Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's take

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I would say that the state of ignorance of a child preceeds the agnostic claim that a god cannot be known.

That's my point. A child is but a sponge at such moment where he or she can react only based on stimulus as well as his or her genetics. A child lacks knowledge of anything. He lacks the knowledge of a god, therefore he likewise has a lack of belief in a god. The child must have a reference point where he can distinguish what he lacks, not the other way around.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

That's my point. A child is but a sponge at such moment where he or she can react only based on stimulus as well as his or her genetics. A child lacks knowledge of anything. He lacks the knowledge of a god, therefore he likewise has a lack of belief in a god. The child must have a reference point where he can distinguish what he lacks, not the other way around.

But that's ignorance, not agnosticism.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

That's my point. A child is but a sponge at such moment where he or she can react only based on stimulus as well as his or her genetics. A child lacks knowledge of anything. He lacks the knowledge of a god, therefore he likewise has a lack of belief in a god. The child must have a reference point where he can distinguish what he lacks, not the other way around.

But that's ignorance, not agnosticism.

Correct, ignorance by definition is the lack of knowledge or education. Agnosticism by definition is the lack of knowledge whether a god or the supernatural exists. Agnosticism is a form of ignorance. It's a special form particularly applied in the case where a god claim is alleged.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

But that's ignorance, not agnosticism.

Correct, ignorance by definition is the lack of knowledge or education. Agnosticism by definition is the lack of knowledge whether a god or the supernatural exists. Agnosticism is a form of ignorance. It's a special form particularly applied in the case where a god claim is alleged.

Well, he would, as you said, need a frame of reference as to what he is ignorant of. Since agnosticism makes a positive claim about knowledge, it wouldn't be a default position, I would say one that necessarily is mutually exclusive with ignorance(though not, necessarily, stupidity) because it knows what it does not know.

The default state of the trait "theism" is off, that is to say that a child is not theistic by default. Since atheism is a term used to describe that which is without the trait of theism, is does indeed apply by default to children, because they are not theists. Atheism, and this is sort of the entire point of the video, is not a positive claiming stance, it is not an active position, it doesn't describe a trait but the absence of a trait. Likewise, children are also apteryx by default, even though the term is equally meaningless to apply to them.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge. It is not ignorance because it identifies what the possessor is ignorant of, and then decides that it is either possible or impossible to change that. One cannot be agnostic about a god before that god is presented to be categorized. It is not necessarily stupidity (don't misunderstand my earlier comment to mean it is) but it is compatible with stupidity (choosing to remain ignorant rather than learn).

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Well, he would, as you said, need a frame of reference as to what he is ignorant of. Since agnosticism makes a positive claim about knowledge, it wouldn't be a default position, I would say one that necessarily is mutually exclusive with ignorance(though not, necessarily, stupidity) because it knows what it does not know.

The default state of the trait "theism" is off, that is to say that a child is not theistic by default. Since atheism is a term used to describe that which is without the trait of theism, is does indeed apply by default to children, because they are not theists. Atheism, and this is sort of the entire point of the video, is not a positive claiming stance, it is not an active position, it doesn't describe a trait but the absence of a trait. Likewise, children are also apteryx by default, even though the term is equally meaningless to apply to them.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge. It is not ignorance because it identifies what the possessor is ignorant of, and then decides that it is either possible or impossible to change that. One cannot be agnostic about a god before that god is presented to be categorized. It is not necessarily stupidity (don't misunderstand my earlier comment to mean it is) but it is compatible with stupidity (choosing to remain ignorant rather than learn).

Incorrect. Agnosticism does not claim that the knowledge of god is available, like atheism, it claims there is a lack of such a knowledge. Where in a case if someone alleges a god exist, an atheist will say there is none. On the otherhand an agnostic will say there is a lack of knowledge to claim that a god exists.

If you state that agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, then likewise atheism is a claim about the existence of god. Both words starts with the prefix A, which means the lack thereof of the succeeding term.

Agnosticism is just a phase where eventually a person can choose either to know more or ignore the whole issue. Besides, upon observation of the nature of this world, working, finding stability is a more essential need, rather than knowing if there is a god or if he/she is really important.

Another way of seeing it an atheist is so, because he doesn't know if there is a god or he is sure there is no god. Such a position still requires some sort of reference point. That is knowledge.

Atheism is the better view point, because it takes a side. Agnosticism takes a side of one who doesn't know.

Atheism can be seen as a conclusion. The atheist concludes that he lacks a belief in a god, because he sees no observable proof to support the existence thereof, or that he chooses to have a lack of belief in a god. That choice or state is based on the reference point about a god or the knowledge thereof. It can't be separated. You can't know what you lack if you have no knowledge of that which you are lacking.

Ex. If you live your entire life lacking the belief in a god or it's existence. Only a person who knows about a god can say that you're an atheist. To you, it just didn't pop up.

In the extreme case, ignorance is the default position, if not agnosticism.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Incorrect. Agnosticism does not claim that the knowledge of god is available, like atheism, it claims there is a lack of such a knowledge. Where in a case if someone alleges a god exist, an atheist will say there is none. On the otherhand an agnostic will say there is a lack of knowledge to claim that a god exists.

There isn't a lack of knowledge though. There's a lack of evidence, yes, but there are plenty of gnostic theists who absolutely know(because it FEELS right) that there is a god. This is knowledge, even if erroneous. Atheism doesn't claim a lack of knowledge or evidence, it doesn't claim anything. Atheism simply describes a state of not being a theist.

If you state that agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, then likewise atheism is a claim about the existence of god. Both words starts with the prefix A, which means the lack thereof of the succeeding term.

If you wish to apply the prefix properly then your word loses all the meaning you're trying to put in to it, and more. Atheism describes an absence of theism. Agnosticism would then describe an absence of gnosticism(the claim that something can be known).

I would say that gnosticism is the default state in this dichotomy. We do not approach a subject without the supposition that we can learn about it. Curiosity and scientific inquiry are pointless without gnosticism. I assume that, even though I don't know them now, humanity will some day discover wonders I can't even imagine. Gnosticism doesn't claim to know, it claims that knowledge can be found.

Agnosticism is just a phase where eventually a person can choose either to know more or ignore the whole issue.

If you don't believe that it is possible to know more, why would you choose to try and know more?

Another way of seeing it an atheist is so, because he doesn't know if there is a god or he is sure there is no god. Such a position still requires some sort of reference point. That is knowledge.

A reference point isn't needed at all, really. Lets say you asked me if I believe in and swear my life to the Lord of the Morning, Prince of the Dawn, and True Defender of Light Rand al'Thor the Dragon Reborn, and I asked "who?" I would reveal that I do not believe in this particular god. I would reveal that I am an atheist, as regards Dragonism, even though I have no frame of reference for who or what you asked me. Since it is a theistic view, though, even if I don't acknowledge it I am still an atheist. Without a frame of reference, I cannot make a decision one way or the other - I cannot claim that it is knowable or not without that frame of reference as well. I am ignorant of it, and by default without it.

Atheism is the better view point, because it takes a side.

Not at all. Atheism isn't even a viewpoint, let alone a side.

Agnosticism takes a side of one who doesn't know.

Agnosticism takes the side of one who thinks they can't know.

Atheism can be seen as a conclusion.

It can be seen that way, but those viewers are being willfully ignorant.

The atheist concludes that he lacks a belief in a god,

Did you conclude that you lack a belief in Nyarlathotep, or did you lack the belief before it was asked?

because he sees no observable proof to support the existence thereof, or that he chooses to have a lack of belief in a god. That choice or state is based on the reference point about a god or the knowledge thereof. It can't be separated. You can't know what you lack if you have no knowledge of that which you are lacking.

Here's an interesting literary reference point for you. In the series Mistborn, religion is a non-issue. The peasants(skaa) ruled by a god-like "Lord Ruler" and his Ministry of Steel serve as a sort of police among the nobility. 1000 years after the apocalypse, after the Lord Ruler took over, one character has collected all that remains of history's religions - 300 of them. He occasionally tries to persuade the other characters to follow one dead religion or another, and thinks of his friends as "staunch atheists" even though they don't actively reject his religions, and do believe in the Ministry of Steel's Lord Ruler. Point being, they are atheists because they don't follow the religions, even if they don't know about them.

Likewise, I am an atheist, as I am apteryx, as I am a non-stamp collector and a non-rugby player. The fact that I've never been interested in learning about rugby or been asked to play rugby is irrelevant to the fact that I don't play it. It's not an active choice, it is simply the state of not choosing. Because atheist is a descriptor, and language is descriptive, it can describe someone who is not aware of what they are. It isn't something you self-identify as, it is something you are. I don't self identify as a non-cat, I am simply not a cat.

Ex. If you live your entire life lacking the belief in a god or it's existence. Only a person who knows about a god can say that you're an atheist. To you, it just didn't pop up.

Exactly, and for the person who has a reference point, you are still an atheist.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

You can only lack something if you know that which you lack or if someone points out that you lack something. For the lack of a better term, it can be called recognition. You recognize that you lack something or someone recognizes that you lack something.

Atheism lacks the belief in a god. One can only know what he/she lacks such when he/she has an idea of what that which is lacking or it is pointed out by another who knows or recognizes such- the belief in a god. The concept of such must be known-a small degree of understanding suffices. There must be an idea of what a belief in a god is. Otherwise, one exists without lacking anything at that point in time. Where one adds the concept of belief in a god, then one lacks such.

You can't state the lack of a belief in a god casually, doing so is irresponsible or ignorant, because it has no basis-argument from ignorance (i'm not referring to you, just the argument, I know that you're well informed and a great guy). You're stating a position where you lack the belief in a god without having a glimpse of understanding of that which you lack. You might as well say, you lack "_"

You're bound to enter into a situation where one will ask. Do you believe in god? Your answer, "I lack a belief in god". Why? "Because of so and so". That so and so is your reference point, your ground, or your foundation. It makes your statement valid. It is you're understanding of why you lack such. Without that, you made a statement or conclusion or an argument without something to back it up. And in a case where no one asks you and you had no idea of what a belief in a god is, you're complete.

Consequently, one who doesn't recognizes that he lacks something is not an atheist. He becomes one when he recognizes that he lacks something. He's an agnositic when he recognizes that there is a lack of knowledge concerning the existence of a god. He's a theist when he recognizes that gods exists. Recognition is based upon prior knowledge. Without that, one can't be called under the guise of the three. He's complete. He's not ignorant per se, because he doesn't know that he lacks something or you can say he is ignorant because those things exist, it's just that he doesn't know at the time or if such information becames available in the future.

Case in point. In one of your threads. If there is no need for the term god. No one is an atheist. Where you said that such a term can be disposed of, because it has no use. Or did I misunderstand what you said?

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I agree with you completely but this didn't seem to be the way it was explained in the video. The idea was that some people will form opinions immediately upon seeing the accused, some will think guilty and others will think not-guilty. But the ones who haven't made up their minds, it seems to me, are also in the not-guilty camp. They are of the opinion that the person is not-guilty or at least, not of the opinion that he is guilty. I just thought listening to the video that a guilty/innocent dicotomy with the mid ground of not-guilty would make more sense. Other than that I was totally on board with the rest of the video.

I've now watched the video again - I think I was letting my preconceived bias of what he was saying cloud my judgment of what he actually said >_< SKEPTICISM FAIL!!!

Sigh. I shall now go to my corner and weep.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

snip

The problem with this is that people have traits whether they are aware of them or not. More to the point, as you put it, I am not without-wings until I notice that I don't have wings. If I am not without-wings until I perceive such, does that mean that I had them until I perceived it? Not at all - I never had wings, I just never assigned the category of apteryx to myself until I came to this realization that I am a wingless creature. It doesn't change the fact that I never had wings, and was always an apteryx. Likewise, if I never had a belief in god, I would be an atheist - not because I perceive myself as such but because I simply am without-religion.

Case in point. In one of your threads. If there is no need for the term god. No one is an atheist. Where you said that such a term can be disposed of, because it has no use. Or did I misunderstand what you said?

I don't believe I ever said that no one is an atheist in such a situation. I do recall posting that the term only has meaning to those who are aware of theism, and therefore would be meaningless in a world where such a concept was never conceived. This doesn't mean that people wouldn't be atheists, simply that the term only carries meaning because of the construction of theists as it is. The term would be meaningless and no one would identify as such, but they would still be without theism.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

The problem with this is that people have traits whether they are aware of them or not. More to the point, as you put it, I am not without-wings until I notice that I don't have wings. If I am not without-wings until I perceive such, does that mean that I had them until I perceived it? Not at all - I never had wings, I just never assigned the category of apteryx to myself until I came to this realization that I am a wingless creature. It doesn't change the fact that I never had wings, and was always an apteryx. Likewise, if I never had a belief in god, I would be an atheist - not because I perceive myself as such but because I simply am without-religion.

Incorrect. If you have nothing to contrast with, you only know what you are, you can't be called something else nor something in between. To do so, you require a reference point and the existence of something different. If you lack a religion, where you didn't know what a religion is in the first place, you would have never known you lacked something unless you eventually invent religion in the future or someone tells you, because in the latter case, the person comprehends religion and sees that you don't have it, where as a result, you'll ponder based on your new knowledge and notice that you lack such, otherwise, you will disagree with them and say you're complete. If you agree with them, you must have recognized that which you lacked. If you can't recognize what it is, it means their claim is either presented in a faulty or isn't true. However, they'll recognize you as an atheist and can be classified as such, because to them, you're different.

don't believe I ever said that no one is an atheist in such a situation. I do recall posting that the term only has meaning to those who are aware of theism, and therefore would be meaningless in a world where such a concept was never conceived. This doesn't mean that people wouldn't be atheists, simply that the term only carries meaning because of the construction of theists as it is. The term would be meaningless and no one would identify as such, but they would still be without theism.

Incorrect, in such a case you will no longer call them without theism, because theism does not exist. You only call them such, because you recognize the idea of theism as a third person, but you must remember the facts of your example, where such does not exist. You know you recognize something, because in our reality theism exists.

The problem is, at this moment, we can't conclude absolutely that their is no god. We just lack a belief in it, but we have a certain degree of understanding as to what that belief refers to and why we lack such. Otherwise, we'd be ignorant to say that we lack such a belief where we don't know what it is or why we lack such. It's basic in science as well as logic that we need grounds to support our stand or the lack thereof.

Consequently, not knowing is the default position. Only when you're exposed to the belief in a god, you'll be called a person who lacks in belief in a god. However, to the eyes of those who know this god and believe in him, you'll be an atheist or an agnostic or a fellow theist. It starts with not knowing, then knowing but disagreeing or agreeing. It applies both way from the person who knows as a reference point or the individual.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I see. So you believe in subjective reality, whereas I believe in objective reality. That's the source of our problem, I don't think that can be reconciled.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I see. So you believe in subjective reality, whereas I believe in objective reality. That's the source of our problem, I don't think that can be reconciled.

My basic position, in it's simplest form is that we can only recognize something that we lack if we know what it is. In this case it's a belief in a god. In order to know that we lack such a belief, we must first recognize that belief, because if we didn't, how will we know that we lack something?

Knowing something stems from our knowledge or in a more basic sense, from our memory or that which we remember or experience, because if we don't know it, we can't say we lack that, unless someone makes us realize of that which we lack or we believe we lack it (faith like belief).

Anyway, I respect your position on the matter. Is it okay if you explain what you mean where you said it's about subjective reality vs objective reality? I think that points need clarification.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I see. So you believe in subjective reality, whereas I believe in objective reality. That's the source of our problem, I don't think that can be reconciled.

My basic position, in it's simplest form is that we can only recognize something that we lack if we know what it is. In this case it's a belief in a god. In order to know that we lack such a belief, we must first recognize that belief, because if we didn't, how will we know that we lack something?

Knowing something stems from our knowledge or in a more basic sense, from our memory or that which we remember or experience, because if we don't know it, we can't say we lack that, unless someone makes us realize of that which we lack or we believe we lack it (faith like belief).

Anyway, I respect your position on the matter. Is it okay if you explain what you mean where you said it's about subjective reality vs objective reality? I think that points need clarification.

The way I look at it is that things exist in their entirety as they are, whether we know of them or not. While we define the world only as we encounter it, yes, there are a million definitions that fit us that we don't know. I don't speak afrikaans, but I can be described in afrikaans - the description fits, even if I don't understand it. Do you see what I mean? This is, sort of, due to an objective view of reality. I believe it existed before me and will exist without me when I die. Descriptors can be applied to things which do not understand them, and the inability or lack of understanding of a person does not preclude them from being described. They are what they are, whether they know it or not. This throws back to the law of identity, that there are no contradictions because reality exists and is knowable.

A subjective view might hold that we are only what we know.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I see. You believe that the concept exists irrespective of the point of view where the absence or presence of something is independent of the person where it exists despite the situation of the individual or the group. I understand. I prefer my idea, but trying out your idea, it does reflect your answer correctly. I respect such and it may be valid under that condition.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

I see. You believe that the concept exists irrespective of the point of view where the absence or presence of something is independent of the person where it exists despite the situation of the individual or the group. I understand. I prefer my idea, but trying out your idea, it does reflect your answer correctly. I respect such and it may be valid under that condition.

And I see what you're saying. That's why I said I think it's something we can't reconcile. We're looking at the same thing from completely different angles. That helps to know, though, too - I didn't realize until then that that was why my explanation didn't seem to be making sense. Of course, looking at it now, I see exactly what you mean.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Correct, ignorance by definition is the lack of knowledge or education. Agnosticism by definition is the lack of knowledge whether a god or the supernatural exists. Agnosticism is a form of ignorance. It's a special form particularly applied in the case where a god claim is alleged.

And as I've pointed out till I'm blue in the face, such a definition of agnosticism is completely redundant, because nobody possesses such knowledge. Agnosticism is a position regarding the possibility of knowledge. of course, if you want to fill your lexicon up with useless definitions, be my guest, but don't expect to be able to communicate with anybody with a brain.

What you are describing is atheism.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

hackenslash

your avatar makes me laugh every time I see you post(even if we're arguing)

where is that from?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

 

[Zerosix]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Great video, It should clear some of the confusion of subject of atheism.

What we need now though is a universal deinition of 'God' and even 'god' 'cus this words causes the most problems.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak

Correct, ignorance by definition is the lack of knowledge or education. Agnosticism by definition is the lack of knowledge whether a god or the supernatural exists. Agnosticism is a form of ignorance. It's a special form particularly applied in the case where a god claim is alleged.

And as I've pointed out till I'm blue in the face, such a definition of agnosticism is completely redundant, because nobody possesses such knowledge. Agnosticism is a position regarding the possibility of knowledge. of course, if you want to fill your lexicon up with useless definitions, be my guest, but don't expect to be able to communicate with anybody with a brain.

What you are describing is atheism.

Incorrect. Do you mean to say that you lack something you don't recognize? How do you know you lack something if you don't know what it is? What's your basis? Or maybe you just believe you lack something even if you don't understand it. I was describing agnosticism. lack of knowlege not lack of belief.

Anyway, as long as you don't know what you lack, as when you were never exposed to a god, then you lack nothing, that is until someone points out that you lack something or discover it for yourself. Or from DZ's point of view, you already lack something even if you don't know that it isn't there. Either way, until you ascertain or recognize it, you're complete. The belief in a god is not necessary. It stems from knowledge and recognition or faith.