What do people think "atheist" means?

[Ouroboros]

Easy. They don't believe in God or gods until, one day, they have a personal interaction with God and God identifies himself as being God. Then, after that point, they are a theist.

We all "lack belief" in everything we aren't familiar with until we become familiar with it. So, your question "how can they have an interaction with something they don't believe exists" is very easily answered. We start without belief in everything we are unfamiliar with until we become familiar with it. At that point, we believe in its existence.

So it starts internally? That's the implicit part.

 

[leibowde84]

So you do believe that they experienced God first, then this experience explained itself to them as God?

Yes, of course. How could have happened differently? How could they hold a belief in something that they were unfamiliar with?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, of course. How could have happened differently? How could they hold a belief in something that they were unfamiliar with?

So implicit theism is when it starts with a belief in a God concept that hasn't been explicitly understood, declared, formulated, conceptualized, as God.

 

[leibowde84]

So it starts internally? That's the implicit part.

No, it doesn't start internally. God has an "external" interaction with the person which initiates their belief in God. At least, that is their claim. I am not speaking at all to whether I buy claims of this kind.

 

[leibowde84]

So implicit theism is when it starts with a belief in a God concept that hasn't been explicitly understood, declared, formulated, conceptualized, as God.

Sure, that would work. But, it isn't relevant or related to "implicit atheism", as it speaks to something being innate in someone rather than a belief simply being absent.

Further, this "God concept" can easily be explained by cultural elements that support this being subconsciously inserted into one's worldview.

 

[Augustus]

If you think there's some set of characteristics for what constitutes a god (besides an individual's understanding of "god")

Isn't an individuals understanding all that is necessary? Previously you admonished people for not accepting the plurality of the god concept. Now you appear to be insisting on a precise definition?

 

[leibowde84]

Isn't an individuals understanding all that is necessary? Previously you admonished people for not accepting the plurality of the god concept. Now you appear to be insisting on a precise definition?

I think it is paramount to the conversation. How can belief in an entity be discussed unless the subject of that belief is properly defined? It is a cheap trick for a theist to refuse to provide a definition, as it makes the entire conversation meaningless. Another reason why the one making the claim of existence (of anything) has the burden of proof.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it doesn't start internally. God has an "external" interaction with the person which initiates their belief in God. At least, that is their claim. I am not speaking at all to whether I buy claims of this kind.

Ok. If you say so.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sure, that would work. But, it isn't relevant or related to "implicit atheism", as it speaks to something being innate in someone rather than a belief simply being absent.

Isn't absence of a belief something that's innate? Isn't that what this implied atheism is trying to point out, that this lack of belief is innate, natural, default?

Further, this "God concept" can easily be explained by cultural elements that support this being subconsciously inserted into one's worldview.

How did those cultural elements come into existence if not from people? How did those people originally get it? From other people?

 

[leibowde84]

Ok. If you say so.

"If I say so" how? What are you even speaking to?

 

[Ouroboros]

"If I say so" how? What are you even speaking to?

If you say that it can't start internally but has to come externally, I disagree, but that's as far as we can go with that. I think all ideas of atheism, theism, etc. originated with humans having ideas and concepts, not that they got it from some external source. But it's okay that you believe that.

 

[leibowde84]

Isn't absence of a belief something that's innate? Isn't that what this implied atheism is trying to point out, that this lack of belief is innate, natural, default?


How did those cultural elements come into existence if not from people? How did those people originally get it? From other people?

1. Yes, but an actively held belief cannot be "default", as it requires consideration. The absence of belief does not.
2. Those cultural elements of course came from people, and other people before them. The evolution of religious beliefs, both generally and in each specific system religion, can be easily seen throughout history. When the beliefs initiated, they, most likely, came from an individual making claims of an experience with God. Because of our "innate" need for understanding (evolutionary trait) and our willingness to accept assumptions to fill this need (evolutionary trait), the idea of God became so ingrained in our culture that it began to enter the minds of our children subconsciously.

 

[leibowde84]

If you say that it can't start internally but has to come externally, I disagree, but that's as far as we can go with that. I think all ideas of atheism, theism, etc. originated with humans having ideas and concepts, not that they got it from some external source. But it's okay that you believe that.

If it started internally, how would the subject even know that they were interacting with God? And, assuming that the even was internal, it would still not require some previously held belief. The interaction, whether internal or external, causes the initial belief, right?

 

[Augustus]

I think it is paramount to the conversation. How can belief in an entity be discussed unless the subject of that belief is properly defined? It is a cheap trick for a theist to refuse to provide a definition, as it makes the entire conversation meaningless. Another reason why the one making the claim of existence (of anything) has the burden of proof.

So we get back to the idea that an implicit atheist is anyone who has not been introduced to the symbol g-o-d.

Sure, that would work. But, it isn't relevant or related to "implicit atheism", as it speaks to something being innate in someone rather than a belief simply being absent.

Further, this "God concept" can easily be explained by cultural elements that support this being subconsciously inserted into one's worldview.

The concept of implicit atheism is dependent on the belief that the only reason people believe in god is because somebody told them about god.

If someone can come up with a legitimate belief in god independent of the symbol g-o-d, then we cannot tell who is an implicit theist or an implicit atheist. If we can't tell the difference, then we have to accept implicit atheist/theist is a truly pointless way to describe someone.

Yes, but an actively held belief cannot be "default", as it requires consideration. The absence of belief does not.

It isn't a default, it is a possibility. Who says there needs to be a 'default'?

 

[leibowde84]

So we get back to the idea that an implicit atheist is anyone who has not been introduced to the symbol g-o-d.



The concept of implicit atheism is dependent on the belief that the only reason people believe in god is because somebody told them about god.

If someone can come up with a legitimate belief in god independent of the symbol g-o-d, then we cannot tell who is an implicit theist or an implicit atheist. If we can't tell the difference, then we have to accept implicit atheist/theist is a truly pointless way to describe someone.



It isn't a default, it is a possibility. Who says there needs to be a 'default'?

1. It is not possible to hold a belief in something that you are not familiar with. So, unless God speaks to someone directly and identifies himself as God, the only possibility would be learning about God from other people.
2. Every person starts life without belief, as it takes time to even recognize the existence of one's self. Thus, for at least a small portion of time, all people start off being implicitly atheist. This means it IS the "default".
3. I agree that "implicit atheism/theism" is pointless classification, as it doesn't provide any information on what the subject actually believes.

 

[Augustus]

Every person starts life without belief, as it takes time to even recognize the existence of one's self. Thus, for at least a small portion of time, all people start off being implicitly atheist. This means it IS the "default".

Only if you accept the new definition of atheism that goes against most people's common usage. And only if you consider 'state at moment of birth' to be the 'default', which we don't do for other things.

Talk of defaults and implicts is pointless and was created by a small subset of atheists trying to 'prove' something through subjective, assumptive and illogical arguments.

 

[leibowde84]

Only if you accept the new definition of atheism that goes against most people's common usage. And only if you consider 'state at moment of birth' to be the 'default', which we don't do for other things.

Talk of defaults and implicts is pointless and was created by a small subset of atheists trying to 'prove' something through subjective, assumptive and illogical arguments.

I find it illogical to take your stance, but maybe we have to agree to disagree. And, I'm a theist who believes in God, but sees the opposite problem. Theists seem to insist on putting words in the mouths of atheists, claiming that they believe God does not or cannot exist, when they explicitly say otherwise publicly.

Btw, most outspoken atheists go by the definition of the term that I am using. Kind of goes againssst your "common usage" assumption, which i find to be erroneous.

 

[Ouroboros]

1. Yes, but an actively held belief cannot be "default", as it requires consideration. The absence of belief does not.

Well, I wasn't saying it was default in this particular discussion. Only that someone can grow an implicit belief, and that belief can be in a God-concept. Implicit isn't the same as default, at least not the way I see it.

2. Those cultural elements of course came from people, and other people before them. The evolution of religious beliefs, both generally and in each specific system religion, can be easily seen throughout history. When the beliefs initiated, they, most likely, came from an individual making claims of an experience with God. Because of our "innate" need for understanding (evolutionary trait) and our willingness to accept assumptions to fill this need (evolutionary trait), the idea of God became so ingrained in our culture that it began to enter the minds of our children subconsciously.

Which means that it came from their minds. It started as ideas, without being formulated or conceptualized yet.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, I wasn't saying it was default in this particular discussion. Only that someone can grow an implicit belief, and that belief can be in a God-concept. Implicit isn't the same as default, at least not the way I see it.


Which means that it came from their minds. It started as ideas, without being formulated or conceptualized yet.

Only if you assume that Gods dont exist and that these claimed events didnt take place.

 

[Ouroboros]

If it started internally, how would the subject even know that they were interacting with God? And, assuming that the even was internal, it would still not require some previously held belief. The interaction, whether internal or external, causes the initial belief, right?

The idea must've come first, unless they got the idea from someone else who got it from someone else who got it from someone else, who initially got it from themselves as an idea, inside their head. The alternative is that it came originally from an external source, i.e. God in a revelation. Either the first theists were implicit theists, internal, or the first theists had a revelation from God, external information.