The default position...

[leibowde84]

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".

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?

You have got to be trolling with this one. Are you really this confused?! None of us have claimed to be implicitly atheist. You obviously d I nt understand the ckncept. Take a minute and realize that if someone "explicitly" identifies as "atheist", they can no longer be "implicitly atheist", so your comment was completely nonsensical.

 

[leibowde84]

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

That is exactly what's happening. But I'm not doing it. The term atheism's definition does it automatically. And it doesn't cause any harm because it is fairly meaningless beyond a topic for discussion.

 

[Thief]

You have got to be trolling with this one. Are you really this confused?! None of us have claimed to be implicitly atheist. You obviously d I nt understand the ckncept. Take a minute and realize that if someone "explicitly" identifies as "atheist", they can no longer be "implicitly atheist", so your comment was completely nonsensical.

and you're still pasting....

repeating an effort, while expecting a different result....insanity.

 

[Thief]

That is exactly what's happening. But I'm not doing it. The term atheism's definition does it automatically. And it doesn't cause any harm because it is fairly meaningless beyond a topic for discussion.

Step up to a child and call him an atheist to his face...
be sure his mother is standing there holding his hand when you do so....

 

[Thief]

definition without effect is.....null effect.

 

[leibowde84]

and you're still pasting....

repeating an effort, while expecting a different result....insanity.

At least I didn't just give up on providing any argument and resort to inane riddles that show your immense ignorance of the English language.

 

[leibowde84]

definition without effect is.....null effect.

So you just hate the word "implicit" itself?!

 

[Thief]

So you just hate the word "implicit" itself?!

not a matter of hate.....just your pasting work

 

[Desert Snake]

So you just hate the word "implicit" itself?!

Hi!

Theism. means one thing.

Atheism. according to you, should mean more than one thing.

A-theism.



''Theism'': does not actually have more than one meaning. One has to believe in a deity, in order to be an theist.

ambivalence, or ''inbetween'', is not an assertion of disbelief;
Because, it still leaves just as much possibility ''for'' belief, as not belief.
THAT IS NOT ''DISBELIEF'', OR A DECLARATION THAT THERE IS NO DEITY.

Theism, having one meaning, therefore 'a-theism', has to remain consistent with it's relative descriptor word , but, also, as mentioned before, words with literally more than one meaning, lose their inherent meaning, without separate descriptors. According to your definition, one could not, just write ''atheism'', and have it mean something. written alone, with your definition, it has more than one meaning; this makes it meaningless.

 

[Thief]

Hi!

Theism. means one thing.

Atheism. according to you, should mean more than one thing.

A-theism.



''Theism'': does not actually have more than one meaning. One has to believe in a deity, in order to be an theist.

ambivalence, or ''inbetween'', is not a an assertion of disbelief;
Because, it still leaves just as much possibility ''for'' belief, as not belief.
THAT IS NOT ''DISBELIEF'', OR A DECLARATION THAT THERE IS NO DEITY.

Theism, having one meaning, therefore 'a-theism', has to remain consistent with it's relative descriptor word , but, also, as mentioned before, words with literally more than one meaning, lose their inherent meaning, without separate descriptors. According to your definition, one could not, just write ''atheism'', and have it mean something. written alone, with your definition, it has more than one meaning; this makes it meaningless.

don't feed the 'other guy'
he wants the last post.....

 

[Desert Snake]

-I don't have an idea on the matter. I don't know. There may be a deity, perhaps not.

-There is no deity.

These separate statements CANNOT have the same ''word'', as a definition for their meaning. These statements, are too dissimilar.

 

[Desert Snake]

@Thief

Well, that's the last of my argumentation on the matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

I'm not arguing with what you have said, as you do this just fine. For example:

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.

So atheism is the default position, but all theists are atheists, so some default.
Better yet:

The default is to not be a theist - atheist.

So the default is to be "not a theist", which is an atheist, but all theists are atheists.
Still better:

naturally, all theists are also atheists

Nor did I state that 'all theists are atheist', or 'all atheists are theist'.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not arguing with what you have said, as you do this just fine. For example:


So atheism is the default position, but all theists are atheists, so some default.

Honestly Legion, I see no point in repeating the same lies over and over again. I made no such statement.

Better yet:


So the default is to be "not a theist", which is an atheist, but all theists are atheists.
Still better:

I don't know what mental state you are in but ask again that you desist from misrepresenting me. I did not make the statement you attribute to me and after telling you so many times I am getting very sick of your lies. Please stop.

Editing out a few words from a statement of mine and endlessly flinging it at me as if it was my claim is shockingly dishonest and dishonourable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Honestly Legion, I see no point in repeating the same lies over and over again. I made no such statement.

The reason for making them over and over again is because you continue to deny that you made statements I quoted you as saying. I'm morbidly fascinated in the extent to your denial that you haven't said what anybody can see you have.

I don't know what mental state you are in but ask again that you desist from misrepresenting me.

Sure. Just describe how my quotations of you misrepresent you.

I am getting very sick of your lies.

They're your words.

Editing out a few words from a statement of mine

I asked you whether a certain description was an accurate description of your position. Your response was "Correct." What did I edit out? And as for the "all theists are also atheist", the fact that you claim this is true because you contradict usage, dictionaries, logic, and yourself by stating one can be "atheist in relation to" anything is at least as laughable as simply saying "all theists are atheists".

 

[Bunyip]

The reason for making them over and over again is because you continue to deny that you made statements I quoted you as saying.

Yes, because I made no such statements. What you quote are shamelessly dishonest quote mines - you removed the context, the qualifiers, and the bulk of the statement in question, leaving only four words.

I'm morbidly fascinated in the extent to your denial that you haven't said what anybody can see you have.


Sure. Just describe how my quotations of you misrepresent you.


They're your words.


I asked you whether a certain description was an accurate description of your position. Your response was "Correct."

No, that was a post you made to George - not to me, you asked me nothing in that case.

What did I edit out?

The context, along with the bulk of the claim in question.

And as for the "all theists are also atheist", the fact that you claim this is true because you contradict usage, dictionaries, logic, and yourself by stating one can be "atheist in relation to" anything is at least as laughable as simply saying "all theists are atheists".

You are behaving like buffoon.
STOP IT, this is just shameful.

You seem to think you are so intelligent - why do you need to rely on such disgusting and infantile tactics?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

-I don't have an idea on the matter. I don't know. There may be a deity, perhaps not.

-There is no deity.

These separate statements CANNOT have the same ''word'', as a definition for their meaning. These statements, are too dissimilar.

"There is only one God. There can only ever be one God. One God is all that there is all there ever will be."

"There are many Gods. There have always been many Gods. Many Gods exist and will always exist."

Both of the above positions are near polar opposites, but both positions come under the heading of "theist". Believe it or not, two people with two wildly different positions can still come under the same heading - particularly if the heading is quite a broadly defined term that only refers to one, very specific thing.

 

[Augustus]

Implicit atheism is not up for debate.

No one can debate that some people created a category of implicit atheism about 40 years ago, people can reject that such a category is logical, useful, etc. though.

Of course implicit atheism is up for debate, you can't say 'we created a category and now it exists you can't disagree with it because it already exists'.

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.

There is a difference between believing that god does not exist and being able to prove that god does not exist. We make decisions based on balance of probabilities all of the time. It is not foolish to believe that god doesn't exist, it is only foolish to believe it is something that is provable.

Atheists believe that there is no god, even if they know they can't prove it.

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.

Does it not seem nonsensical to claim that someone who thinks that god 'probably' exists is an atheist as they have not 'accepted' that god exists? This would make someone who believes god probably doesn't exist an atheist and someone who believes god probably does exist an atheist. And if you think that someone who says god 'probably' exists is a theist, what would someone who believes it is equally probably that god exist and that god doesn't exist be?

This is why creating this artificial and forced 'either..or..' binary regarding theism and atheism is silly. Atheist can't simply mean 'not definitively a theist' and remain a useful concept.

Theism is the belief in question. The default is to not be a theist - atheist.

Theism was created as a concept 2000 years after atheism was, so atheism can't simply be 'not theism'. The concept of atheism must exist independently of its relationship to theism, as theism didn't exist. Anyway, 'theist' used to have exactly the same meaning as contemporary 'deist', so did it used to mean 'not deist' for a while?

Defining atheism in regard to theism is just a new invention, and not one which clarifies but one which obfuscates. When a new definition is created for ideological reasons, and obfuscates rather than clarifies, why should people not reject it?

Such people would say there is no default position and both theism and atheism are things that we learn to believe.

And to claim babies are atheists because they are not theists relies on the unproven assertion that babies are not theists. Now babies are not Muslims, Jews or Christians, but to understand their default position as regards the existence of something that fits the category of god is problematic. Do we know for certain that a baby's view of their mother is not something that is similar to that of a primitive concept of god - 'a superhuman being having power over nature or human fortunes'? Babies don't understand the concept of mother any more than they do god, there is at least some chance that their feelings towards their mother are closer to one concept of god, rather than our concept of parent.

Some tentative research has show that young children subscribe supernatural powers to their parents (who obviously also have power over every area of their life), does this meet the description of 'a superhuman being having power over nature or human fortunes'?

Now I'm certainly not advocating calling babies theists, but should we assume it as axiomatic that babies are objectively not theists? If you say you have to understand the concept of god before you can be a theist, why don't you think we need to understand the concept of god to be an atheist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No one can debate that some people created a category of implicit atheism about 40 years ago, people can reject that such a category is logical, useful, etc. though.

Of course implicit atheism is up for debate, you can't say 'we created a category and now it exists you can't disagree with it because it already exists'.

How so? Would you disagree with the categorization of a group as "not blue"? What's the objection based on?

Atheists believe that there is no god, even if they know they can't prove it.

False. Atheists are defined as individuals who don't believe there is a God.

Does it not seem nonsensical to claim that someone who thinks that god 'probably' exists is an atheist as they have not 'accepted' that god exists? This would make someone who believes god probably doesn't exist an atheist and someone who believes god probably does exist an atheist. And if you think that someone who says god 'probably' exists is a theist, what would someone who believes it is equally probably that god exist and that god doesn't exist be?

They didn't say "probably", they said "possibly". Saying "God probably exists" implies belief with uncertainty, saying "God possibly exists" doesn't imply belief in God, just the belief that it is POSSIBLE for God to exist. If you state "God probably exists" then you're a theist. "It is possible God exists" doesn't necessarily imply either belief or disbelief. A person can either believe or disbelieve while still saying "It is possible".

This is why creating this artificial and forced 'either..or..' binary regarding theism and atheism is silly.

Because you can't tell the difference between "possibly" and "probably"?

Atheist can't simply mean 'not definitively a theist' and remain a useful concept.

Why not? I find it an extremely useful concept.

Theism was created as a concept 2000 years after atheism was, so atheism can't simply be 'not theism'. The concept of atheism must exist independently of its relationship to theism, as theism didn't exist.

And vegetarianism existed as a concept long before anything ever evolved that ate meat, but that doesn't mean "vegetarian" can't mean what it means. That's a nonsensical argument.

Defining atheism in regard to theism is just a new invention, and not one which clarifies but one which obfuscates.

Are you serious? Are you honestly suggesting that the word aTHEIST should have no relation whatsoever with the word THEIST? Perhaps we should just call ourselves "a"?

When a new definition is created for ideological reasons, and obfuscates rather than clarifies, why should people not reject it?

1. This isn't a new definition.
2. The only people who have a problem with it are people who don't like the term "atheist" for arbitrary reasons, usually dependent on a general distaste for the word.
3. The word does clarify. It clarifies that if you don't accept a proposition, you reject it by default, and that atheism is therefore not a hard-line position.

Such people would say there is no default position and both theism and atheism are things that we learn to believe.

And such people would be wrong, because they don't understand the definition of atheism.

And to claim babies are atheists because they are not theists relies on the unproven assertion that babies are not theists.

Do you have any evidence that babies believe in, or are even aware of the concept of, God?

Now babies are not Muslims, Jews or Christians, but to understand their default position as regards the existence of something that fits the category of god is problematic.

No more problematic that suggesting that babies don't believe in Giraffes. If you have no issue saying that babies don't believe in long-limbed, long necked mammals that are native to Africa, then I don't see why you'd have an issue with saying that babies don't believe in a supernatural intelligent agency responsible for the creation/maintenance of the Universe.

Do we know for certain that a baby's view of their mother is not something that is similar to that of a primitive concept of god - 'a superhuman being having power over nature or human fortunes'?

Yes, because the baby has no concept of any of those things. You might as well be asking "how can we be certain a baby's view of their mother is not something that is similar to that if a primitive concept of a computer - 'a machine capable of producing information and distributing resources'? A baby believing in its parents is NOT the same thing as believing in God.

Babies don't understand the concept of mother any more than they do god, there is at least some chance that their feelings towards their mother are closer to one concept of god, rather than our concept of parent.

So they have no concept of it, yet you feel they could still believe in one? How does that make sense?

Some tentative research has show that young children subscribe supernatural powers to their parents (who obviously also have power over every area of their life), does this meet the description of 'a superhuman being having power over nature or human fortunes'?

What research? And what relevance does this have to believing in God?

Now I'm certainly not advocating calling babies theists, but should we assume it as axiomatic that babies are objectively not theists?

Yes, because it is. To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.

If you say you have to understand the concept of god before you can be a theist, why don't you think we need to understand the concept of god to be an atheist?

Because atheism is the lack of belief. You don't need to understand a concept in order to lack a belief in it. That's like saying you need to understand the concept of cars before you can NOT own a car. I would agree that saying that a baby is not a car owner is kind of a silly thing to do, but I doubt you would object to the statement "a baby doesn't own a car" on factual grounds. As silly a thing as it is to point out, it is still true.

 

[Willamena]

No one can debate that some people created a category of implicit atheism about 40 years ago, people can reject that such a category is logical, usefulex. though.

As it contradicts atheism, it's not usefully atheism.

There is a difference between believing that god does not exist and being able to prove that god does not exist. We make decisions based on balance of probabilities all of the time. It is not foolish to believe that god doesn't exist, it is only foolish to believe it is something that is provable.

Atheists believe that there is no god, even if they know they can't prove it.

Atheists believe in the evidence they DO have, not the evidence that they don't have. They believe in the evidence of their senses and their ideas, translated into the propositions that are true about the world. That's HOW they can accurately say that, "there is no god." Non-existent things (i.e. false propositions about existents) are neither required to or expected to have evidence of existence, just evidence of falsehood.

Defining atheism in regard to theism is just a new invention, and not one which clarifies but one which obfuscates. When a new definition is created for ideological reasons, and obfuscates rather than clarifies, why should people not reject it?

Not so new, just simple grammar. The smoker smokes, the writer writes. The theist believes in a god or gods.

If you say you have to understand the concept of god before you can be a theist, why don't you think we need to understand the concept of god to be an atheist?

Just so. Because just like the writer is the personification of writing, the atheist is the personification of atheism, and atheism is "not theism." It is "not believing in a god or gods."

The theist arrives at belief in god the same way the atheist does, by believing in the evidence of their senses and ideas that have resulted in true propositions. It's propositions that are the content of our beliefs. The proposition can be true or false, but it cannot fail to be. Without that thing (proposition) to " not believe" in, you are suggesting belief in non-existent propositions, as opposed to propositions about non-existents.