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

[lrkun]

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.

The objective fact that their is no belief in a god will not arise in said universe. Instead, as a third person, you see the pattern, because it exists here in our universe where you were exposed to the knowledge of theism as well as atheism. ^-^ You're seeing a pattern. You're calling something atheism because here, we coined a term to it.

Like I said, you recognize what you see if you know something about it.

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

I agree with you. After all, we're not talking about a god, but the belief in a god. The question whether such exists or not, is another issue in it's entirety.

 

[borrofburi]

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

lrkun, do babies believe in god?

 

[lrkun]

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

lrkun, do babies believe in god?

I don't have any basis to say yes or no. Because if I say yes, I can't prove that a baby has some form of consciousness. If I say no, how will I support that too? I'm inclined to the hypothesis that they don't hold any consciousness, so it suggests they don't believe in a god.

However, this article suggests otherwise. It suggests babies are conscious from the moment they're born. http://www.eheart.com/cesarean/babies.html

Is a baby a conscious and real person? To me it is no longer appropriate to speculate. It is too late to speculate when so much is known. The range of evidence now available in the form of knowledge of the fetal sensory system, observations of fetal behavior in the womb, and experimental proof of learning and memory--all of this evidence--amply verifies what some mothers and fathers have sensed from time immemorial, that a baby is a real person. The baby is real in having a sense of self which can be seen in creative efforts to adjust to or influence its environment. Babies show self-regulation (as in restricting swallowing and breathing), self-defense (as in retreating from invasive needles and strong light), self-assertion, combat with a needle, or striking out at a bothersome twin!

Babies are like us in having clearly manifested feelings in their reactions to assaults, injuries, irritations, or medically inflicted pain. They smile, cry, and kick in protest, manifest fear, anger, grief, pleasure, or displeasure in ways which seem entirely appropriate in relation to their circumstances. Babies are cognitive beings, thinking their own thoughts, dreaming their own dreams, learning from their own experiences, and remembering their own experiences.

Because of all these capabilities, we know babies remember at a very deep level of consciousness their primal journey, the way they entered this world.

Maybe it can by hypothesized that they are receptive, but don't truly comprehend what a god is. >.< It's still full of loopholes. Or if they can, mom or dad's god.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

The objective fact that their is no belief in a god will not arise in said universe.

Ah, of course. In a universe where nobody believes in a god, everybody believes in a god.

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 .

This is why I linked to the wikipedia page for implicit vs explicit atheism earlier.

 

[lrkun]

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

Ah, of course. In a universe where nobody believes in a god, everybody believes in a god.

=/=

You contradict yourself. The premise and conclusion can't be connected. However, if you wish to defend this position, please do so.

---

On an unrelated note: Your statement only applies in cases like this.

If everyone gains the special trait. No one is special.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Ah, of course. In a universe where nobody believes in a god, everybody believes in a god].

=/=

You contradict yourself. The premise and conclusion can't be connected. However, if you wish to defend this position, please do so.

Actually, it's exactly what you said:
"The objective fact that their is no belief in a god will not arise in [a universe where nobody believes in a god."

If everyone gains the special trait. No one is special.

Irrelevant. Nobody argued that the trait was special/unique.

 

[lrkun]

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

Actually, it's exactly what you said:
"The objective fact that their is no belief in a god will not arise in [a universe where nobody believes in a god."

Incorrect. No one is an atheist if there is no theist. You can't lack something without a reference point. This is so, because the reference point is something added to the original state.

Simply stated, that thing you claim to be an objective fact, isn't objective at all.

Irrelevant. Nobody argued that the trait was special/unique.

Relevant, this is the correct way to state or apply that argument. It only means this. A+1 is not A. If everyone gains +1, they are all similar. If everyone looses +1 they rever back to a. What you're saying is if everyone's a, then they are also a+1. @.@

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

You can't lack something without a reference point.

In fact the opposite is true - you can't believe something without a reference point. In a universe where nobody heard of the conzept of god everybody is an atheist.

 

[lrkun]

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

You can't lack something without a reference point.

In fact the opposite is true - you can't believe something without a reference point. In a universe where nobody heard of the conzept of god everybody is an atheist.

You can only say that, because you know what an atheist is. From those who are within that universe, they would never have an idea of the term atheist or if it applies to them. You see a certain pattern. You recognize it. That's why you can conclude they're atheist. Atheist came to be, because of theists, where it explains the lack of theism.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

You can't lack something without a reference point.

In fact the opposite is true - you can't believe something without a reference point. In a universe where nobody heard of the conzept of god everybody is an atheist.

You don't get it, Mafiaaffe! You need to know what you don't have in order not to have it. Don't you know that reality is totally subjective?

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

You can only say that, because you know what an atheist is. From those who are within that universe, they would never have an idea of the term atheist or if it applies to them. You see a certain pattern. You recognize it. That's why you can conclude they're atheist. Atheist came to be, because of theists, where it explains the lack of theism.

You don,´t need to know that you are an atheist in order to be an atheist. It doesn,´t matter if these people live in another universe or in a tribe deep down in the jungle. If someone comes and tells them what a god is, maybe some of these people would start believing it. But before that day every singe one of them is an atheist, because we define them as such.

 

[lrkun]

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

You can only say that, because you know what an atheist is. From those who are within that universe, they would never have an idea of the term atheist or if it applies to them. You see a certain pattern. You recognize it. That's why you can conclude they're atheist. Atheist came to be, because of theists, where it explains the lack of theism.

You don,´t need to know that you are an atheist in order to be an atheist. It doesn,´t matter if these people live in another universe or in a tribe deep down in the jungle. If someone comes and tells them what a god is, maybe some of these people would start believing it. But before that day every singe one of them is an atheist, because we define them as such.

It's not that you need to know a person is an atheist before he is one. What I'm saying is that there must be a theist first, because by definition, theism must lack. A person is a person whether he is a theist or an atheist. But it's the belief in a god by one person that makes another who lacks such an atheist. If a theist does not exist, an atheist is but a person. He lacks nothing, because the belief in a god was never invented.

You can only say one person is an atheist if you have an understanding of what atheism is. Atheism is understood as the lack of theism. Thus, theism must first be established as something to distinguish or contrast from the other.

When you call someone an atheist, it is because you know what a theist is and you find it lacking from the other person.

 

[borrofburi]

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

lrkun, do babies believe in god?

I don't have any basis to say yes or no. Because if I say yes, I can't prove that a baby has some form of consciousness. If I say no, how will I support that too? I'm inclined to the hypothesis that they don't hold any consciousness, so it suggests they don't believe in a god.

So, what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

It's not that you need to know a person is an atheist before he is one. What I'm saying is that there must be a theist first, because by definition, theism must lack.

Non-sequitur. There doesn't need to be someone who has something in order for someone else to not have something.

A person is a person whether he is a theist or an atheist. But it's the belief in a god by one person that makes another who lacks such an atheist.

No, it's not. It's having no belief that makes someone an atheist.

If a theist does not exist, an atheist is but a person. He lacks nothing, because the belief in a god was never invented.

Irrelevant. Said person still has no belief whether or not the belief was invented.

You can only say one person is an atheist if you have an understanding of what atheism is.

Irrelevant. The invention of a concept is not required for a related fact to be true.

Atheism is understood as the lack of theism. Thus, theism must first be established as something to distinguish or contrast from the other.

No, it doesn't. The invention of a concept is not required for a related fact to be true.

When you call someone an atheist, it is because you know what a theist is and you find it lacking from the other person.

Irrelevant. The invention of a concept is not required for a related fact to be true.

 

[Noth]

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

Snip

All a question of terminology. Do you necessarily equate non-belief with disbelief? It may sound semantic, but I'll argue the distinction is important.

Atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

How you are arguing Atheism = non-belief by default.

How lrkun is arguing is that non-belief exists regardless, but disbelief comes into play when theism enters the stage as you'll need a counter to that. (correct representation again?)

A question to you that might illustrate where you are talking past each other is the following:

Do you consider yourself an a-ploxist?
Is it something? No.

But in 2020 some genius man decides to come up with a way of thinking that he calls ploxism.
You don't agree with his way of thinking.
Do you (now) consider yourself an a-ploxist?

Remember this is purely a hypothetical example in an attempt to highlight your different ways of approaching the same phenomenon, so don't take it too seriously . Feel free to pick it apart regardless .

 

[Deleted member 619]

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

Babies don't hold consciousness? That might just be the most ridiculous thing I ever came across, with possibly only the exception of the girl who said that the fact that water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees proves that there must be a god. Have you ever met any babies?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

All a question of terminology. Do you necessarily equate non-belief with disbelief? It may sound semantic, but I'll argue the distinction is important.

Atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

How you are arguing Atheism = non-belief by default.

How lrkun is arguing is that non-belief exists regardless, but disbelief comes into play when theism enters the stage as you'll need a counter to that. (correct representation again?)

We have been consistently using the words "non-belief" and "not believing".
What LRkun is having problems grasping is that words are tools to express concepts which (may) describe a fact. These are three seperate things, but she's blending them. Let's take your example:

A question to you that might illustrate where you are talking past each other is the following:
Do you consider yourself an a-ploxist?
Is it something? No.

Sure it is something: it is that specific philosophy that someone will come up with in 2020. Of course I do not know of it (yet), so I wouldn't call myself an a-ploxist, but that doesn't matter. It's just a word which needs to be given a meaning by an outside source who has a concept in mind. What matters here is that it is still objectively true - a fact - that I, be it unwittingly, am not following the ploxist philosophy and am therefore an a-ploxist.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

What I'm saying is that there must be a theist first, because by definition, theism must lack

.

Atheism is defined as the lack of the belief in a god or deities. The reason you lack the belief is totally irrelevant. That means, even if have you never heard of the concept of a god before, you are an atheist.

But it's the belief in a god by one person that makes another who lacks such an atheist.

Thats like saying: If there are no people who believe in unicorns, it's impossible to disbelief in them.

Atheism is understood as the lack of theism.

No, I do believe theism is real. It,´s understood as the lack of the believe in god.

All a question of terminology. Do you necessarily equate non-belief with disbelief? It may sound semantic, but I'll argue the distinction is important.

Not in that context. Both would be considered Atheists.

Do you consider yourself an a-ploxist?
Is it something? No.

If a-ploxism was defined as the lack of the believe in ploxism, I would have to say yes. (How could i belief in it, if it was nothing real at the time?)

But in 2020 some genius man decides to come up with a way of thinking that he calls ploxism.
You don't agree with his way of thinking.
Do you (now) consider yourself an a-ploxist?

.
So if in 2020 ploxism becomes a real conzept, surely I would believe in it, but I could still choose not to agree with it. Belief and agreement aren,´t the same thing. ( I believe communism is real but i don,´t accept it.)

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

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

But it's the belief in a god by one person that makes another who lacks such an atheist.

Thats like saying: If there are no people who believe in unicorns, it's impossible to disbelief in them.

Well, if Irkun's actually saying that without theists, you can't have a lack of belief in gods, then he/she's definitely wrong. I think it comes off more like the notion that if everybody had no belief in supernatural deities, then there's no function to the definition whatsoever, and there's no one who would actually define as an atheist. Or alternatively, that we who define ourselves as atheists or antitheists do so in the effort to differentiate ourselves from the majority, which is more of a cultural statement than a formal use of language.

While I do agree that it is kind of pointless to pigeonhole oneself by what beliefs they don't have, it's also fair to say that there probably wouldn't be much point in doing so if not for the state of society. If there wasn't such a well-defined dichotomy, then perhaps there would be more diversity in the positions one can take (for instance, my views on economics don't make me a non-Austrianist just because I don't buy into Austrian Economics, since there are a wide variety of schools of thought on economics).

Atheism is understood as the lack of theism.

No, I do believe theism is real. It,´s understood as the lack of the believe in god.

Well, as theism is the belief in a god, "lack of theism" is technically "lack of belief in a god," not "lack of belief in the existence of theism." Where Irkun and Noth seem to make a mistake is in saying that because it's lack of theism, theism has to exist first... If you don't have the concept in the first place, then you are already without that concept (you can always have more than zero acceptance of an idea, after all), in which case, all people would be a******ists to begin with.

I think among the most significant points that QualiaSoup made in the original video is the point about making the fewest assumptions about how he would respond to a specific belief. While he can't outright deny the existence of a deist god because it is so, he can outright deny for valid reasons the existence of the Christian god or Zeus or Odin. Now someone else might take a harder line even on a deist god. The thing about having the definition that atheism means lack of belief is that it puts forth the fewest assumptions about the nature of his position as opposed to someone else's. Now if you do feel it's absolutely necessary to define atheism as someone who believes firmly that no god could ever exist, then QualiaSoup's position is not that of an atheist... fine... but then, his position is still one that stands in anathema to theists, and can only be defined as something less specific. A lot of apologists like to define atheists as people who want to sin, which of course describes pretty well near 0% of all atheists... well, then their definition is completely useless, and is therefore inapplicable. What term, then, would be applicable to describe those who actually exist? And the problem with creating highly specific and hard-edged definitions for what is ultimately a set for which property X applies, rather than a unified group per se, you end up dividing that set into smaller and smaller subsets, and end up needing to play far more games with language to make it work out... and to what end?

There are cases in reality where it is important to be extremely specific with your language, but each of those boils down to some functional purpose and probably would never have happened without that need. What exactly is the need to subdivide nonbelievers into several fragmented subsets?

 

[lrkun]

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

Atheism is defined as the lack of the belief in a god or deities. The reason you lack the belief is totally irrelevant. That means, even if have you never heard of the concept of a god before, you are an atheist.

It makes the concept of atheism unnecessary. You don't need to call someone an atheist anymore, because the idea of a theist never came up to be. You can call him or her a person, a girl, a boy, a man, a woman, a human.

Thats like saying: If there are no people who believe in unicorns, it's impossible to disbelief in them.

Correct, because in this case, the unicorn never existed in the first place and was never conceived by anyone. Why add a factor when it isn't necessary? It'd only be a waste of time.

No, I do believe theism is real. It,´s understood as the lack of the believe in god.

False. Theism is the belief in a god, not the lack of belief in a god. Please pay attention to what you're writing, because it seems like you're forgeting the basic definitions of these terms.