The default position...

[leibowde84]

Yes, I think that I covered this in the post after the one you are quoting right now. However might exist is a statement that is described by two propositions. Might exist is not a meaningful proposition in classical logic. You need to employ modal logic in order to use this as a proposition. Once you do this, you open open the door to contingency which we can then believe both a proposition and its m.e. proposition.

Which then proves my point in a different manner.

legion spoke of this early on in the thread when he explained that you cannot use belief with classical logic.

If we use modal logic we say:

There exists a world wherein God exists.

There exists a world wherein God does not exist.

One of these worlds represents our actual world.

If you want to try to show that believing in a proposition a entails not believing in a proposition a. Please do so. But as I have already articulated, this is not evidence of non contradiction. People actually believe a proposition and its mutual exclusive proposition. Therefore, doing so will be either extraordinary or a futile endeavor.

I await your proof.

Theism does not speak at all to "belief in the mere possibility that God exists". Until you recognize this fact, your logical analysis is irrelevant. It means "acceptance that God exists in reality as true". Anything less is not what we are talking about.

 

[atanu]

No, actually, the word "implicit" implies objectivity, and the absence of subjectivity.

The word is not "Implicit". We are talking of a notion of someone that the "absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" can be termed as "Implicit atheism". It is someone's notion and there is nothing objective implicit or objective in that notion.

The term "implicit atheism" only a applies to entities that CANNOT HAVE ANY VIEWS on the matter at hand.

Yeah. Like stones and babies.

 

[Shad]

No, that is wrong - there is no single definition. What? That accusation doesn't even make sense.Which you haven't done - you just state that it is absurd and attack anybody that disagrees. You sure haven't made a logical argument.

No there are a few definitions supplied by people that have no justification for these definitions. I provided an reductio ad absurdum argument to the lack of belief parameters. If atheism is a lack of belief then rocks, cats, dogs, children are also atheist since they lack belief in theism. This is absurd thus your definition is faulty. You never countered this argument, you ignored it and went on your merry well with a definition you can not even justified nor defend. You just repeat it over and over.

What? That accusation doesn't even make sense.

Go back through the thread to see it makes perfect sense.

They can certainly be atheist in relation to other Gods - which is what I claimed, you must have misread.That didn't happen mate, you're making stuff up.

This does not make them atheists. It is two mutually exclusive positions.

Of course all theists are atheist - they are theist towards whatever God or Gods they believe in and atheist towards those that they don't. Of course you will pretend to be completely baffled by such a simple point. Atheism remains the absence or lack of a specific belief - however challenging such a simple fact may be for you.

This is what happens when you use absurd definitions.

The default position... | Page 75 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Shad]

That is only your own personal definition. It may have some popularity as well, but that does not make it the end all.

There are factually theist and those who are not theist known as atheist.

Nope it is a definition supported by logic, linguistics and philosophy. Your definition is from pop-culture, nothing more.

Atheism is the rejection of theism not the lack of beliefism. Thus certain people are atheists, those that reject. Those that do not believe are nontheists

 

[Shad]

I just posted a source that stated lack of belief.


George start bringing sources to the table or were done here. Im not going to debate your personal opinion

To echo your own standard reply to others. This is not an academic source.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nope it is a definition supported by logic, linguistics and philosophy. Your definition is from pop-culture, nothing more.

Atheism is the rejection of theism not the lack of beliefism. Thus certain people are atheists, those that reject. Those that do not believe are nontheists

Nontheism, as far as I could find it as an actual word, is more or less another word for atheism. Typically they sub-set it as strong atheism, weak atheism and implicit atheism.

For "implicit atheism" I wonder do you simply view it as nonsensical or a fantasy?
Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Curious George]

Theism does not speak at all to "belief in the mere possibility that God exists". Until you recognize this fact, your logical analysis is irrelevant. It means "acceptance that God exists in reality as true". Anything less is not what we are talking about.

Why not?
But regardless the logic is there. To make your definition work we need to alter the definition of theism. It cannot merely be the acceptance....it must also be the rejection of the proposition a God does not exist.

And while this would logically allow for the position of weak explicit atheism. It does not resolve implicit atheism.

Moreover, concerning weak explicit atheism, if theism is then the acceptance that God exists and the rejection that God does not exist, wouldn't a parallel structure for atheism be ideal?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Firstly, classical logic cannot be applied to "might."

Secondly, you are saying that might is present. You are infusing might.

The propositions are as follows

X believes Y
X believes not Y
X believes that one of the two propositions is wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

The word is not "Implicit". We are talking of a notion of someone that the "absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" can be termed as "Implicit atheism". It is someone's notion and there is nothing objective implicit or objective in that notion.



Yeah. Like stones and babies.

The term "implicit" implies objectivity because they are "atheist" or "without belief in God" necessarily, as they are incapable of belief or even considering the options.

 

[leibowde84]

Why not?
But regardless the logic is there. To make your definition work we need to alter the definition of theism. It cannot merely be the acceptance....it must also be the rejection of the proposition a God does not exist.

And while this would logically allow for the position of weak explicit atheism. It does not resolve implicit atheism.

Moreover, concerning weak explicit atheism, if theism is then the acceptance that God exists and the rejection that God does not exist, wouldn't a parallel structure for atheism be ideal?

No, as the origin of the word in greek means "without ('a') belief in God or gods ('theism')". Not only does this make sense now, but also back when the term was coined. There weren't that many people around who did not believe in any deity whatsoever, so it would make logical sense that there would either be 1) not enough of those who merely lacked belief instead of active disbelief for the issue to arise at all, and 2) there weren't enough "atheists" around for the issue of overinclusiveness coming up. Back then, it was not a safe position to hold in most parts of the world. So, we can expect that there weren't too many people running to enrole in the "atheist club".

Now, in modern times, most atheist, even the vocal ones, repeatedly say that their atheism is not a belief that God DOES NOT exist, but, rather, the belief that the evidence for God, philosophical arguments, and subjective experience used to support the existence of God is so incredibly insufficient, that they are not willing to "accept" (believe) that God exists at all. That being said, I would agree that anyone who claims active belief that God DOES NOT exist or CANNOT exists is merely being foolish, as that is almost impossible to substantiate for the same reason that God is.

Thus, I think the more modern, more accepted by (explicit) atheists, and more inclusive definition for "atheism" (or "lack of belief (acceptence) of the existence (not possibility of the existence) of God or gods") is far superior.

 

[leibowde84]

Why not?
But regardless the logic is there. To make your definition work we need to alter the definition of theism. It cannot merely be the acceptance....it must also be the rejection of the proposition a God does not exist.

And while this would logically allow for the position of weak explicit atheism. It does not resolve implicit atheism.

Moreover, concerning weak explicit atheism, if theism is then the acceptance that God exists and the rejection that God does not exist, wouldn't a parallel structure for atheism be ideal?

"Theism" is necessarily making a claim. "Atheism" is not necessarily making a claim, as only the absence of "theism" is required. More information, just as with theism, is needed to make any assumption about an "atheist's" positive beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

The word is not "Implicit". We are talking of a notion of someone that the "absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" can be termed as "Implicit atheism". It is someone's notion and there is nothing objective implicit or objective in that notion.



Yeah. Like stones and babies.

As I've said roughly 1000 times already, I agree that assigning the term "implicit atheism" to stones and babies is is a worthless endeavor. But, that in no way supports your argument that it is, nonetheless, the truth.

 

[Bunyip]

No there are a few definitions supplied by people that have no justification for these definitions. I provided an reductio ad absurdum argument to the lack of belief parameters. If atheism is a lack of belief then rocks, cats, dogs, children are also atheist since they lack belief in theism. This is absurd thus your definition is faulty.

No, it is absurd because YOU are applying theological positions to inanimate objects and animals. THAT is the absurdity.

You never countered this argument, you ignored it and went on your merry well with a definition you can not even justified nor defend. You just repeat it over and over.



Go back through the thread to see it makes perfect sense.



This does not make them atheists. It is two mutually exclusive positions.

No it isn't. Why would that be the case?

This is what happens when you use absurd definitions.

The default position... | Page 75 | ReligiousForums.com

Your're not even making an argument, just assertions.

 

[Bunyip]

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 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).

Legion, you are just being ridiculous - you are arguing with yourself, not anything I have said.

 

[Bunyip]

That is better, yet does not signify much till one knows that implicit atheism is a term coined by a person who defined it as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".

Yes, I know what implicit atheism is.

So, do you consider yourself an implicit atheist who has not ever had any conscious thought on the matter? Or should we think that you are unable to have any conscious thought on the matter?

Why bother with the childish insults? Is that all you have?

 

[leibowde84]

The word is not "Implicit". We are talking of a notion of someone that the "absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" can be termed as "Implicit atheism". It is someone's notion and there is nothing objective implicit or objective in that notion.



Yeah. Like stones and babies.

Again, "implicit" means "by definition but without declaration". It's just a descriptive term that can be applied to many things.

 

[Thief]

Again, "implicit" means "by definition but without declaration". It's just a descriptive term that can be applied to many things.

Still pasting 'stickers' on anything that can't speak it's own mind....

give it up.

ignorance is not the way to go.
if the implication fits....wear it.

 

[leibowde84]

Why not?
But regardless the logic is there. To make your definition work we need to alter the definition of theism. It cannot merely be the acceptance....it must also be the rejection of the proposition a God does not exist.

And while this would logically allow for the position of weak explicit atheism. It does not resolve implicit atheism.

Moreover, concerning weak explicit atheism, if theism is then the acceptance that God exists and the rejection that God does not exist, wouldn't a parallel structure for atheism be ideal?

I'm sorry, but every single source I've looked at describes "theism" as "the belief in the existence of God or gods", not "belief in the MERE POSSIBILITY that God or gods MIGHT EXIST". You have to admit that including the latter in any use of the term is nonsensical.

 

[leibowde84]

Still pasting 'stickers' on anything that can't speak it's own mind....

give it up.

ignorance is not the way to go.
if the implication fits....wear it.

You don't know what the words you use actually mean, which is why your comments seem disjointed, random, and pointless. It is crazy, though, how you still come off as arrogant.

You constantly resort to changing the subject to subjevtive/completely unsubstantiated claims of YOUR MERE OPINION on God's judgment, seemingly so you can have a false sense of superiority. It is extremely childish though. Why are you even on a debate discussion forum?

 

[Thief]

You don't know what the words you use actually mean, which is why your comments seem disjointed, random, and pointless. It is crazy, though, how you still come off as arrogant.

You constantly resort to changing the subject to subjevtive/completely unsubstantiated claims of YOUR MERE OPINION on God's judgment, seemingly so you can have a false sense of superiority. It is extremely childish though. Why are you even on a debate discussion forum?

You're just pasting stickers on people and things that can't speak for themselves.
I might call that vandalism.