The default position...

[Bunyip]

1) People like you have written hundreds of posts on this
2) People interested in religion
3) People interested in language or lexical semantics
.
.
.
(etc.)
n-1) Me, as I don't like someone telling me I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any god when I also don't believe that there isn't any

Well you are an atheist who dislikes being called an atheist. Ok.

particularly when this is done via claiming that certain definition (which even dictionaries don't reflect) is correct and based on the "logic" that because atheism is a "lack of belief" rather the epistemic position it is, therefore anybody who doesn't believe in god has the same (atheist) position that someone who believes there is no god (or that there can be those who "lack belief" in god yet are able to identify themselves as atheists or use the word god).
n) People who are concerned with the atheist intellectual tradition being dumbed down by illogical attempts at defining it as a default position, choosing to define their position as somehow the automatically "right" one or "default" such that they need not engage in the arguments and intellectual feats that drove religious debate and culture itself forward thanks to a lack of such simplistic cowardice.

It is the natural default, what is confusing you about that? Theism is the belief in question. The default is to not be a theist - atheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is the natural default, what is confusing you about that?

If it isn't at all confusing, why do you refuse to define the set you have referred to multiple times?

Theism is the belief in question.

Actually, the nature of belief is in question. You assert, without any basis (and having contradicted yourself, every dictionary on the planet according to usage sense and part of speech) that "all theists are atheists" and that one can believe in god an be "atheist", so in reality it's not so much even belief in question, but your belief as there is no indication anywhere that anybody defines these words or uses them as you do. But were you to abandon the various illogical components of your disparate attempts to define atheism as both a default position yet have theists be atheists AND the fundamental contradiction you have proposed, we'd still be left with the question not of theism as "the belief in question" but whether this:

The default is to not be a theist - atheist.

...is coherent, consistent, agrees with usage, logical, or even defensible empirically.

 

[Bunyip]

If it isn't at all confusing, why do you refuse to define the set you have referred to multiple times?

Because you are arguing against yourself with all that malarky.

Actually, the nature of belief is in question. You assert, without any basis (and having contradicted yourself, every dictionary on the planet according to usage sense and part of speech) that "all theists are atheists"

You keep repeating the same lie - that is a quote mine, a fragment of a complete statement.

and that one can believe in god an be "atheist",

Another response to a quote mine.

so in reality it's not so much even belief in question, but your belief as there is no indication anywhere that anybody defines these words or uses them as you do. But were you to abandon the various illogical components of your disparate attempts to define atheism as both a default position yet have theists be atheists AND the fundamental contradiction you have proposed, we'd still be left with the question not of theism as "the belief in question" but whether this:


...is coherent, consistent, agrees with usage, logical, or even defensible empirically.

Look up 'implicit atheism' it is a commonly used term.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The default is to not be a theist - atheist.

Hmm...

all theists are also atheists

This just gets better. According to you, there exists a set (which you don't define) of atheists, and all theists are subsets (also not defined) of this set?

Correct. Didn't you just explain that?

 

[Bunyip]

Hmm...

Why bother with this stupid tactic of taking four words out of a statement I made and throwing it at me?
You keep doing it over and over - I think in ten different posts now.


Any fool can take four words out of a larger statement and quote mine them - stop mate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why bother with this stupid tactic of taking four words out of a statement I made and throwing it at me?

I did much more than that. I quoted you agreeing with MY OWN PHRASING, and thus the context was MINE. Yet it made no difference. Your willingness to contradict yourself, logic, and reason for dogma doesn't know any bounds, apparently (at least none that I've seen).

You object that I quote you, but I am quoting you: these are things you have said, and were I taking them out of context you could show this. You can't. You have actually fundamentally contradicted yourself as I have demonstrated.

 

[Bunyip]

I did much more than that. I quoted you agreeing with MY OWN PHRASING, and thus the context was MINE. Yet it made no difference. You willingness to contradict yourself, logic, and reason for dogma doesn't no any bounds, apparently (at least none that I've seen).

What contradiction? I said your statement was correct.

You object that I quote you

No, I object to repeatedly posting the same quote mine. It is dishonest. Please stop dping so.

but I am quoting you:

No - you are QUOTE MINING FOUR WORDS FROM A MORE COMPLETE STATEMENT.

these are things you have said, and were I taking them out of context you could show this. You can't. You have actually fundamentally contradicted yourself as I have demonstrated.

All you are demonstrating is an incredible ability to repeat the same quote mine.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What contradiction? I said your statement was correct.

Yes, and my statement entailed contradictions with previous statements you've made.

No, I object to repeatedly posting the same quote mine. It is dishonest.

You said it. Were you being dishonest? Or were you wrong? What part of YOUR WORDS do you object to?

If it helps, the fact that you agreed with ME here:

This just gets better. According to you, there exists a set (which you don't define) of atheists, and all theists are subsets (also not defined) of this set?

Correct. Didn't you just explain that?

means that according to you, all theists are atheists regardless of whatever you say about your quote, and makes anything you would hope to say about my "quote-mining" you (i.e., quoting what you said, but because you apparently don't like to be held to your own statement, you object) redundant: you agreed with me that what you believed was all theists are atheists (or "subsets" of the set of atheists"). I'm sorry you can't defend your own statements, but I don't see how it is my responsibility to respect your contradictions by not using what you said to represent what you believe.

All you are demonstrating is an incredible ability to repeat the same quote mine.

The difference between quote-mining and quoting is that the latter doesn't takes some statement or clause and makes it mean something that wasn't intended. Quoting preserves intention. If what I have quoted hasn't preserved what you meant, then simply state how.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Look up 'implicit atheism' it is a commonly used term.

So is atheism. You're the only one I have ever met who has defined it as an adjective such that one can be "atheist with respect to" something AND such that "all theists are atheists" (and then agreed with my attempt to clarify that this was actually what you were saying).

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, and my statement entailed contradictions with previous statements you've made.



You said it. Were you being dishonest? Or were you wrong? What part of YOUR WORDS do you object to?

If it helps, the fact that you agreed with ME here:

means that according to you, all theists are atheists regardless of whatever you say about your quote, makes anything you would hope to say about my "quote-mining" you (i.e., quoting what you said, but because you apparently don't like to be held to your own statement, you object) redundant: you agreed with me that what you believed was all theists are atheists (or "subsets" of the set of atheists"). I'm sorry you can't defend your own statements, but I don't see how it is my responsibility to respect your contradictions by not using what you said to represent what you believe.



The difference between quote-mining and quoting is that the former doesn't takes some statement or clause and makes it mean something that wasn't intended. Quoting preserves intention. If what I have quoted hasn't preserved what you meant, then simply state how.

Just look back to my comments - read the rest of the statement that you quote mined. I don't need to defend myself against your false allegations.

 

[Bunyip]

So is atheism. You're the only one I have ever met who has defined it as an adjective such that one can be "atheist with respect to" something AND such that "all theists are atheists" (and then agreed with my attempt to clarify that this was actually what you were saying).

Again with the same damn quote mine - you are a broken record buddy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just look back to my comments - read the rest of the statement that you quote mined.

No need. I asked you for clarification, and you repeatedly agreed with my descriptions of your view.

This just gets better. According to you, there exists a set (which you don't define) of atheists, and all theists are subsets (also not defined) of this set?

Correct. Didn't you just explain that?

 

[Bunyip]

No need. I asked you for clarification, and you repeatedly agreed with my descriptions of your view.

Legion, you are stuck on repeat. Please go and bore somebody else.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, you are stuck on repeat. Please go and bore somebody else.

No problem. I'm good. You've admitted that you don't agree with your own positions and can't defend them, because even the deflection "look back at my posts" fails here because I ASKED whether what I STATED what an apt characterization of your views, and YOU AGREED. That's not quote-mining: it's clarifying. It's not my fault that your position is inherently inconsistent and logically contradictory, nor do I have any impetus not to point out the gaping flaws and contradictions in your positions that require you to accuse me of quote-mining despite the fact that you can't even demonstrate how I have misrepresented you, still less why you have agreed with my characterizations of your view. The fact that you have logically defined all theists as atheists, rocks as not atheists because they can't answer questions the way that infants also can't despite being atheist, and how usage is important despite the fact that nobody uses yours, and so on, is a symptom of your dogma.

 

[Bunyip]

No problem. I'm good. You've admitted that you don't agree with your own positions and can't defend the

This is pathetic - why lie? I made no such admission.

, because even the deflection "look back at my posts" fails here because I ASKED whether what I STATED what an apt characterization of your views, and YOU AGREED.

No I didn't I SAID YOU WERE QUOTE MINING

That's not quote-mining: it's clarifying. It's not my fault that your position is inherently inconsistent and logically contradictory, nor do I have any impetus not to point out the gaping flaws and contradictions in your positions that require you to accuse me of quote-mining despite the fact that you can't even demonstrate how I have misrepresented you, still less why you have agreed with my characterizations of your view. The fact that you have logically defined all theists as atheists, rocks as not atheists because they can't answer questions the way that infants also can't despite being atheist,

More lies, that was not my rationale.

and how usage is important despite the fact that nobody uses yours, and so on, is a symptom of your dogma.

Selecting four words from a statement is quote mining. A quote mine you just repeated yet again - as I said, you are stuck on repeat. And on attacking your own inventions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Selecting four words from a statement is quote mining.

Wrong. But better yet, I don't need that quote, as I specifically asked you about your view, using my words, and you agreed with them. So whether or not I QUOTE you (not quote-mine, unless you can tell me what I am quoting isn't what you meant), I went out of my way to ENSURE that you were really saying what I thought by using MY WORDs, so unless you want to accuse me of quote-mining myself, then it doesn't matter: you clearly defined all theists as atheists because even without your quotes, you agreed with me asking whether this was what you meant.

as I said, you are stuck on repeat.

As are you. You repeat the same definitions with the same baseless assertions and the same incompatible justifications; the difference is that I am consistent (logically and otherwise) in how I repeat, whereas you seem to enjoy repeatedly contradicting yourself (and, when called out, denying this by objecting to being quoted and ignoring the fact that you agreed to positions you apparently now object to be equated with).

 

[Willamena]

A young child is not a theist, by default he is an atheist until he learns theism.

That doesn't work, though, if atheism requires theism. Without theism, there is no atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand that you are pointing out that "might be true" is not equal to "is true" But might be true includes "is true" as a possibility. There is no logical reason why someone cannot accept "is true" if they believe something might be true. Just as there is no logical reason they can not reject "is true" if they believe something might be true.

Now given this, there is no logical reason someone cannot accept proposition a and accept proposition b.

there is no logical reason that one cannot accept proposition a and accept proposition b and accept proposition c which is that either proposition a or proposition b is not true.

That they accepted one of the two propositions is not true does not disturb the acceptance of these propositions because it is unknown which proposition is false. Therefore, they have created no contradiction.

You are placing two kinds of acceptance; acceptance that something "might be true", which is acceptance of the possibility (which, I would argue, most atheists still take part in, as they don't claim that God is an impossibility, but merely hasn't been supported nearly enough), and acceptance that something "is true", which is "belief" as it is used to describe "theism" and "atheism". Now, if one "accepts that God exists", they believe. If they merely "accept the possibility that God exists", they aren't expressing any beliefs that would have any bearing on theism or atheism. Thus, I feel that you are comparing apples and oranges. If you are going to apply logic, logic would dictate that you confine your scenario to "belief in the existence of God" rather than any mention of "belief in the possibility that God might exist". The former is "theism", the latter is something completely different.

 

[leibowde84]

Very typical of you. Now, you change 'something' to 'anything'.

My original objection to your replacing words in definition is reproduced again, as reminder.



I am unable to accept the specific claim of yours that babies are atheists, based on use of my intellect.

That is not equal to or that does not even suggest that I am 'incapable of belief (and disbelief also) like a stone or like a baby, who are devoid of intellect.

But, if you really insist that stones or babies are implicitly atheists just as you are, I may really agree that intellect levels of stones, babies, and implicit atheists are same or at least similar.

This doesn't make sense, but it does at least clearly show that you don't understand my argument at all. When did anyone say that you are "incapable of belief (and disbelief also) like a stone or a baby, who are devoid of intellect". I never suggested that anyone able to consider the concept and possibility of God's existence was "implicitly atheist". I don't know where you all keep on getting hung up. I can't be implicitly atheist, you can't be implicitly atheist ... no one on this site can be implicitly atheist, as we have all beein introduced to the concept of God and have considered it. They can be "weak" atheists, who merely lack belief, but they are still not implicitly atheist in the way that a baby would be.

And, I didn't change "something" to "anything". They are two different statements, and one is included under the other. If you lack the ability to belief in "anything", you necessarily lack belief in everything, and can be safely said to "lack belief" in "something" in particular.

 

[leibowde84]

Implicit atheism is a subjective view of what atheism is. There is nothing wrong in a subjective view, as long as the view is not imposed as an objective truth on some others who have different view.

No, actually, the word "implicit" implies objectivity, and the absence of subjectivity. Because it means that the term "atheism" is being placed ONLY on an entity that CANNOT CONSIDER or "make a choice" at all. Thus, "implicit atheism" is an objective use of a usually subjective term, because the entity has no choice over the matter necessarily.

You say that I am imposing an objective truth on others who have different views, but that is ludicrous. The term "implicit atheism" only applies to entities that CANNOT HAVE ANY VIEWS on the matter at hand.