know he is on ignore and I have no intention of replying.

So you replied to let me know that you weren't replying?

You wanted to let me know that you are ignoring me? Oooooookay.

 

[Willamena]

That's probably taking it too far. LOL!

However, a kid is an implicit theist because he/she doesn't believe that the world came to be by natural means. Kids don't believe the world exists without a God. Kids don't believe you can't pray to a God that hears your prayers. So, implicitly, they're also theists.

Actually, "natural means" is something we have to learn. It's not natural.

 

[Curious George]

That's probably taking it too far. LOL!

However, a kid is an implicit theist because he/she doesn't believe that the world came to be by natural means. Kids don't believe the world exists without a God. Kids don't believe you can't pray to a God that hears your prayers. So, implicitly, they're also theists.

Lol, defining things with negatives is a little fun, you must admit.