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

[borrofburi]

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.

If not one could hear it would make the concept of "deaf" unnecessary, but since "deaf" is defined as "being unable to hear", people would still be deaf insofar as they would still be unable to hear.

You ignored my question: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god?

 

[lrkun]

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

If not one could hear it would make the concept of "deaf" unnecessary, but since "deaf" is defined as "being unable to hear", people would still be deaf insofar as they would still be unable to hear.

You ignored my question: what word would you use to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god?

By definition, that's an atheist. Where a theist believes in a god, and that's what's lacking. It's easily observed from the prefix a.

With regards to being deaf and all that jazz. Because you know what deaf means, you can say/recognize that certain patterm is being deaf. It requires you to know what it is called. Otherwise, it can be called by any other word where one defines that state as such.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

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.

I've actually given room for that interpretation when I said 'You mean in such a universe "the concept atheist" isn't there.' which was answered with 'The objective fact that their is no belief in a god will not arise in said universe.'
So that's not it.

lrkun: Atheism is understood as the lack of theism.
Mafiaaffe: 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.

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."

Considering the context, that's exactly what he meant: "I do believe theism is real. It [atheism, referring (almost verbatim) to the what LRKun said] is understood as the lack of the believe in god.

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?

To me, that's like asking what the need is to subdivide non-Americans or non-Latin languages or something. Because the non-group is way to broad and needs to be more specific.

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.

Of course it would be unnecessary, but the objective fact still remains that such people are atheists.

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.

This made me laugh, because even with the improper word of "disbelief" (which suggests rejection) instead of "non-belief" (which suggests anything but belief), the logic in the answer is still flawed to the core.
"If there are no people who believe in unicorns, unicorns were never conceived of." As if at least one person needs to believe in something in order for a concept to be conceived.

With regards to being deaf and all that jazz. Because you know what deaf means, you can say/recognize that certain patterm is being deaf. It requires you to know what it is called. Otherwise, it can be called by any other word where one defines that state as such.

A concept is not a fact.

 

[lrkun]

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

TheFlyingBastard,

This is what you fail to see. You can call another an atheist, because you recognize what it is. If you don't have that prior knowledge, then you have no basis to support your claim.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

TheFlyingBastard,

This is what you fail to see. You can call another an atheist, because you recognize what it is. If you don't have that prior knowledge, then you have no basis to support your claim.

That's beside the fact though that it is an atheist.

 

[lrkun]

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

TheFlyingBastard,

This is what you fail to see. You can call another an atheist, because you recognize what it is. If you don't have that prior knowledge, then you have no basis to support your claim.

That's beside the fact though that it is an atheist.

And that conclusion is based on the fact that you recognize what an atheist is.

 

[Noth]

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

And that conclusion is based on the fact that you recognize what an atheist is.

In the regard that it was the 'term' atheism that we invented (along with theism) it is indeed so that we only began to RECOGNISE what an atheist is once we were able to use those terms.

However what TFB and others are trying to explain is that while you are correct saying that ,´the term was invented as a response to theism,´, that does not mean we never were atheists with hindsight .

So in short:

Once we properly made up the term atheism, we realised and recognised that this is something we had always been. Only at the emergence of theism did we start using the now proper term for it.

So the term atheism might have been coined much later and might very well be reactionary to the term theism, but what it entails is a non-belief (regardless of it being unconscious) in gods. Something we always had, even before people came up with gods.

 

[lrkun]

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

And that conclusion is based on the fact that you recognize what an atheist is.

In the regard that it was the 'term' atheism that we invented (along with theism) it is indeed so that we only began to RECOGNISE what an atheist is once we were able to use those terms.

However what TFB and others are trying to explain is that while you are correct saying that ,´the term was invented as a response to theism,´, that does not mean we never were atheists with hindsight .

So in short:

Once we properly made up the term atheism, we realised and recognised that this is something we had always been. Only at the emergence of theism did we start using the now proper term for it.

So the term atheism might have been coined much later and might very well be reactionary to the term theism, but what it entails is a non-belief (regardless of it being unconscious) in gods. Something we always had, even before people came up with gods.

I don't mind their take on this. It's just frustrating that they're making an error. They refuse to consider the fact that they recognize and see atheism because they know what it is. It's like placing atheism in a pedestal, where it's something holy and can't be nit picked like everything else. See the pattern? It exists at all time as an objective fact, like a god >.<

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. We're talking about the lack of this belief. Belief in itself is inherent in man, because they can believe in others as well as themselves, but we're talking about atheism here. It's a specific situation. There must be someone who's believing in a god, before another can be considered an atheist.

When theism does not exist, people believe on other things. He can believe or lack the belief in other things. Nevertheless, it does not mean he or she is an atheist. Atheist is particular to the belief in a god, where it lacks such. @.@

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

When theism does not exist, people believe on other things. He can believe or lack the belief in other things. Nevertheless, it does not mean he or she is an atheist.

Wrong, that is exactly what it means. It is completely irrelevant whether there is word a for atheism or not, their position towards god (lack of belief) would be the same regardless. Let,´s say I would make up the word Aunicornism. Let,´s say Aunicornism is defined as "the lack of belief in unicorns" and somehow I manage to get it published in all dictionaries. Now regardless whether there are people who believe in unicorns or not most people would be Aunicornist.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

I don't mind their take on this. It's just frustrating that they're making an error. They refuse to consider the fact that they recognize and see atheism because they know what it is. It's like placing atheism in a pedestal, where it's something holy and can't be nit picked like everything else. See the pattern? It exists at all time as an objective fact, like a god >.<

How does a non-entity exist?

If your problem with it is that you somehow see it as on a pedestal - why do you see it that way? There's nothing sacred about atheism - indeed there is a distinct lack of inherent meaning in it. What's to nit-pick about atheism? There's nothing to it, literally. That's the point. The only one trying to apply any sort of special meaning to it is you. To the rest of us it's simply a word which describes an off state.

It is to theism as darkness is to light. While the light requires a source, the absence of light does not. Yes it is only because we have light that we recognize such, but even if we didn't have light it would still be dark.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. We're talking about the lack of this belief. Belief in itself is inherent in man, because they can believe in others as well as themselves, but we're talking about atheism here. It's a specific situation. There must be someone who's believing in a god, before another can be considered an atheist.

When theism does not exist, people believe on other things. He can believe or lack the belief in other things. Nevertheless, it does not mean he or she is an atheist. Atheist is particular to the belief in a god, where it lacks such. @.@

Do you mean to imply that theistic belief is inherent in humanity?

 

[lrkun]

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

I imply that belief in inherent in humans, not in theism. Humans believe in something. Do you, in any moment of your life have felt safe with anyone or anything? Like your parents for example, a father figure, in science, or in humanity? @.@

Again, atheism cannot exist without theism. For atheism to apply, a theist must first exist, because without said theist, or a person believing in a god, a person has nothing to lack (belief in a god).

The reason why you don't get me is that you're seeing the situation based on your knowledge of what atheism is. You know what it is. The examples illustrated clearly shows an atheistic situation where you as an atheist recognize it. Even if you say that in such a situation there is no theist, but they are atheist. It is so, because of your prior knowledge of what atheism is. This is so, because here in our reality, you came to learn what it is. Hence, you see a pattern and say, look that's an atheist.

Let's go over this step by step.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god.

How will you know if a person lacks a belief in a god?

You must first know what a belief in a god is.

Without that, you won't notice anything.

Now, I've pointed it out. You should be able to do the obvious.

However, you are a third person. One who isn't among those in the illustration. Even if the situation illustrates set A where no theist exists and set B where a theist exists. You will recognize what an atheist is. You can't forget what you know. It's already a part of you. So you chose not to disassociate yourself like I do where I put myself in either illustrations case. I know you can.

It's a simple exercise of critical thinking.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

Again, atheism cannot exist without theism.

It doesn,´t really matter how often your repeat that, it,´s wrong and I just explained you why. Atheism can exist just as well as Aunicornism without a positive party. I lack the believe in god in the exact same sense I lack the believe in the existence of unicorns, the only difference is that we do have a word for the first statement but not for the second, but thats totally irrelevant.

 

[lrkun]

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

Again, atheism cannot exist without theism.

It doesn,´t really matter how often your repeat that, it,´s wrong and I just explained you why. Atheism can exist just as well as Aunicornism without a positive party. I lack the believe in god in the exact same sense I lack the believe in the existence of unicorns, the only difference is that we do have a word for the first statement but not for the second, but thats totally irrelevant.

What is your basis? Theism. Why? Because it's Belief in a god. Without that basis, your statement holds no water. Why? Because there is nothing to compare or contrast or differentiate.

Simple illustration.

yz
yz+x

xyz
xyz - x

yz

x is lacking.

It's obvious.

 

[borrofburi]

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

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god.

How will you know if a person lacks a belief in a god?

You must first know what a belief in a god is.

Without that, you won't notice anything.

Now, I've pointed it out. You should be able to do the obvious.

Yes, we've all, or at least I have (from the beginning) understand that without theism, the word and concept "atheism" would never have been invented. What we're saying is that even if these people do not have the concept they are still atheists, because they fit the definition of the word. In the same way, if we find a planet full of humans but none of them can hear they will never have invented the word or concept of "deaf", but that does not change that they fit the definition of deaf.

One does not have to realize that one is an atheist or deaf to be an atheist or deaf. You can either hear, or you're deaf. You either believe in god, or you're an atheist. Even if you have no concept of hearing or theism.

 

[lrkun]

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

Yes. They fit the definition of the word, where you understand what it means. This is my only point. As a consequence, you recognize atheism from your examples as well as the other illustrations provided in the past posts.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

TheFlyingBastard,
This is what you fail to see. You can call another an atheist, because you recognize what it is. If you don't have that prior knowledge, then you have no basis to support your claim.

I am not missing that, LRkun, nor am I "refusing to consider" it.
In fact, I have already moved past that. It is irrelevant because "recognizing what atheism is" means you're talking about a concept.
People not believing in a god is a statement of fact.

A concept is not a fact.

But let's look at your list:
An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god.
How will you know if a person lacks a belief in a god?
You must first know what a belief in a god is.
Without that, you won't notice anything.

The red line is where you fly off the rails into the realm of irrelevancy. It doesn't matter if there is no concept of atheism. The fact of atheism still exists.
Remember what I said about logical absolutes? A=A. It doesn't matter if there's a mind to understand the concept of A=A, the absolute still exists because it's a fact, not a concept.
An apple is still an apple, even if there aren't any minds present which understand the concept.
An atheist is still an atheist, even if there aren't any minds present which understand the concept.
Someone who does not hold a belief in x is still someone who does not hold a belief in x, even if there aren't any minds present which understand concept x.

Yes. They fit the definition of the word, where you understand what it means. This is my only point. As a consequence, you recognize atheism from your examples as well as the other illustrations provided in the past posts.

But that is not what you said. You said: "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."

 

[Andiferous]

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

Again, atheism cannot exist without theism.

What is your basis? Theism. Why? Because it's Belief in a god. Without that basis, your statement holds no water. Why? Because there is nothing to compare or contrast or differentiate.

Simple illustration.

yz
yz+x

xyz
xyz - x

yz

x is lacking.

It's obvious.

Yes, exactly. This was the argument again on the I am not a Nazi thread. "Why should I define my position by someone elses' belief?"

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

Simple illustration.

yz
yz+x

xyz
xyz - x

yz

x is lacking. It's obvious.

You have just proven beyond any doubt that atheism is the default position. Just look at the first and the last line of your equation there is NO difference. That means even if nobody invented the conzept of god in the first place everybody would still be an atheist, even if they wouldn,´t call themself like that. You have also proven that nobody needs to believe in x for x to be lacking.

 

[borrofburi]

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

Yes. They fit the definition of the word, where you understand what it means.

Fine, so what?

 

[Andiferous]

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

You have just proven beyond any doubt that atheism is the default position. Just look at the first and the last line of your equation there is NO difference. That means even if nobody invented the conzept of god in the first place everybody would still be an atheist, even if they wouldn,´t themself like that. You have also proven that nobody needs to believe in x for x to be lacking.

Forgive my intrusion, but we're all stuck on semantics again (as happens regularly). You're saying the same thing in different words.