The default position...

[Augustus]

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

That it is an illogical definition. You can't implicitly have the belief that there is no god.

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

You can't just say any definition that you disagree with is false. Go and look up the etymology of the word, until quite recently atheism was defined purely as 'someone who disbelieves in god'. Absence of belief is a much newer definition. This is a fact. You can argue that you prefer your definition, but if you want to argue that that is the traditional definition or the objectively true definition then your just wrong.

So why do you say your definition is the only acceptable one?

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".

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

Why is saying god probably exists the same as saying god does exist? Do you define theism as the belief that god exists or the belief that god probably exists?

What about someone who says there is an equal possibility that god exists and doesn't exist? What about someone who says there is a reasonable chance that god exists?

Why not? I find it an extremely useful concept.

And that is where we disagree.

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.

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"?

What I'm saying is the word factually had no relation to the word theist as the word theist did not exist. It was defined in regard to an attitude towards god, not an attitude towards theism.

So it wasn't simply 'anyone who is not a theist' but 'people who believe there is no god.' That is how the word was traditionally defined whether you like to accept this or not.

What about when theism meant deism? what did atheism mean then? 'not a deist'?

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.

1. It is a much newer definition. In the 2500 or so year evolution of the word atheism, when did it start being used? It is a far newer definition than belief there is no god. People have provided evidence to support that claim throughout this thread. Can you produce any evidence to suggest it is not?
2. Basically you are saying, "anyone who disagrees with me only does so because they are stupid and irrational". Plenty of people have a problem with it because they see it as being illogical and confused description as this thread will tell you.
3. In my opinion, a classification 'someone who believes there is no god' is much more precise than 'someone who lacks belief in god' for outlined reasons. Accepting the newer definition makes it less clear who is or is not an atheist and creates an 'either..or..' binary that many people, with good reason, would disagree exists.

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

Your line of argument here is basically "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say they are."

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.

Giraffes are concrete, god is abstract. A world of difference.

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.

Belief is a brain function, as arguably, is god. Please explain why I should assume that what you are saying is true. I would say it is currently unknown about how a baby's brain functions when it thinks about its parents as opposed to a believer when they think about god. What if a baby's brain functions as regards their parents was closer to that of an adult's regarding god than an adult's regarding their parents?

Why should we make assumptions about such things just so some people can claim that belief in god is a learned behaviour and thus 'unnatural'.

Is this scientific?

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

So you can't believe or experience anything that you can't explain verbally or conceptually?

Did people experience love before they defined it? According to you, no one experienced the feelings we identified as love until the first person conceptualised it.

And you just said that a baby believes in its parents, even though they lack a concept of parents.

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

Look it up. Not hard to find. Relevant as it relates to whether or not it is natural for babies and young children to believe in 'god' in a very loosely defined way.

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

Why? Based on what reasoning?

An University of Oxford academic who, I will hazard a guess, knows infinitely more about the subject than you said: "The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,"

Why then is it 'absurd' to reject as axiomatic that babies are atheists? Given this evidence is it not more logical to refrain from making any concrete judgements on the topic?

Isn't it more absurd to reject scientific evidence out of hand just because it doesn't match what you want to be true for ideological reasons?

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.

Until you understand an abstract concept how can you know that you lack belief in it?

 

[Thief]

I know....let's all find a baby somewhere....and with a felt tip pen write "atheist" on the forehead.
then wait to see how much objection follows.

no fair using your own child.....
try your neighbor's kid.

 

[ArtieE]

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

Weak atheist.

-There is no deity.

Strong atheist.

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

Therefore we call them weak and strong atheists to differentiate between them.

 

[leibowde84]

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....

You obviously don't quite have a handle on what the term "implicit" means. If the kid could understand the words coming out of my mouth, chances are that "implicit atheism" would be an impossibility. Once a child is familiar with the concept of God, it no longer applies. This has been repeated multiple times in this thread. I would suggest doing some research on what the term "implicit" means and implies about certain terms.

 

[Thief]

You obviously don't quite have a handle on what the term "implicit" means. If the kid could understand the words coming out of my mouth, chances are that "implicit atheism" would be an impossibility. Once a child is familiar with the concept of God, it no longer applies. This has been repeated multiple times in this thread. I would suggest doing some research on what the term "implicit" means and implies about certain terms.

and you keep sidestepping the effect.

 

[leibowde84]

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

The effect is that those who are unaware of the concept of God are "implicitly atheist". That's it. That is the extent of the possible "effect".

 

[leibowde84]

and you keep sidestepping the effect.

There is no effect beyond the classification of the child as being without a belief in the existence of God or gods. Anything else would be based purely on speculation.

 

[leibowde84]

and you keep sidestepping the effect.

And, you keep refusing to look up what the term "implicit" means.

 

[leibowde84]

-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.

What about someone who believes in Classical Greek Gods and another who adheres to the beliefs of Christianity. Why are they not "too dissimilar" to be included under the same term "theism"? If "theism" is extremely general, containing many subcategories (polytheism, monotheism, deism, etc.), why are you demanding that "atheism" be so specific?

 

[leibowde84]

I know....let's all find a baby somewhere....and with a felt tip pen write "atheist" on the forehead.
then wait to see how much objection follows.

no fair using your own child.....
try your neighbor's kid.

Why would objection matter when applying "atheism" implicitly? That makes no sense.

 

[Thief]

Why would objection matter when applying "atheism" implicitly? That makes no sense.

Implicit application makes no sense.

 

[leibowde84]

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'.





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.




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 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?

Nope. Even the most vocal atheists consistently say that they do not actively believe that God does not or cannot exist. They merely lack belief in God due to insufficient evidence. And, they are vocal about defending their view that the evidence is insufficient. I listen to religious debates from some of the most well-known scholars all the time, and I have never heard a single one of them say that they "believe that God cannot exist". Instead, they all merely claim that they "do not believe in God", or are "without theism" ("a-theism").

 

[leibowde84]

Implicit application makes no sense.

Why? Terms are applied "implicitly" all the time.

 

[ArtieE]

You can't just say any definition that you disagree with is false. Go and look up the etymology of the word, until quite recently atheism was defined purely as 'someone who disbelieves in god'. Absence of belief is a much newer definition.

The definition of disbelief is

"disbelief
dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
   "Laura shook her head in disbelief"
   synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief..."

Disbelief = lack of belief = absence of belief

 

[Thief]

Why? Terms are applied "implicitly" all the time.

after 1600postings.....your question of 'why' is like a small child tugging at my pant leg......

 

[Thief]

The definition of disbelief is

"disbelief
dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
   "Laura shook her head in disbelief"
   synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief..."

Disbelief = lack of belief = absence of belief

Let's clarify this notation......
The 'inability' portion is produced by a lack of thought and feeling TOWARD belief....and the CONSIDERATION was made.

 

[leibowde84]

after 1600postings.....your question of 'why' is like a small child tugging at my pant leg......

So, you don't even know why the application of this term "doesn't make sense"? Why are you so confident if you don't even know why?

 

[Thief]

So, you don't even know why the application of this term "doesn't make sense"? Why are you so confident if you don't even know why?

there's that tug ....again....

 

[leibowde84]

Let's clarify this notation......
The 'inability' portion is produced by a lack of thought and feeling TOWARD belief....and the CONSIDERATION was made.

If one is "unable" ("inability") to do something, no amount of effort is going to change anything. That's what the term "inability" implies. I implore you to actually look it up, as you obviously don't understand what it means when used in the english language.

 

[leibowde84]

there's that tug ....again....

Why did you say it if you don't have any reason to think it? You don't feel bad about that? It would definitely bother me, not having a reason to back up my claim.