The default position...

[ArtieE]

There's is no 'absence of belief'.

LOL. Well of course there is an absence of belief that god(s) exist and an absence of belief god(s) don't exist. A baby has none of those beliefs. They are absent.

There is neither a belief nor a disbelief in case of a baby.

You mean there is neither a belief that god(s) exist nor a belief that god(s) don't exist.

The question of a belief in deity has not arisen in a baby.

Well of course it hasn't. That's why the belief that deity exists and the belief that deity doesn't exist is absent.

 

[atanu]

LOL. Well of course there is an absence of belief that god(s) exist and an absence of belief god(s) don't exist. A baby has none of those beliefs. They are absent.You mean there is neither a belief that god(s) exist nor a belief that god(s) don't exist.Well of course it hasn't. That's why the belief that deity exists and the belief that deity doesn't exist is absent.

Either way a baby has no conception of a concept called belief. 'Belief in deity' is a null set for a baby.

This concept is in your mind.

 

[leibowde84]

There's is no 'absence of belief'. There is neither a belief nor a disbelief in case of a baby.

'Absence' is only meaningful when a 'presence' is meaningful. In case of a baby, there is no belief and there is no disbelief. The question of a belief in deity has not arisen in a baby.

There is no atheism in baby's mind. Implicit atheism is in your mind only.

(The way adherents of implicit atheism want everyone to believe that babies have 'lack of belief' and thus are atheists, speaks only about their own beliefs.)

You are merely using an erroneous meaning for the word "absent". It is merely the state of being "without" something. No recognition or cognition at all is required. Here is the definition: "not present in a place, at an occasion, or as part of something." Beliefs are a part of a persons world view. Our contention is that implicit atheism does not include any beliefs but, instead, merely points out the absence or non-existence of a particular belief. Where are you getting the requirement for cognition from this word?

 

[leibowde84]

Either way a baby has no conception of a concept called belief.

This concept is in your mind.

This has no bearing on whether a baby is implicitly atheist, as the word "implicit" shows certainly shows this. There is no requirement for a baby to even have the ability to believe to lack a specific belief. This is because a baby lacks all beliefs (presumably), which is why are argument is that atheism is the default position.

 

[ArtieE]

Either way a baby has no conception of a concept called belief. 'Belief in deity' is a null set for a baby.

Correct. And since a baby has no conception of a concept called belief that gods exist and no conception of a concept called belief that gods don't exist they are not theists or strong atheists and automatically weak implicit atheists.

 

[leibowde84]

Correct. And since a baby has no conception of a concept called belief that gods exist and no conception of a concept called belief that gods don't exist they are not theists or strong atheists and automatically weak implicit atheists.

Well-put.

 

[Curious George]

John has never heard of god(s).

John does not believe in the God of Abraham.

This sentence is true, by your own example and admission, right?


What do you call people who don't believe in god(s)?

Yes, by my own decree this is true. Although I have never suggested people who are "implicit atheists" believe in God's. So, I am surprised that such a declaration is important.

Personally?
I refer to them by the affectionate term of people who don't believe in Gods. I use atheist to describe those who believe God does not exist.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, by my own decree this is true. Although I have never suggested people who are "implicit atheists" believe in God's. So, I am surprised that such a declaration is important.

Personally?
I refer to them by the affectionate term of people who don't believe in Gods. I use atheist to describe those who believe God does not exist.

Nevertheless, according to the meaning of the term "Atheism", John is an implicit atheist.

 

[Curious George]

Nevertheless, according to the meaning of the term "Atheism", John is an implicit atheist.

I am perfectly aware that according to the definitions some use, we may refer to John as an implicit atheist or, in general, an atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

No it doesn't, because the sentence deals with and addresses the belief "God does not exist", not the belief "God exists". The double negative doesn't negate or reverse that since a double negative isn't the same thing as multiple negation which is when it is applied to the same clause. "Does not believe that..." and "God does not exist" are two separate clauses, neither of which address belief in the existence of God.

It remains a double negative - and the convention in English is that they cancel each other out - whatever gave you the impression that being separate 'clauses' of the same sentence/claim and thus don't cancel each other out I can only imagine - but you are mistaken.

They are only addressing one position; one prong of a two-pronged question. To use the earlier analogy, stating "Does not believe that the number of grains of salt in the ocean is not odd" doesn't equate to "Believes the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even". The statement deals only with the position "the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd" and the person's acceptance of that claim - it says nothing about their acceptance of another claim, that claim being "the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even", and it is logically possible (in fact, arguably unavoidable) to disbelieve both possible answers of a mutually exclusive proposition. This is something you have previously agreed upon as a logically consistent position.

We have discussed this before - the grains of sand analogy doesn't fit because there are three possibilities - whilst with belief in God there are only two.

 

[Bunyip]

What if the person who does not believe that God does not exist does not believe that God exists either and sits on the fence?

They need to seek, mental help. Same answer I gave you every other time you have asked that same question.
A person who does not believe God exists, is atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

There's is no 'absence of belief'. There is neither a belief nor a disbelief in case of a baby.

No, that is impossible - if the baby does not hold the belief in question (that there is a God), they are thus absent of that belief.

'Absence' is only meaningful when a 'presence' is meaningful. In case of a baby, there is no belief and there is no disbelief. The question of a belief in deity has not arisen in a baby.

So they are absent of that belief.

There is no atheism in baby's mind. Implicit atheism is in your mind only.

Atheism is simply the absence of the belief in question. The baby is atheist.

(The way adherents of implicit atheism want everyone to believe that babies have 'lack of belief' and thus are atheists, speaks only about their own beliefs.)

 

[ArtieE]

I refer to them by the affectionate term of people who don't believe in Gods. I use atheist to describe those who believe God does not exist.

Why don't you just use the official terms weak and strong atheist to avoid confusion?

 

[ArtieE]

They need to seek, mental help. Same answer I gave you every other time you have asked that same question.
A person who does not believe God exists, is atheist.

ROTFL Fence sitters need mental help just because they can't decide between believing god exists and believing God doesn't exist and choose to stay neutral?!

 

[Curious George]

It remains a double negative - and the convention in English is that they cancel each other out - whatever gave you the impression that being separate 'clauses' of the same sentence/claim and thus don't cancel each other out I can only imagine - but you are mistaken. We have discussed this before - the grains of sand analogy doesn't fit because there are three possibilities - whilst with belief in God there are only two.

You say you are done with double negatives and here you are discussing it without me.

Here is an explanation you might be able to understand.

Don’t Be Negative About Negatives

 

[Bunyip]

Why don't you just use the official terms weak and strong atheist to avoid confusion?

They are not by any means 'official' terms, in fact few atheists seem to accept them.

 

[Bunyip]

You say you are done with double negatives and here you are discussing it without me.

Here is an explanation you might be able to understand.

Don’t Be Negative About Negatives

And here's a response you might be able to understand - not interested in engaging with you.

 

[Bunyip]

ROTFL Fence sitters need mental help just because they can't decide between believing god exists and believing God doesn't exist and choose to stay neutral?!

There is no neutral position Artie. If they don't believe God exists, they are atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

The official term "implicit atheist" was invented in 1979 by George H. Smith.

I'm not sure he's the official atheist to define the words in the dictionary. But that's when the term was coined, if I understand it right. It wasn't made popular until quite recently though, with the upswing of internet and neo-atheism.

 

[Curious George]

Why don't you just use the official terms weak and strong atheist to avoid confusion?

Assuming this is rhetorical, but I will go ahead and answer anyway.

Weak atheist and strong atheists, defined by some (certainly not officially), are two sub categories of atheism. Weak atheism has two varieties implicit and explicit. Strong atheism is only explicit.

Of weak atheism we have implicit, which adds nothing to atheism, and is essentially a meaningless category which includes everything in the universe (including the universe) and every mental construct that is not capable of forming belief. This group has no position. This category is completely superfluous. So, I do not, personally, refer to such as atheist.

Next we have the weak explicit atheist. Weak explicit atheists reject the proposition that God exists, and reject the proposition that God does not exist. These are considered by some to be atheists because they do not believe God exists. But a further analysis of this group yields that this groups position is that God exists is equally likely as God not existing. Another grouping can also be described by people who believe God exists and that god does not exist. The only differences between these two groupings (weak, explicit atheists and this other grouping) are 1) one accepts both propositions while the other rejects both, and 2) what looks for evidence to exclude while the other looks for evidence to include one of the propositions. Thus, the difference between these as far as I can see, rests in semantics.

The last category of atheism is strong atheism. This group actually believes that God does not exist. While the level of conviction may vary, this group is saying something very distinct.

So we have a total of three position and one non position, but a total of 5 categories.

1) theist- those who believe the proposition God exists is true, and the proposition that God does not exist is false. Position: God exists.

2) unnamed- those who accept both propositions (God exists and God does not exist). Position: that gods existence is equally likely as God non existence.

3) weak implicit atheist-anything incapable of acceptance or rejection of either proposition. Position: n/a

4) weak explicit atheist- those who reject both propositions (God exists and God does not exist). Position: that gods existence is equally likely as God non existence.

5) strong atheist- those who believe the proposition God does not exist is true, and the proposition that God does exist is false. Position: God does not exist.

As you can see, 1 and 5 are equally different from the other categories. Category 2 is the same position as category 4, and the inclusion of this position into a category that is the same as 1 or 5 is semantics at best. And category 3 isn't even a position so it's inclusion cannot add anything to whatever category it is included. If it cannot add anything, then its deletion doesn't subtract anything.

Language is designed to communicate. We should strive for efficient communication. Categorizing 2-4 with either 1 or 5 does not reach this goal. Categories are generally made by common characteristics, the common characteristic that people who wish to group 3-5 choose to focus on is "not believing God exists." This is justified by the fact that atheism is is defined by these people as not theism. That 2 is also not theism but still has a belief in God is seldom discussed.

However, in all of this, there is another camp. Those who assert that atheism is just #5 and theism is #1. This group, while not putting every conceivable thing into a box, is internally consistent in their logic.

So, why don't I use the terms strong atheist and weak atheist? Simple, because I like internal consistency.