Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Ouroboros]

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

Which means that the child, when it hasn't learned it, doesn't believe it. (If we follow the same reasoning about "implicit atheism"). The child doesn't believe the world came into existence by natural means, i.e. he/she is a "implicit" theist. (I'm being sarcastic of course. To be serious, the whole "implicit" thing is just silly, implicit this, implicit that, there's no implicit when it comes to null values. I have 30 years experience of relational databases and know how null values work quite well, and there are three states for a truth value in a database, false, true, and null. Null means, "no value" or "unknown", which is not the same as false, or true, but is just the no-value value.)

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Yup.

Oh, btw, a rock is a barefooted bald bachelor, since it doesn't have shoes, doesn't have hair, and is not married.

 

[atanu]

Yup.

Oh, btw, a rock is a barefooted bald bachelor, since it doesn't have shoes, doesn't have hair, and is not married.

That is hilarious. I will rememember this whenever I see a rock or meet a bachelor.

 

[Bunyip]

Yup.

Oh, btw, a rock is a barefooted bald bachelor, since it doesn't have shoes, doesn't have hair, and is not married.

Doesn't that illustrate rather perfectly why arguing against a definition is pointless?

 

[leibowde84]

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?

It is factually accurate because it indicates the absence of theism. It doesn't say much about the individual child in question because it doesn't represent any active belief or contemplation of the child in any way. It is accurate, but basically useless, other than for the practice of demonstrating what "implicit atheism" actually is and what the default position actually is, according to the meaning of the term "atheism".

 

[atanu]

It is factually accurate because it indicates the absence of theism.

So as usual you seemingly conclude that presence of atheism in a child is a fact. Oh God. And I thought you had something substantial to say.

It doesn't say much about the individual child in question because it doesn't represent any active belief or contemplation of the child in any way. It is accurate, but basically useless, other than for the practice of demonstrating what "implicit atheism" actually is and what the default position actually is, according to the meaning of the term "atheism".

It is someone's proposition that has very little to do with actual state of child's mind or with the actual mental process involved in rejection of theism, in adults.

To me, it is meaningless and irrelevant. You are free to believe as you wish.

 

[leibowde84]

So as usual you conclude that presence of atheism is a fact. Oh God. And I thought you had something substantial to say.



It is someone's proposition that has very little to do with actual state of child's mind. To me, it is meaningless and irrelevant.

You are free to believe as you wish.

Nope. Never assumed the presence of anything. Only assumed the absence of theism. I don't have to assume the presence of anything, as it is not necessary.

 

[leibowde84]

So as usual you seemingly conclude that presence of atheism in a child is a fact. Oh God. And I thought you had something substantial to say.



It is someone's proposition that has very little to do with actual state of child's mind or with the actual mental process involved in rejection of theism, in adults.

To me, it is meaningless and irrelevant. You are free to believe as you wish.

I am going by the meaning of the general term, not a belief.

 

[atanu]

Nope. Never assumed the presence of anything. Only assumed the absence of theism. I don't have to assume the presence of anything, as it is not necessary.

In mental cognition 'absence of t' means 'presence of counter positive of t'. An unconscious rejection of theism is meaningless for a child and it is far from factual for an adult.

What fact can a meaningless definition point to? None.

 

[leibowde84]

In mental cognition 'absence of t' means 'presence of counter positive of t'. An unconscious rejection of theism is meaningless for a child and it is far from factual for an adult.

What fact can a meaningless definition point to? None.

I did not say that the definition is meaningless. That wouldn't even make sense according to your argument. I merely stated that implicitly assigning the term due to its definition being fulfilled is seemingly meaningless, as it doesn't indicate anything about the subject, but rather the absence of something specific.

And, "absence of t" does NOT necessarily mean "the presence of counter positive of t". At least, not when it comes to belief and not fact. You are confusing the notion of "God exists" with "the belief that God exists". One can certainly refuse to believe in the existence of God without jumping to the belief that God cannot exist. Many, even outspoken, atheists hold this stance ... that they feel that the evidence for the existence of God and the impossibility of God is far too insufficient to jump to either belief. But, by definition, they still are "atheist" as they are "without theism". All that is required is the absence of the belief that God or gods exist.

 

[atanu]

I did not say that the definition is meaningless. That wouldn't even make sense according to your argument. I merely stated that implicitly assigning the term due to its definition being fulfilled is seemingly meaningless, as it doesn't indicate anything about the subject, but rather the absence of something specific.

It is becoming murkier and murkier with shifting of goalposts like "Definition is meaningless but factual." And then ..." No. I did not say that the definition is meaningless."

Better I run.

And, "absence of t" does NOT necessarily mean "the presence of counter positive of t". At least, not when it comes to belief and not fact.

Okay. So, a kid, a stone, and implicit atheists are same. Unconscious rejectors of deity. Ha ha ha.

I differ and I leave it at that.