Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pomp · 05-06-2002, 01:20 PM

free12thinker,

Newborns have not made the decision. There is no "belief" or lack of "belief".

A either exists or else it doesn't. A newborn either has a god belief or else it doesn't.

One can't decide on what they believe without any train of thought or concept of the ideas surrounding the subject.

Yes. Until one starts "deciding what they believe" one has exactly zero beliefs. Hence, exactly zero god beliefs, hence weak atheism as a default position.

Theli · 05-06-2002, 01:23 PM

free12thinker...

Quote:

Of course God is not programmed into their minds. But here's the thing.

Atheists do not believe in God (strong or weak), theists believe in god (whatever god that may be). Newborns are neither.

Excuse my french but how the hell can you not "believe in god" and also not "not believe in god"?

Either you believe in a god or you don't, is there a third option?

Quote:

Newborns have not made the decision.

Decision? where does decision come into the definition "lack of god-belief"?
A person who is brought up to be a christian and have learned that it's a god and to deny this "fact" is to defy his parents and will result in tourment in hell, is he not a christian?
He doesn't know any other "truth" then the one provided by his parents.
Where is his choice?

Quote:

There is no "belief" or lack of "belief".

There is "lack of belief". The newborn has no god belief, does he? There is a lack of god-belief.

Quote:

One can't decide on what they believe without any train of thought or concept of the ideas surrounding the subject.

Ahhh yes, but Atheism isn't neccessarily a belief. Someone cannot be a strong atheist without knowing the concept of god, this is true.
But you can be a weak atheist, or more accurate "a noncognitivist".

Quote:

That's why I argue with WJ that atheism is not a default.

You are reffering to strong atheism. Atheism is usually missenterpreted by dictionaries to mean "denial of gods existance". They tend to think that the prefix A- in atheism means denial, wich is wrong.
The A- prefix simply negates the suffix (I don't know if that's the right word) -theism.

Here's an example...

AMorality is the lack of consciousness of any moral code to which one is obligated.
It shorter terms - lack of morality.

Quote:

There isn't always an either "they do believe" or "they don't believe". They simply don't have the ability or information in front of them to make a decision either way.

Why would they have to make a decision on order to lack a certain belief?

Quote:

I will say that I like your distinction between strong and weak atheist. Even though I find a hard time distinguishing a weak atheist from an agnostic.

I don't know much about agnostic beliefs, but from what I understand they claim it's impossible to know if god exists or not.

Quote:

If the weak atheist does not believe that one could exist, than they are a strong atheist, in my opinion (and yours it seems). If they believe that one could possibly exist, than does that make them partially agnostic?

Well... this is my impression.

Weak atheist - has not been presented with a convincing godbelief, religion or theistic explaination to develop a godbelief (theism).

Strong atheist - Denies godbeliefs on the grounds that he find the very notion of gods seriously flawed or even impossible. He can claim that no gods exist at all.

Agnostic - He has heard convincing arguments both for and against the existence of gods and finds that they are just as convincing.
Or he claims that it's impossible to know if gods
exist or not because they are "undetectable".

Noncognitivist - Does not know the word "god" or it's meaning and cannot/will not decide if god exists or not. I would rather use this word to describe a newborn baby since it's more accurate.
But if you wan't to be technical about it, the noncognitivist falls under the category "weak atheist". He has no godbelief.

There might be some spellingerrors, inconsistencies or other crap in my text. I don't have time to check.
But here you have my definition of Atheism.
[img]

[/IMG]

Samhain · 05-06-2002, 01:32 PM

PB:

Quote:

Until one starts "deciding what they believe" one has exactly zero beliefs. Hence, exactly zero god beliefs, hence weak atheism as a default position.

If the question of god(s) is not a point of argument for an infant, because of lack of knowledge about said god(s), then how can it be a default position when the infant has no knowledge of either side? A person cannot refute, acknowledge, disbelieve, or hold no belief in a statement until that statement has been made, correct? Personally, agnosticism seems more of a "default" position to me.

Pomp · 05-06-2002, 01:55 PM

Samhain,

If the question of god(s) is not a point of argument for an infant, because of lack of knowledge about said god(s), then how can it be a default position when the infant has no knowledge of either side?

You're claiming, in effect, that it makes no sense to speak of an infant as having no god belief if that infant has not had the opportunity to acquire god belief. I don't think that is a valid position to take. As I've said, either A exists or else A does not exist. The fact that A has not had the opportunity to come into existence does not change the fact that A does not exist. Let A be "this infant's belief in the existence of a god."

To use an analogy, would you agree that it is true that either Genghis Kahn drove a Honda or else Genghis Kahn did not drive a Honda? Or would you argue that the question makes no sense because Ganghis Kahn never had the opportunity to drive a Honda?

I hold that it is sensible to say that Genhis Kahn did not drive a Honda and an infant holds no god belief.

A person cannot...hold no belief in a statement until that statement has been made, correct?

I don't see why not. Do you hold any belief regarding the color of the shirt that I am wearing? Or are you currently in some strange state where you neither hold any beliefs about my shirt nor fail to hold any beliefs about my shirt? Do you believe that my shirt is brown? If some third party who had not seen my shirt and, thus, could not be considered a reliable source with respect to its color, were to remark "His shirt is brown," you presumably would not acquire the belief that I am wearing a brown shirt, but would your state of neither belief nor lack of belief suddenly resolve into a lack of belief in the brownness of my shirt?

Personally, agnosticism seems more of a "default" position to me.

Agnosticism, in the strictest sense, means the positive belief that it is not possible to have reliable knowledge of a god's existence. I'm not sure how many infants hold this belief.

Edited for a typo.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

Samhain · 05-06-2002, 02:41 PM

PB:

Quote:

would you agree that it is true that either Genghis Kahn drove a Honda or else Genghis Kahn did not drive a Honda? Or would you argue that the question makes no sense because Ganghis Kahn never had the opportunity to drive a Honda?

Well, obviously this analogy is poor, since it's obvious to everyone that Genghis Kahn was a fan of chevy.

Seriously, though. I suppose that everything which one does not have any knowledge from would be defaulted to having no belief in whatever the thing is. I guess it would seem that lack of knowledge does constitute a lack of belief as well, though it seems somewhat redundant.

EDIT: Just one more thing - Based upon your arguments it is then safe to assume that Socrates had no belief in the existence of the Northern American continent, correct? For some reason this just doesn't make any sense to me. The existence or non-existence of the Northern American continent didn't make any difference to Socrates. Socrates did not have knowledge either for or against its existence, he didn't even have knowledge of the argument of it. The existence of it did not concern him, therefore how is it possible for him to make positive or negative statements about the existence or non-existence of the Northern American continent?

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]

Theli · 05-06-2002, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samhain:
PB:
If the question of god(s) is not a point of argument for an infant, because of lack of knowledge about said god(s), then how can it be a default position when the infant has no knowledge of either side? A person cannot refute, acknowledge, disbelieve, or hold no belief in a statement until that statement has been made, correct?

This is not a question about statements.
It's a question about attributes.
Godbelief is an attribute some people have and some don't. non-godbelief is not an attribute. It's lack of the godbelief attribute.

A newborn child does not have the attribute "godbelief" and is therefore technically a weak atheist.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

free12thinker · 05-06-2002, 05:55 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theli:
[QB]free12thinker...
Excuse my french but how the hell can you not "believe in god" and also not "not believe in god"?

Either you believe in a god or you don't, is there a third option?

--------------------------------------------------

You're not understanding the difference between
1) Belief
2) Disbelief
3) No opinion due to lack of info.

1.) Belief - I believe John Stockton is a good point guard
2.) Disbelief - I don't believe John Stockton is a good point guard
3) No opinion - I've never heard of the guy so I really couldn't say either way.

Babies have never heard of god. They couldn't tell you either way.

Atheists don't just disbelieve in god because it doesn't sound right. It's not a pop quiz where they make a good guess. It's--I don't believe in God because of this, this & this.

Well with infants, there is no this, this or this, so they really couldn't say either way.

Once again--There is a 3rd option to believe or disbelieve. If you believe or disbelieve in something, than a reason follows. But for babies, there is no signification, justification or anything of the sort. Thus, no belief or disbelief.

free12thinker · 05-06-2002, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
"My Reply:
How can atheism be contradicted, without anything to contradict it? Or are you simply stating that an atheist arguing against the possibility of god's existence is ludicrous since there is no sense in arguing that which one does not believe to be true anyway. Is that what you are getting at?"

Yes!

"If so, I will respond by noting that; If we always left alone, that which we did not believe to be true, than we would be a would without progress. It is permissable, and in fact, healthy to question authority. And, make no mistake about it, the word God, and the idea behind God, is authority. It's also murderous. Its also intolerant and everything in between."

But as Ayer points out, it is nonsensical to do so. Personally, I think also you are hung-up with this idea of 'authority'.

"My Reply:
Here's where I have a problem. You don't seem to understand that the Atheist position does not have to be proven. The only thing that has to be proven is that God exists. There is no proving an argument, until an argument is made. God is the argument that was made. By starting the argument of God, questions and proofs can begun being raised. Atheism did not rise before the assertions of God, but in fact, the opposite happened. And if you don't agree with me here, explain why. Explain how anyone can be expected to come up with the burden of proof, when there's nothing to prove. Without the initial assertion of God, there is no Atheism, and in that, there is nothing to prove."

Agreed!

"Are you telling me that you don't debate anything that you find false? If this is what you're saying than:
1.) I feel sorry for you as you are simply a follower
&
2.) I guess we won't be seeing your name around here anymore"

I don't debate anything that doesn't exist. You seem to though... .

Does that help clarify my position any?

Walrus

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

I like how you note, "But as Ayer points out...". I am not asking Ayer, I am asking you. Or do you not have your own opinion, based on your own thought process.

Then you agree with my paragraph on how atheists don't carry the burden of proof only to follow that with a statement that you don't debate anything that doesn't exist. And in stating this, you are obviously stating your belief that God exists, and atheism does not.

I won't even ask what your basing this on because you really are useless to argue with. You give three word replies and then continually ask if you're making sense.

Give me something other than "agreed" or telling me that you don't debate anything that doesn't exist. What are you referring to that "doesn't exist"? If anything.

Pomp · 05-06-2002, 09:46 PM

Samhain,

Based upon your arguments it is then safe to assume that Socrates had no belief in the existence of the Northern American continent, correct?

Yes. He's never heard of it, so how can he have a belief in it?

For some reason this just doesn't make any sense to me. The existence or non-existence of the Northern American continent didn't make any difference to Socrates. Socrates did not have knowledge either for or against its existence, he didn't even have knowledge of the argument of it. The existence of it did not concern him, therefore how is it possible for him to make positive or negative statements about the existence or non-existence of the Northern American continent?

He doesn't need to make statements about it in order to lack belief in it. You seem to have a conception of "lack of belief" as something with its own positive existence. It's not. It is, quite simply, the lack of beleief. There are no special conditions or knowledge or abilties necessary to lack a belief.

Samhain · 05-06-2002, 10:04 PM

PB:

As I said before, I accept the reasoning, it makes sense, but just doesn't settle right if you know what I mean. It just seems like there's something nagging me at this topic, and I don't know what it is. Like I said, I can't seem to get the word "redundant" out of my head for some reason. I don't know if that makes any sense, but, for what it's worth, I agree with what you said, if not to an extent which I feel is fully acceptable to myself.

05-06-2002, 01:55 PM	#44
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Samhain, If the question of god(s) is not a point of argument for an infant, because of lack of knowledge about said god(s), then how can it be a default position when the infant has no knowledge of either side? You're claiming, in effect, that it makes no sense to speak of an infant as having no god belief if that infant has not had the opportunity to acquire god belief. I don't think that is a valid position to take. As I've said, either A exists or else A does not exist. The fact that A has not had the opportunity to come into existence does not change the fact that A does not exist. Let A be "this infant's belief in the existence of a god." To use an analogy, would you agree that it is true that either Genghis Kahn drove a Honda or else Genghis Kahn did not drive a Honda? Or would you argue that the question makes no sense because Ganghis Kahn never had the opportunity to drive a Honda? I hold that it is sensible to say that Genhis Kahn did not drive a Honda and an infant holds no god belief. A person cannot...hold no belief in a statement until that statement has been made, correct? I don't see why not. Do you hold any belief regarding the color of the shirt that I am wearing? Or are you currently in some strange state where you neither hold any beliefs about my shirt nor fail to hold any beliefs about my shirt? Do you believe that my shirt is brown? If some third party who had not seen my shirt and, thus, could not be considered a reliable source with respect to its color, were to remark "His shirt is brown," you presumably would not acquire the belief that I am wearing a brown shirt, but would your state of neither belief nor lack of belief suddenly resolve into a lack of belief in the brownness of my shirt? Personally, agnosticism seems more of a "default" position to me. Agnosticism, in the strictest sense, means the positive belief that it is not possible to have reliable knowledge of a god's existence. I'm not sure how many infants hold this belief. Edited for a typo. [ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2002, 01:20 PM	#41
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	free12thinker, Newborns have not made the decision. There is no "belief" or lack of "belief". A either exists or else it doesn't. A newborn either has a god belief or else it doesn't. One can't decide on what they believe without any train of thought or concept of the ideas surrounding the subject. Yes. Until one starts "deciding what they believe" one has exactly zero beliefs. Hence, exactly zero god beliefs, hence weak atheism as a default position.

05-06-2002, 05:55 PM	#47
free12thinker Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: DC Metropolitan Area Posts: 417	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theli: [QB]free12thinker... Excuse my french but how the hell can you not "believe in god" and also not "not believe in god"? Either you believe in a god or you don't, is there a third option? -------------------------------------------------- You're not understanding the difference between 1) Belief 2) Disbelief 3) No opinion due to lack of info. 1.) Belief - I believe John Stockton is a good point guard 2.) Disbelief - I don't believe John Stockton is a good point guard 3) No opinion - I've never heard of the guy so I really couldn't say either way. Babies have never heard of god. They couldn't tell you either way. Atheists don't just disbelieve in god because it doesn't sound right. It's not a pop quiz where they make a good guess. It's--I don't believe in God because of this, this & this. Well with infants, there is no this, this or this, so they really couldn't say either way. Once again--There is a 3rd option to believe or disbelieve. If you believe or disbelieve in something, than a reason follows. But for babies, there is no signification, justification or anything of the sort. Thus, no belief or disbelief.

05-06-2002, 09:46 PM	#49
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Samhain, Based upon your arguments it is then safe to assume that Socrates had no belief in the existence of the Northern American continent, correct? Yes. He's never heard of it, so how can he have a belief in it? For some reason this just doesn't make any sense to me. The existence or non-existence of the Northern American continent didn't make any difference to Socrates. Socrates did not have knowledge either for or against its existence, he didn't even have knowledge of the argument of it. The existence of it did not concern him, therefore how is it possible for him to make positive or negative statements about the existence or non-existence of the Northern American continent? He doesn't need to make statements about it in order to lack belief in it. You seem to have a conception of "lack of belief" as something with its own positive existence. It's not. It is, quite simply, the lack of beleief. There are no special conditions or knowledge or abilties necessary to lack a belief.

05-06-2002, 10:04 PM	#50
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	PB: As I said before, I accept the reasoning, it makes sense, but just doesn't settle right if you know what I mean. It just seems like there's something nagging me at this topic, and I don't know what it is. Like I said, I can't seem to get the word "redundant" out of my head for some reason. I don't know if that makes any sense, but, for what it's worth, I agree with what you said, if not to an extent which I feel is fully acceptable to myself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.