Foxhole Atheist

From Adrian Selby:

“I'm interested in this because the baby, while not denying God exists, one aspect of being an atheist, is not affirming it either, the baby has no position on the matter, which seems agnostic.

Also however, and with reference to that essay in the library here, could the baby be said to be non cognitivist, the issue is simply without meaning for that baby. My concern is that animals could be atheists as much as babies, simply because they lack a God belief, ditto bacteria, insofar as all these things are living.”

An agnostic is aware of the possibility of the existence of a god while a newborn is not.
An agnostic does have a position in this regard and simply asserts that they have chosen the middle road until such time as more evidence can persuade them one way or the other.

A non conjunctivist? I’m not familiar with the term. I know you referenced an article in the library but in the spirit of involvement here, and to conserve time, a little enlightenment, or a link, would be very much appreciated.

Kamchatka

Quoting Hans:"Lack of belief is not an assertion."

I agree with this statement
only as far as the "lack of belief"
is the result of lack of information.

As soon as the "lack of belief" becomes
based on information related to the subject
it becomes an assertion.

Atheism is not "lack of belief."
It is lack of belief in gods.
Is there an atheist reading this
without knowledge of theist doctrine?
I did not think so.

Therefore, your belief that there is no god
is, indeed, an assertion.


Quoting Foxhole Atheist: "Atheism is not a proof to be offered Vis a Vis, the existence of god. It is simply a non-belief in a deity; any deity. In this sense, I believe it is the default position that we all come into the world with."

I find certain atheists' wordplay amusing.
Carefully they describe atheism as
"a non-belief in a deity"
rather than admitting that it is
a belief there is no deity.

Atheists are not infants.
Infants are not atheists.
Atheists have made an informed decision.
Infants have yet to be informed.
They are no more atheist
than they are theist.


Quoting The Dark Lord: "I think what is meant by atheism is a default position is that someone will be atheist until religion is forced into his/her mind."

I'm beginning to think most of the "atheists" in this thread are agnostics in denial.

Atheism is as much a belief system
based on doctrine as any other theory.

Just ask the generations of Soviet children
who had atheist doctrine "forced into their minds."


Quoting Theli: "Atheism means lack of god belief. A newborn child knows not the meaning nor the concept of the word "god", so how can he be a theist?"

More wordplay.
I would appreciate it if the self described
atheists on this thread would quit
trivializing atheism by comparing yourselves
to newborn babies.

You are not blank chalkboards.
You are not innocent.
You are not uninformed.

Take ownership of your belief system.
Stop damaging it with your denial of
responsibility.

Quoting Goliath: "Atheism is a lack of belief. "Atheism" does not set out to prove anything. I honestly don't understand what you're saying."

Will this nonsense ever stop.
Atheism is a lack of belief?
How can that be when
atheism is a belief?
The belief there is no god, deity, creator . . .

Quoting Theli: "Noncognivists can also be called "weak atheists." Since they don't believe in god, it's only reasonable to call them atheists."

No they can't,
because they don't believe
there is no god.

The only conclusion I can draw
from this thread is
that some atheists are
weak cognivists
(whatever that is supposed to mean).

I agree that atheists have nothing to prove.
Neither do theists.

Atheism is not a default position
because each atheist has taken into consideration
the information available to him/her
in this reality and concluded
there is no god.

I can respect that conclusion.
Leave the babies out of it.
You may not believe in god
but that doesn't make you innocent.

I believe that agnosticism
is more of a default position.

Synaesthesia

Kamchatka,

I think you’re missing the point. You are using the term “atheist” in one way, the atheists are using it in another way. Who is ‘right’? No one, of course, everyone. All that matters is that whatever word we use, the meaning clear to everyone. Such is evidently not the case.

The absence of belief, the simple failure to actually acknowledge the existence of magical creatures in the sky what most people here mean when they say atheism. By this definition people here are using the word, it is not true that all “atheists have made an informed decision”, it is not true that all atheists believe that there is no deity.

Atheism is only a word. If you don’t like us defining atheism as we do, at least do us the favor of recognizing that we do not use the word in the same way, not argue as if we used it in your sense.

I’m not going to take every crackpot story as equally credible. If the explanatory power of a less parsimonous theory is equal to or inferior to it’s competitor it should be bagged by Occam’s liposuction for a more sexy ontology.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Adrian Selby

"Since they don't belive in god, it's only reasonable to call them atheists. "

Theli, are bacteria atheists then, only babies have as much grasp of the issue as bacteria.

I'm not sure that a non cognitivist is a weak atheist, but then, I genuinely am not sure at the moment. It does seem that there are different interpretations given to the concept of atheism here, some believe one must be aware of the assertions of theists to recognise that one is not a theist, others think that there's no difference between not being aware of theism and lacking theistic beliefs. Yet one can be aware of the beliefs and acknowledge one's lack of them. Is this an implicit denial?

Adrian

Theli

Kamchatka...
I was under the impression that we were discussing the definition of atheism, not our situation as athests on this board.
Weither we on this board knows the word god or not is completely irrelavent to the definition of atheism.

Atheists may claim there is no gods, but that is up to each person. It's not something wich unites all atheists.
What you described above is no wordplay, why would we admit something that is a lie?

An athest can't claim that no god exist unless confronted by the claim that a specific god does exist.
We can't deny the existence of a being we cannot apply any attributes to. It's illogical.
We could say that for example "the christian god doesn't exist" or "the hindu god doesn't exist" because then we have given the word "god" a meaning.

Think of a person who has lived on an island his whole life and haven't even heard the word "god".
With what word would you explain his position on godbelief in terms of atheist, theist, agnostic...?

Atheists may base their personal beliefs on texts and on books but Atheism does not.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> So, let me see. If you say you are a human you are trivializing yourself? babies are humans too you know.

Not anyone on this board, no.
But we aren't the ultimate definition of atheism either.
We own computers.
Does that mean that all atheists must own computers aswell? Is that a part of atheism too?

What responsibility?
Who forced this responsibility on us?
Did we?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

But that is the definition of atheism.
It's the exact opposite of theism.
Theism means "god-belief".
Atheism means "no god-belief"

So you think that all atheists must claim with certainty "There is no god! period!" in order to be called atheists?

What the hell does innocence have to do with anything on the thread?

Agnostics claim that it's virtually impossible to know if gods exists or don't exist. How can a person who doesn't even know the word "god" say that?

I think you have confused weak atheism with strong atheism. Strong atheism say no gods exists at all.

Theli

Adrian Selby...
Don't get me wrong here. I don't call babies atheists normally. But if you wan't to get technical about it, I'd say they are.

When it comes to bacteria... I wouldn't call them atheists at all, since they can't ever become theists. The question of godbelief when it comes to bacteria is of no meaning.
Saying that the bacteria is an atheist would be like saying "that rock over there is not angry".
It's an illogical claim.
I think we can safely limit (A)theism to humans alone at this point.
Unless it has been proven that a certain animal (beside from humans) understand the concept of god and can belive in it's existence.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Foxhole Atheist

“Wordplay”. Now, there is a word that is very well understood in the theist world. The Christian bible, the Koran, the Tora and the Talmud are very good examples of “wordplay”.

Now, please “read my lips”: an atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of any god(s).

“I would appreciate it if the self described atheists on this thread would quit trivializing atheism by comparing yourselves to newborn babies.”

I think you have read this thread from the wrong side of the podium.

“Take ownership of your belief system. Stop damaging it with your denial of responsibility.”

I have a belief system and it is based upon the atheist conclusion. However, there is no “belief system” of atheism. A belief system, a world view if you prefer, is based upon one’s total experiences. It is one’s understanding as to how things are and the continuum of cause and effect.

“Will this nonsense ever stop. Atheism is a lack of belief? How can that be when
atheism is a belief? The belief there is no god, deity, creator . .”
“I can respect that conclusion. Leave the babies out of it. You may not believe in god but that doesn't make you innocent.

If not innocent, then what am I guilty of? Original sin?” What does innocence have to do with this discussion?

“I believe that agnosticism is more of a default position.”

Agnosticism is a conclusion based upon the known evidence for a particular individual. As each individual seeks their own truth, meaning or purpose, the conclusion is not always the same.

I think the whole purpose of this thread is to define an atheist and the purpose of the discussion here is to participate in the discussion to help form that definition. If you do not wish to do so, then don’t. But please quit whining. If you would like to present your definitions, I for one, will certainly be interested in knowing what they are.

There are not many people who actually understand that atheism is not a belief system per se. It is a position taken with regard to the theist assertion that there is a god. One’s world view can be guided or significantly influenced by the atheist conclusion and form the defining core of a belief system. But, atheism, in and of itself, is not a “belief system”.

This theist assertion was all well and good during the early years of the human intellect. However, now that we understand the cause of thunder, the motion of the moon, the sun and the stars, what causes sickness and disease, we are questioning this assertion. Those of us who need conclusive evidence of any assertion that may effect our daily lives are not ready and willing to just roll-over, as the theist scratches our bellies, and say, yah, that feels good. I’ll go along and be a good little lamb.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Foxhole Atheist ]</p>

free12thinker

I know people are not millionaires by default. That's what I was trying to get across to WJ. Perhaps you didn't read the post. I said, I would be a millionairre by definition, as in a millionairre as defined by my millions. Get it?

But, people are not always born atheists either. There are a lot of people who aren't atheists until well into their adulthood.

But thanks for trying anyway.

Jayhawker Soule

These debates on definition always bring to mind Humpty Dumpty ...

Seriously, though, does anyone know of a formal critique of "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism" (by Theodore M. Drange)? I found it valuable for a couple of reasons.

While we have every right to engage in word decomposition, it is simply counterproductive to ignore the dictionary if our intent is effective commuications. As Drange notes: "One virtue of this way of characterizing the three groups of cognitivists is that it captures the way the terms are commonly used in ordinary language, and, in particular, it makes the groups mutually exclusive." When Merriam-Webster defines atheism as "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity". What is the value in debating the dictionary?

It also seems to me that the approach argued by Drange also avoids the following confusion.

If atheist is defined as the absence of a belief, how can such an absence be 'weak or 'strong'? This is the difference between: "I don't really believe in unicorns." and "I really, realy, don't believe in unicorns."

As for noncognitivism being "weak atheism", noncognitivism, best I can tell" is the view that no proposition has been asserted, e.g., I am a noncognitivist regarding the proposition that: "Phlyxnoth tastes yellow." The assertion does not legitimately lend itself to a yes, no, or I don't know response.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Hans

Kamchatka

I believe you have failed to consider that theist doctrine provides no reason to believe that a god exists. In this respect, no information has been provided that would rationally lead one to the belief in a deity.