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

[Yfelsung]

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

I generally try to stick to the direct definition of words as based on their root words.

Agnostic means "Without Knowledge" and that's the only thing you can concretely, 100% objectively say that agnostic means.

Atheist derives from atheos, which directly translates to "without God" and that's the only thing you can 100% objectively say that atheist means.

Any further definition is open to interpretation.

 

[lrkun]

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

I generally try to stick to the direct definition of words as based on their root words.

Agnostic means "Without Knowledge" and that's the only thing you can concretely, 100% objectively say that agnostic means.

Atheist derives from atheos, which directly translates to "without God" and that's the only thing you can 100% objectively say that atheist means.

Any further definition is open to interpretation.

You know, in it's simplicity, it's the better definition.

Supposing someone says there is this thing which supposedly exists, but upon observation of that which we know, there is none which fits his description or understanding of that thing. Without knowledge/god works in unity, the former first, then the latter as a conclusion. It's a hasty generalization though.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

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.

What you are describing is called implicit atheism.

A baby would thus be an implicit agnostic atheist. (Someone who doesn't claim knowledge about the (non-)existence of god, but never consciously decided such.)

 

[lrkun]

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

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.

What you are describing is called implicit atheism.

A baby would thus be an implicit agnostic atheist. (Someone who doesn't claim knowledge about the (non-)existence of god, but never consciously decided such.)

That's not my point though. My point is in the view point of that baby, it lacks nothing, because it doesn't know that it does. Until it knows how to recognize something, it can distinguish the difference based on knowledge. While in your case, because you're already familiar with the concept of atheism/agnosticism. You can say that a child is implicit agnostic atheist, based on your recognition of that state. Here you say a child lacks something, even if that which it lacks never really existed in the first place. Of course that conclusion is not absolute, it is still unclear if god really exists/does not exist/ will exist/ or existed in the past, but died.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

That's not my point though. My point is in the view point of that baby, it lacks nothing, because it doesn't know that it does. Until it knows how to recognize something, it can distinguish the difference based on knowledge. While in your case, because you're already familiar with the concept of atheism/agnosticism. You can say that a child is implicit agnostic atheist, based on your recognition of that state. Here you say a child lacks something, even if that which it lacks never really existed in the first place. Of course that conclusion is not absolute, it is still unclear if god really exists/does not exist/ will exist/ or existed in the past, but died.

The viewpoint of the baby doesn't matter. That's like saying that the baby is not bald because it doesn't know what it means to lack hair or that it's not a baby because it can not recognize age.
Another more appropriate example, 2 years ago I was unaware of what it meant to be a theist (I was even unaware of the fact that there are people who do not believe in a god!). I did not recognize the differences based on knowledge, yet I still was a theist.

Your whole point fails simply because people don't get to choose which word describes what they are. The words in question are objective descriptions and, as such, have no need for the subject to be aware of the concepts.

In fact, your whole description in the quoted post ("it doesn't recognize the concepts, so it can't distinguish the difference based on knowledge") is pretty much the definition of "implicit" in this context.

 

[lrkun]

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

That's not my point though. My point is in the view point of that baby, it lacks nothing, because it doesn't know that it does. Until it knows how to recognize something, it can distinguish the difference based on knowledge. While in your case, because you're already familiar with the concept of atheism/agnosticism. You can say that a child is implicit agnostic atheist, based on your recognition of that state. Here you say a child lacks something, even if that which it lacks never really existed in the first place. Of course that conclusion is not absolute, it is still unclear if god really exists/does not exist/ will exist/ or existed in the past, but died.

The viewpoint of the baby doesn't matter. That's like saying that the baby is not bald because it doesn't know what it means to lack hair or that it's not a baby because it can not recognize age.
Another more appropriate example, 2 years ago I was unaware of what it meant to be a theist (I was even unaware of the fact that there are people who do not believe in a god!). I did not recognize the differences based on knowledge, yet I still was a theist.

Your whole point fails simply because people don't get to choose which word describes what they are. The words in question are objective descriptions and, as such, have no need for the subject to be aware of the concepts.

In fact, your whole description in the quoted post ("it doesn't recognize the concepts, so it can't distinguish the difference based on knowledge") is pretty much the definition of "implicit" in this context.

This is what you fail to see. Your comment is based on the fact that you recognize what atheism/agnosticism/theism is. That's why if you look at the baby, you instantly know that it is an atheist. You recognize it lacks a belief in god. This is so, because you can recognize what a belief in a god is. Now take that away. She now lacks a belief in nothing. You'll see a child complete. It's just an idea that some original theist used to distinguish his believers from others.

Now let's apply this to our reality now. We know someone is an atheist or a theist because the ideas already exist and we know what they are. Thus we can categorize people based on such. Now if there is no such words nor definitions. Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism wouldn't have a purpose.

You see, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out two scenarios. I hope this is clear.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

This is what you fail to see. Your comment is based on the fact that you recognize what atheism/agnosticism/theism is.

The fact that I recognize what those words mean only means I can write about it right now. It does not matter for my point, namely that a baby does not need to know what atheism means to be one.

That's why if you look at the baby, you instantly know that it is an atheist. You recognize it lacks a belief in god. This is so, because you can recognize what a belief in a god is. Now take that away. She now lacks a belief in nothing. You'll see a child complete. It's just an idea that some original theist used to distinguish his believers from others.

Except the label is not given, it's a description of objective reality. It doesn't matter whether or not I recognize the baby has a belief in gods. If this was a baby alone in the world with no minds around, it would still be an atheist.

Now let's apply this to our reality now. We know someone is an atheist or a theist because the ideas already exist and we know what they are. Thus we can categorize people based on such. Now if there is no such words nor definitions. Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism wouldn't have a purpose.

We don't categorize people. Simple facts do. We just thought up words that represent these concepts that need no mind so we can communicate about them.

This reminds me of Matt Slick's TAG.

 

[lrkun]

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

To state the concept in simple terms. Because theism exists, atheism exists. Without theism, there is no atheism. It is not objective. It is not universal. It's an idea predicated on the absence of another, where knowledge is a requisite.

Illustration 1

You know what a chair is. You know what a room is. Let's illustrate it in a situation.

One room has a single chair. Another has none. The image is easy to contrast, because of the chair. One lacks a chair. The other has a chair. Since you know what a chair is you can pinpoint the difference.

Illustration 2

You don't know what a chair is or if it ever existed. No one knows what it is. You know what a room is. Let's illustrate the situation.

Two empty rooms. You see both as similar. They lack nothing.

Illustration 3

You don't know what a chair is. You know what a room is. Another knows what a chair is. Let's illustrate the situation.

Two rooms. You see both as similar. The other puts a chair in one room. He tell you, that object is a chair. You can now recognize that one room has a chair, while the other has none.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

also, why do you feel that a person is incomplete without theism?

 

[lrkun]

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

also, why do you feel that a person is incomplete without theism?

Where did I say that? I feel a person is complete without theism. You and I are clear examples of that. We participate in this world without the need or want to believe in a god. Theism is like plastic. You cover a book with it. Without it, the book is still there. You can read the contents.

I only distinguished one idea from another when I talk about theism and atheism. Unless you wish to say that atheism by itself is an indepented and distinct word where it is without connection to theism. Their connection can't be brushed aside.

Or do you mean to say, atheism first existed. Then someone decide to take away the letter a, where theism pops up. However, if that's the case, I don't think it's reasonable nor logical to start there, because it predicates that we know or believe that no gods existed, before we knew the idea about what a god is or in the belief thereof.

Simply stated, your slate it clean. You add dirt on it. Prior to that, you don't need to distinguish between the two. But because something was added, you need to differentiate one from the other.

Remember god was invented in order to explain the things we don't know. If we knew all the answers, there wouldn't be a need for a god as a magical explanation. Because people believed in a god, those who didn't or lacked such belief where called atheists.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

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.

and several other times...

I ask because this sort of language implies that the absence of knowledge is what makes something complete, and that once it is aware of traits that other things possess it is then incomplete.

And I would say that all men were atheists before the invention of theism. In a sense, yes it existed prior to theism. It simply hadn't been meaningful to define.

 

[lrkun]

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

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.

and several other times...

I ask because this sort of language implies that the absence of knowledge is what makes something complete, and that once it is aware of traits that other things possess it is then incomplete.

And I would say that all men were atheists before the invention of theism. In a sense, yes it existed prior to theism. It simply hadn't been meaningful to define.

Incorrect. Before the idea of what theism is - was conceived. Man is complete. But man was curious, he wanted to know why certain events in nature occur, like rain, snow, flood, storms, but didn't have an explanation. The worship of animals, nature, etc came to be. From there the term atheism invented, because there was a need to call a person who didn't adhere to the belief. Likewise, it is in order to distinguish one state from the other.

In order to say someone is an atheist, a reference point or an example of a theist has to be known.

let a = man

let 1 = theism

let -1 = take away/minus/subtract theism

a=a(original state)
---
a+1=a+1 (theism was introduced)
---
a+1-1=a+1-1 (atheism)
a=a

Do you see the difference? without knowing what 1, -1 is, a=a exists by itself completely. However, once it is introduced there are still those who have their +1. Some takes that away. While some has no clue.

You see, once +1 has been introduced, a=a will always be comepared to a+1=a+1, and now it is seen as a+1-1=a+1-1. Where in reality a=a can exist without problems.

Another issue which might confuse you is that you are already familiar with the +1 and +1-1, so you'll have a problem putting yourself in a position where it's just a.

 

[Zerosix]

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

This whole agnosticism fence sittting annoys me.

We need to establish that there are only 4 view points one can take when it comes to God / Gods / god.

You are an either:

1. Gnostic Theist
2. Agnostic Theist
3. Gnostic Atheist
4. Agnostic Atheist

There is no fence sitting allowed!


Now regarding this new born baby. We, veiwing the baby as a third party will view the baby as an agnostic atheist.

The view point of the baby up until it has knowledge of deity of is irrelevent. It's like an empty glass of water.

Same goes for the world before a god was invented. The terms theist and atheist here are irrelevent.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

I ask because this sort of language implies that the absence of knowledge is what makes something complete, and that once it is aware of traits that other things possess it is then incomplete.

And I would say that all men were atheists before the invention of theism. In a sense, yes it existed prior to theism. It simply hadn't been meaningful to define.

Incorrect. Before the idea of what theism is - was conceived. Man is complete. But man was curious, he wanted to know why certain events in nature occur, like rain, snow, flood, storms, but didn't have an explanation. The worship of animals, nature, etc came to be. From there the term atheism invented, because there was a need to call a person who didn't adhere to the belief. Likewise, it is in order to distinguish one state from the other.

In order to say someone is an atheist, a reference point or an example of a theist has to be known.

let a = man

let 1 = theism

let -1 = take away/minus/subtract theism

a=a(original state)
---
a+1=a+1 (theism was introduced)
---
a+1-1=a+1-1 (atheism)
a=a

Do you see the difference? without knowing what 1, -1 is, a=a exists by itself completely. However, once it is introduced there are still those who have their +1. Some takes that away. While some has no clue.

You see, once +1 has been introduced, a=a will always be comepared to a+1=a+1, and now it is seen as a+1-1=a+1-1. Where in reality a=a can exist without problems.

Another issue which might confuse you is that you are already familiar with the +1 and +1-1, so you'll have a problem putting yourself in a position where it's just a.

You described what I said about it being meaningful only in context of knowing, pretty much.

However, I'm still baffled as to why you think a person is complete only until the learn about religion. How does gaining knowledge make someone incomplete?

 

[Noth]

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

It sounds as if the debate (if it is one, rather than just different ways of looking at the same thing) is heading in a more philosophical direction. Anyway, let's try my 2 cents analysing the examples

To state the concept in simple terms. Because theism exists, atheism exists. Without theism, there is no atheism. It is not objective. It is not universal. It's an idea predicated on the absence of another, where knowledge is a requisite.

Illustration 1

You know what a chair is. You know what a room is. Let's illustrate it in a situation.

One room has a single chair. Another has none. The image is easy to contrast, because of the chair. One lacks a chair. The other has a chair. Since you know what a chair is you can pinpoint the difference.

Not sure I would go with the word 'lack' here, because you place value on a room with a chair and therefore call a room without a chair 'lacking a chair'. The reason why I disagree here is because I don't agree with the assertion that atheism = lacking belief. I'm not sure that's what you're trying to convey, but if it is it's simply a matter of disagreeing with the terminology.

Illustration 2

You don't know what a chair is or if it ever existed. No one knows what it is. You know what a room is. Let's illustrate the situation.

Two empty rooms. You see both as similar. They lack nothing.

Will get back to this one at the end.

Illustration 3

You don't know what a chair is. You know what a room is. Another knows what a chair is. Let's illustrate the situation.

Two rooms. You see both as similar. The other puts a chair in one room. He tell you, that object is a chair. You can now recognize that one room has a chair, while the other has none.

Like this illustration a lot better because of the word use. I hope I didn't focus too much on semantics for the 1st one, since this example indeed doesn't place value on either room. They just are the way they are. The question however, I feel, is not yet answered or properly addressed. So:

Illustrasion 4

You don't know what a chair is. You know what a room is. Someone else might know what a chair is but you don't know about this. Let's illustrate the situation.

Two rooms. One with a chair (the object you don't recognise as a chair due to lack of definition). And one without the silly object.
You see both as different, even though you can't determine what it is exactly that makes them different.

--

Of course the illustration is incomplete, because it involves seeing something while with babies we are talking about them recognising a difference in their... state of mind?

I suppose we could ask ourselves then: what is the starting point? Can babies even be atheist or agnostic when they are both terms that serve as something of a counter towards their -a counterparts.
I guess I agree that there is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic baby because there are no theist or gnostic babies either.
The Default Position as it were only starts once they reach a certain level of self-awareness and/ or consciousness.
Would the question then be 'when is that starting point and what do we call those at the starting point?' ?

So let's get back to illustration 2:

You don't know what a chair is or if it ever existed. No one knows what it is. You know what a room is. Let's illustrate the situation.

Two empty rooms. You see both as similar. They lack nothing

I would argue that once you know what a room is you are able to notice the difference between a room with and a room without a chair, regardless of whether you recognise the silly object as a chair. Once you are aware that there IS a difference, your starting point begins. (see illustration 4 again)
THEN I would continue to argue that a child, raised in a christian family, would begin building his own chair in his own room to mimic that of his parents. The difference being that the child hasn't yet given value to there being a chair yet other than that his parents told him there ought to be a chair in his room.
A child raised without 'theism' would not notice that there are differences until he is confronted with a room that has a chair in it. He, however, would not be told that there needs to be one OR told by his parents that there really needn't be one. Again, the valuing aspect of it comes even later.

To conclude this tidbit: both children start with empty rooms, but different instructions. From the point they can recognise the difference they start of as chair-less both. The default starting point is therefore without theism. IF you give value to a-theism as being a conscious position then this is NOT the default starting position. IF you do NOT give value to a-theism (with all the people who are atheists without ever have given it much thought I would say this is the more appropriate one) both kids mentioned indeed DO start of as atheists.
One will gradually lose the -a and become a theist and the other either stays the atheist who hasn't given it (much) thought or becomes an atheist who is very conscious as why he'd rather sit on the floor than have a chair which hurts his back and bum

 

[lrkun]

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

This whole agnosticism fence sittting annoys me.

We need to establish that there are only 4 view points one can take when it comes to God / Gods / god.

You are an either:

1. Gnostic Theist
2. Agnostic Theist
3. Gnostic Atheist
4. Agnostic Atheist

There is no fence sitting allowed!


Now regarding this new born baby. We, veiwing the baby as a third party will view the baby as an agnostic atheist.

The view point of the baby up until it has knowledge of deity of is irrelevent. It's like an empty glass of water.

Same goes for the world before a god was invented. The terms theist and atheist here are irrelevent.

Why are the following irrelevant? What is your basis? (I colored the things you need to explain)

You described what I said about it being meaningful only in context of knowing, pretty much.

However, I'm still baffled as to why you think a person is complete only until the learn about religion. How does gaining knowledge make someone incomplete?

I'm baffled too why you say that I say a person is complete only until he or she learns about religion, because that's new information to me. Nor about gaining knowledge makes a man incomplete. I'd really like to know why you would say that I said those things.

However, if I tweak your allegation, I can make it work in my favor. A person, who does not know about theism, meets a theist. They talk. The person knows he's complete, the theist says he's not. According to the theist, you lack god in your life, look at that, a god size hole in your heart. A person can feel incomplete then. However, when he gains knowledge about the truth as when he learns about science and that he finds the science claim demonstrable as opposed to theistic claims, he understands something more. In effect, he learns and adds something to that which he already knows. I think it's an incorrect assesment on your part when you say that gaining knowledge makes someone incomplete.

Atheism is there, because theism is there. Theism is there, because it's purpose is to explain the events of reality. A person who does not adhere to theism, is deemed an atheist by a theist, even if he can live his life without theism. Theism, now, is made moot and academic by science. Science explains with precision that which theism used to do with ambiguity.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god. That lack of belief is predicated on the existence of belief as recognized by the person himself or a third person who informs the other.

As illustrated.

a=a (original state)
--
a+1 =a+1 (belief in god)
--
from a+1 to a+1-1 when he loses his belief where it returns to a, but able to recognize a+1 or a+1-1

a is recognized by both a+1 and a+1-1, but a does not recognize a+1 or a+1-1 until he is informed. (this is the present)

To conclude this tidbit: both children start with empty rooms, but different instructions. From the point they can recognise the difference they start of as chair-less both. The default starting point is therefore without theism. IF you give value to a-theism as being a conscious position then this is NOT the default starting position. IF you do NOT give value to a-theism (with all the people who are atheists without ever have given it much thought I would say this is the more appropriate one) both kids mentioned indeed DO start of as atheists.
One will gradually lose the -a and become a theist and the other either stays the atheist who hasn't given it (much) thought or becomes an atheist who is very conscious as why he'd rather sit on the floor than have a chair which hurts his back and bum

Firstly, I'm using their definition of what atheism is, that is why it's lack of belief. A better sounding term is the absence of a belief in a god or the supernatural.

Secondly, nice conclusion. Thanks for taking the time to analyse my position.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

You described what I said about it being meaningful only in context of knowing, pretty much.

However, I'm still baffled as to why you think a person is complete only until the learn about religion. How does gaining knowledge make someone incomplete?

I'm baffled too why you say that I say a person is complete only until he or she learns about religion, because that's new information to me. Nor about gaining knowledge makes a man incomplete. I'd really like to know why you would say that I said those things.

The below quote:

Either way, until you ascertain or recognize it, you're complete.

The implication of this quote is that once knowledge is recognized, you are incomplete.

I'm not sure how to better explain this. Basically, this is saying that, to use your law of identity based example, A is A until B - this necessitates a change that somehow makes A not complete.

 

[Noth]

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

Either way, until you ascertain or recognize it, you're complete.

The implication of this quote is that once knowledge is recognized, you are incomplete.

I'm not sure how to better explain this. Basically, this is saying that, to use your law of identity based example, A is A until B - this necessitates a change that somehow makes A not complete.

I see your point . I think it has to do with, again, what value you place on being 'complete' in strictly this sense. In this instance 'complete' does not mean 'better', and 'lacking the faith component' as it were does not mean you are deprived of something you should have.

So: something is always A.
Then someone (people) comes along and says: "imagine +1"
That person then adds +1 to A. (again, no assessment of value has been made by the observer, only by the person saying +1)
Another person sees the new definition proposed: A+1
He doesn't agree. But instead of saying: "no. Just A" he says: "No. A+1 -1, so A".

The biggest definition given = in this sense 'complete' = A+1. This is not better necessarily, but is given as a 'plus', so as an added something. The other person responds with -1 to make A again from A+1.

So, having now made the picture completely unclear again, I'll leave it to you people to hash out the definitions .

----

Oooohhhhh and just because something just came to me:

A conscious atheist would be [ A+1 -1 = A ] and an unconscious atheist would most likely be more inclined towards just [ A ]. Right-ish :?: :!:

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

The problem is your use of the word "lack" as if it would require a mind to make it lacking. Even if I don't know what a chair is, an empty room would still lack a chair. It would also lack a hobnarf. I don't know what it is, and neither do you, but the room is empty. There's no hobnarf in there. The room is lacking a hobnarf.

Again, this reminds me of Matt Slick's TAG, it's just as insistent on dragging in a mind where it's irrelevant.

 

[Zerosix]

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

Now regarding this new born baby. We, veiwing the baby as a third party will view the baby as an agnostic atheist.

The view point of the baby up until it has knowledge of deity of is irrelevent. It's like an empty glass of water.

Same goes for the world before a god was invented. The terms theist and atheist here are irrelevent.

Why are the following irrelevant? What is your basis?

In the mind of the baby and in the world where no god exists. There is no 1 as you put it.

If there is no 1 then the terms +1 and -1 are meaningless because 1 has yet to be established.

Look at it this way, up until now you've never heard of a Qwertydragonix.

Now before you read that word you couldn't have been Qwertydragonixist because you had never of a Qwertydragonix to believe in one.
You couldn't have been Aqwertydragonixist for the same reason.
You couldn't have been gnositc / agnostic to towards a Qwertydragonix because you didn't know of it's existance. You couldn't say you either knew for sure that one existed or even if were impossible to prove or disprove one existed.

Proir to reading the word Qwertydragonix, Qwertydragonixist and Aqwertydragonixist were meaningless words and therefore irrelevant.

The same as how theist and athiest are not relevant in a world or mind where the concept of god does not exist.