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

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

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.

This last part is what you need to explain. Why do I need to have heard of something in order to not believe in it? I don't know what a hobnarf is, but that's exactly why I don't believe in it.

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.

Yes, I could. I don't know what a hobnarf is, so I sure as hell am not going to make a claim about its existence.

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

Perhaps to the mind in question when it's in isolation. But the concepts that it describes are still very much there. (Matt Slick's TAG again!)

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

Therefore the quoted doesn't make sense. In fact, if someone doesn't know what a hobnarf is, they can not believe in it. This is exactly the reason why babies are implicit (not by choice) agnostic (not making a claim) atheists (not believing).

 

[lrkun]

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

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 think I've explained this in my latest reply.

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.

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

This is okay, provided the person in question exists in a time frame where theists already exists. ^-^

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.

Incorrect. You recognize what is lacking, because you have an idea of what it is. Just like how you recognize you lack faith in god, even if you don't fully understand what it is. Fully understanding is not necessary, the idea is all that matters. Even the word or the sound of the word can suffice. Or else, you have no basis to say that you are one, where if you don't isn't that what's truly irrelevant?

 

[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.

Incorrect. You recognize what is lacking, because you have an idea of what it is. Just like how you recognize you lack faith in god, even if you don't fully understand what it is. Fully understanding is not necessary, the idea is all that matters. Even the word or the sound of the word can suffice. Or else, you have no basis to say that you are one, where if you don't isn't that what's truly irrelevant?

Especially because of your insistence on the idea that the subject of a description needs to be aware of what it is else the description is invalid, I'll refer you to the following posts:

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.

A baby does not need to know what atheism means to be one.

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. The label is not given, it's a description of objective reality.

It's like saying that the baby is not bald because it doesn't know what it means to lack hair. ... 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.

It all breaks down to this: "lack of x" is not a subjective value judgment of any mind. It's an objective fact, independent of minds.

 

[lrkun]

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

It all breaks down to this: "lack of x" is not a subjective value judgment of any mind. It's an objective fact, independent of minds.

Once the idea has been invented and the other person or the person himself is aware of it, it will affect his ot her bias on the matter. Just because pokemons were invented, doesn't mean they always have and will exist. The reference point is when the idea was made. The use of lack here is the same as the thread title, lacl of belief, absence, Not there.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Once the idea has been invented...

But since "lack of x" (absence of x) is not a subjective value judgment of any mind but an objective fact, independent of minds, ideas don't come into play whatsoever and this renders your point moot.

 

[lrkun]

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

Once the idea has been invented...

But since "lack of x" (absence of x) is not a subjective value judgment of any mind but an objective fact, independent of minds, ideas don't come into play whatsoever and this renders your point moot.

Incorrect, it starts upon recognizing that something is missing, which is predicated on knowing of that which is missing. For x to be missing, you must first know what know what x is.

xyz

yz

x is missing.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Incorrect, it starts upon recognizing that something is missing, which is predicated on knowing of that which is missing. For x to be missing, you must first know what know what x is.

xyz

yz

x is missing.

This is truly incredible, Through the magic of shoehorning the idea of recognition being somehow mandatory for a logic absolute to be true you're making it so that the entire universe - even the logical absolutes themselves - are all subjective and a merely labels from minds! But you know what?

Show me how a room can not be without a chair unless there's someone around to describe it.
Also show me how a tree falling in a forest does not make a sound if there's no one around to hear it.

 

[lrkun]

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

Incorrect, it starts upon recognizing that something is missing, which is predicated on knowing of that which is missing. For x to be missing, you must first know what know what x is.

xyz

yz

x is missing.

This is truly incredible, Through the magic of shoehorning the idea of recognition being somehow mandatory for a logic absolute to be true you're making it so that the entire universe - even the logical absolutes themselves - are all subjective and a merely labels from minds! But you know what?

Show me how a room can not be without a chair unless there's someone around to describe it.
Also show me how a tree falling in a forest does not make a sound if there's no one around to hear it.

I already explained the chair bit. We already know that a tree makes a sound when it falls. However, we're talking about something else here, a concept of belief in a god and the lack thereof.

xyz
yz
x is missing.

That's the simplest explanation.

The difference between the chair event and the tree event is simple. Someone had to invent a chair. A tree falls downs naturally. A tree does not by itself transform magically or naturally into a chair.

 

[Zerosix]

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

But since "lack of x" (absence of x) is not a subjective value judgment of any mind but an objective fact, independent of minds, ideas don't come into play whatsoever and this renders your point moot.

That's the point I was making.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Ah.
Someone had to invent a chair, therefore someone must look into a room in order for that room to not have a chair in it.
Makes total sense now.

xyz
yz
x is missing.

Still making the same mistake as Matt Slick.
The interpretation of the logical absolute is not the logical absolute itself.
After all, atheism is merely the logical absolute of a ≠ b.

That's the point I was making.

Oh right. The quote was aimed at LRkun anyway, who apparently needs to hear about something in order to be able to not know about it.

 

[lrkun]

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

Ah.
Someone had to invent a chair, therefore someone must look into a room in order for that room to not have a chair in it.
Makes total sense now.

xyz
yz
x is missing.

Still making the same mistake as Matt Slick.
The interpretation of the logical absolute is not the logical absolute itself.
After all, atheism is merely the logical absolute of a ≠ b.

You're the only person here asserting logical absolutes, not I. Besides, I'm not even familiar of who matt slick is, or what's his argument on what topic. So, I'm not really sure what youre talking about.

I thought atheism is the lack of something not the ≠ of something. @.@

Oh right. The quote was aimed at LRkun anyway, who apparently needs to hear about something in order to be able to not know about it.

I'm not all knowing you know. I have to do research on things, study things, experiment on things, and all other jazz to learn something. What matters is that I have a basis to support the things I say, not just spout things of which I have no idea. It's all about the foundation of your statement.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

You're the only person here asserting logical absolutes, not I.

Logic kind of runs on logical absolutes. It's pretty much the basic element of making an argument. I'd expect someone with your style of posting to know this.

Besides, I'm not even familiar of who matt slick is, or what's his argument on what topic. So, I'm not really sure what youre talking about.

He's the guy behind the Christian Apolegetics and Research Ministry. He came up with his own transcendental argument for the existence of God. It basically says that since logical absolutes are the product of a mind and human minds differ too much, there is another mind out there that made up these logical absolutes, which is God. Link to the thread where we discussed this at length, in which you even replied, I think...

The way your argument works is actually supportive of Matt Slick's argument:
Since the baby doesn't hold a belief in God we have the logical absolute of "baby = nonbeliever". But, according to that piece of logic, there has to be someone to make the statement of that logical absolute. But if the baby was the only thing on the planet, there is no mind around to notice that the baby is a nonbeliever. That means that in the isolated baby-situation either:
- there is nothing like logical absolutes (which is demonstrably false)
- there is always a mind to state the logical absolutes, even in baby-isolation (which would be God)

This is, of course, fallacious because logical absolutes are not a subjective value judgment of any mind but an objective fact, independent of minds. Therefore, it is possible for the baby to not hold a believe in god (≡ atheist) without there being a mind around to phrase the logical absolute - the phrase is, after all, not necessary for the absolute to exist.

I thought atheism is the lack of something not the ≠ of something. @.@

atheism: without theism (without god-belief). See? A is not B.
You can also move the "not" part of the equation to one of the sides and you'll get this list:
baby = non-believer (a = b)
non-believer ≡ atheist (b ≡ c)
baby = atheist (thus a = c)

 

[lrkun]

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

You're the only person here asserting logical absolutes, not I.

Logic kind of runs on logical absolutes. It's pretty much the basic element of making an argument. I'd expect someone with your style of posting to know this.

I see. I didn't know that. To me, it made sense, because it talks about something with precision.

He's the guy behind the Christian Apolegetics and Research Ministry. He came up with his own transcendental argument for the existence of God. It basically says that since logical absolutes are the product of a mind and human minds differ too much, there is another mind out there that made up these logical absolutes, which is God. Link to the thread where we discussed this at length, in which you even replied, I think...

The way your argument works is actually supportive of Matt Slick's argument:
Since the baby doesn't hold a belief in God we have the logical absolute of "baby = nonbeliever". But, according to that piece of logic, there has to be someone to make the statement of that logical absolute. But if the baby was the only thing on the planet, there is no mind around to notice that the baby is a nonbeliever. That means that in the isolated baby-situation either:
- there is nothing like logical absolutes (which is demonstrably false)
- there is always a mind to state the logical absolutes, even in baby-isolation (which would be God)

This is, of course, fallacious because logical absolutes are not a subjective value judgment of any mind but an objective fact, independent of minds. Therefore, it is possible for the baby to not hold a believe in god (≡ atheist) without there being a mind around to phrase the logical absolute - the phrase is, after all, not necessary for the absolute to exist.

According to this there is a difference between matt's argument with mine. I'm not adding god into the equation. I'm only talking about the point where someone learns about something which was not in the equation from the start. I don't see the need to add a god, where everything is already on it's place.

Ask yourself this question, when did you learn about god and when did you decide that you lacked the belief in a god?

Besides, the parties involved in my demonstration is just one person who doesn't know, another who knows, the future former where he knows and decides he lacks what the other has. No god there.

Where you say it's possible for a child to have no belief in god or a belief in god is incorrect. That's your point of view as you see the state of the baby, bearing in mind your knowledge about the belief in a god, as well as the lack thereof. That's my point in a nutshell.

atheism: without theism (without god-belief). See? A is not B. That's your logical absolute, right there.
You can also move the "not" part of the equation to one of the sides and you'll get this list:
baby = non-believer (a = b)
non believer ≡ atheist (b ≡ c)
baby = atheist (thus a = c)

Atheism lacks theism. Atheism is atheism, where it lacks theism, but theism must exist, because if it didn't, atheism wouldn't have a reason for being there, where one won't have a use for the term atheism. How do you recognize something if you don't have a reason for it or don't know what it is?

A not B. This is correct. Atheism is not theism.

A is the absence of B. This is correct, where atheism is the absence of theism. Here it can be observed as defined by qualisoup.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

According to this there is a difference between matt's argument with mine. I'm not adding god into the equation. I'm only talking about the point where someone learns about something which was not in the equation from the start. I don't see the need to add a god, where everything is already on it's place.

I know, I was just drawing the comparison between both of your trains of logic. He just uses the same logical route you do and takes a couple of steps further until he arrived on God's doorstep.

Atheism lacks theism. Atheism is atheism, where it lacks theism, but theism must exist, because if it didn't, atheism wouldn't have a reason for being there, where one won't have a use for the term atheism. How do you recognize something if you don't have a reason for it?

You mean "the word atheism" doesn't have to be there.
If nobody in the universe would believe in a god, everybody would still be an atheist. They wouldn't have that word because, as you just said, there's no reason for it to be there - but the logical absolute (people = atheist) still exists.

 

[lrkun]

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

1​

I know, I was just drawing the comparison between both of your trains of logic. He just uses the same logical route you do and takes a couple of steps further until he arrived on God's doorstep.

2​

You mean "the word atheism" doesn't have to be there.
If nobody in the universe would believe in a god, everybody would still be an atheist. They wouldn't have that word because, as you just said, there's no reason for it to be there - but the logical absolute (people = atheist) still exists.

1​

2​

This is how you see it, because you know what atheism means, in a situation where theism does not exist, you see those who lack a belief in a god as atheists. Your conclusion is based on your idea of what atheist and atheism means. It requires your knowledge to know and see that pattern. What I'm suggesting is that, it's just a word or an idea, it exists where there is a need to distinguish one from the other. It means a person must know, otherwise, we'd be superimposing one idea over another existing one.

In a universe where no one believes in a god, there are no atheists. A person in such a universe might be called a child, a boy, a girl, a man, a woman, a scientist, a biologist, a doctor, or a farmer, but not atheist, because there is no theist. We can say they are atheists because in our reality some people believe in a god and when we compare our reality to theirs, we see that one factor as a difference.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

In a universe where no one believes in a god, there are no atheists. A person in such a universe might be called a child, a boy, a girl, a man, a woman, a scientist, a biologist, a doctor, or a farmer, but not atheist, because there is no theist. We can say they are atheists because in our reality some people believe in a god and when we compare our reality to theirs, we see that one factor as a difference.

You mean in such a universe "the word concept atheist" isn't there.
If nobody in the universe would believe in a god, everybody would still be an atheist. They wouldn't have that word concept because, as you just said, there's no reason for it to be there - but the logical absolute (people = atheist) still exists.

I'll extend that to concept, because that's probably what you're talking about. (edit)
Words are a way to convey a concept in the mind which is used to reflect an objective fact.
Even if there was no word because there was no mind to form the concept, the objective fact would still be true.

 

[borrofburi]

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

So err... do babies believe in god?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Yes. When I was born, my mom cried and screamed "OH MY GOD". Thus I was taught the concept of there being a god and I believed. Praise Jesus.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

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

So err... do babies believe in god?

I actually might be tempted to argue that they do. But I think one would have to concede on the evidence that god's name is "mom."

 

[Noth]

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

Despite that I think this discussion hinges too much towards a semantics debate and a debate on definitions, I'll have a go anyway...
Correct me if I'm misrepresenting either of you please!

lrkun's point:

Atheism is a reaction to theism. The state of atheism requires the state of theism to exist because it's a causality.

TheFlyingBastard's point:

Atheism is the default position of non-belief. I.e. if one does not believe in (a) god then one is an atheist.
There needs not be a pink leprechaun sailing the night sky on a church-bell - and someone saying that there is! - for you not to believe in it. (A non conscious non-belief is still a non-belief)
Babies can't believe in a god, therefore they assume the default position of atheism.

My point:
(apologies in advance for the comparison. I know it's shaky, but it's the best I can currently conjure up from my top-hat)

*edit: taken out the silly reasoning of 'atheist baby cats' because however much I want to make it serve a purpose for comparison it remains silly :mrgreen:
Is a baby human an atheist because it CAN become a theist? I would say no.

Is there, then, a state in which (the mind of) a baby begins? Yes, because:
The atheism of which I think TFB speaks is one that also entails the ignorance of the position of theism or total existence thereof.
The question, however, would be if then 'a-theism' is the correct state of mind to use to describe an infant.

I personally feel atheism is and/or an unconscious (and ignorant - without knowledge) and/or a reactionary (causality) state of mind. I can, therefore, see both your points and the flaws in both and (as often is when dealing with semantics) I am completely and utterly undecided .

The problem I'm having with your (lrkun) analogy of atheism as 'lack of belief' is in the example:

A +1 - 1 = A
However, is +1 here the Knowledge of theism's existence, or is it the belief in (a) god?
If it's knowledge then the -1 would take knowledge away, which doesn't make sense.
If it's belief then it appears due to the existence of +1 there needs to be a -1 to once again be A. It would assert that in order to maintain your default position of A (which, I might add, seems to be 'not believing in god' in your example ) you NEED to consciously address a -1. [A +1 -1 = A] implies that you need to gain belief (+1) and then lose belief (-1) in order to ( A ) (actively) not believe.
I realise though that that's probably not what you're trying to say.

A, perhaps, better fitting example would be the following:

A = default position. It is also a person who is currently (willfully) ignorant of the possibility of theism ( y ).
Theism is introduced, The position of theism adds something (no value judgments) to A rather than changing it. A =/= Ay
As a reaction, we get atheism ( n ). Instead of it being a subtraction of theism it becomes a reactionary standpoint on the other side. We then get this:

An - A - Ay, where An is the 'negative' reaction to Ay. (no instead of yes ). Now person A can decide to become someone like Ay and add faith to his standard. Or person A finds the proposed Ay silly and decides to either not make up his mind about it (and stay A) or disbelieve the position of Ay and move to An. In this sense he does not lack faith, but rather he has the atheism standpoint.
This way I've worked around the issue I had with 'lacking' something and even though An is reactionary to Ay you do not need to first obtain y to move to n .

Hmz... I guess I'll read this stuff again tomorrow and see if the time of night has screwed with my mind enough to have made me exclaim utter nonsense. But that's a worry for later .

For now, let's leave you people with a frustrating phrase I asked myself for no good reason. All for you to pick apart :

"God does not need to NOT exist, for him to NOT exist."