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

[Mafiaaffe]

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

You're saying the same thing in different words.

I have to repeat myself, because he is repeating hisself. It,´s the third time now that he says that atheism requireds theism, but that,´s just not true.

 

[Andiferous]

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

You're saying the same thing in different words.

I have to repeat myself, because he is repeating hisself. It,´s the third time now that he says that atheism requireds theism, but that,´s just not true.

But I agree that it is, and I think you do, too.

Because the word "atheism" was only coined in response to "theism." If you accept atheism as a natural state of being, and theism as the grasp for more meaning and truth, then having to define yourself with the (semantics here) term "atheism" is a bit annoying. Because, as I said, you're defining youself by someone elses' unfounded belief.

Why I keep quoting the "not-nazi" thread.

I could claim my position as "not nazi-theist-producemanager-postofficer-transsexual and so forth, but it seems silly to do so. Unfortunately, the overwhelming popularity of theism has forced the minority to define themselves with position against it. But I'm just me, and I dream of god like I dream of unicorns. The fact I've got to label myself is frustrating.

That sort of semantics.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

But I agree that it is, and I think you do, too.

No, i absolutely don,´t.

Because the word "atheism" was only coined in response to "theism."

The WORD Atheism, but thats completely irrelevant. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god, so everytime we say atheist we could also say a person who lacks the belief in god. Now, nobody needs to belief in god for someone to lack that belief. In fact, the concept of god doesn,´t even need to exist.

 

[Andiferous]

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

But I agree that it is, and I think you do, too.

No, i absolutely don,´t.

Because the word "atheism" was only coined in response to "theism."

The WORD Atheism, but thats completely irrelevant. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god, so everytime we say atheist we could also say a person who lacks the belief in god. Now, nobody needs to belief in god for someone to lack that belief. In fact, the concept of god doesn,´t even need to exist.

Yes, but this is why the concept is so tricky.

Would you say that you are an atheist because you believed, or in response to other persons' belief in god?

Or is your brand of atheism a natrual state of being that defies taking positions. A default stance. Putting the onus on the believer to prove otherwise?

If you are the latter type, you must admit that the former influences your terminology. If no-one anywhere believed in god, you needn't call yourself an atheist, because the concept of god would be ridiculous to you. Defining yourslelf so by a lack of belief rarely happens anywhere else. If it happened anywhere else, our names and titles would be several pages long.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

The WORD Atheism, but thats completely irrelevant. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god, so everytime we say atheist we could also say a person who lacks the belief in god. Now, nobody needs to belief in god for someone to lack that belief. In fact, the concept of god doesn,´t even need to exist.

I (and many others) have been telling her this for (p)ages.

In fact, she so badly doesn't want this to be true, she resorts to the bizarrest leaps: "The objective fact that there is no belief in a god will not arise in [a universe where no one believes in a god]." Eventually she had to fix this self-contradiction by saying that there are no facts if nobody thinks of them.

I mean, wtf.

 

[Noth]

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

Yes, but this is why the concept is so tricky.

Would you say that you are an atheist because you believed, or in response to other persons' belief in god?

Or is your brand of atheism a natural state of being that defies taking positions. A default stance. Putting the onus on the believer to prove otherwise?

If you are the latter type, you must admit that the former influences your terminology. If no-one anywhere believed in god, you needn't call yourself an atheist, because the concept of god would be ridiculous to you. Defining yourself so by a lack of belief rarely happens anywhere else. If it happened anywhere else, our names and titles would be several pages long.

I would brand atheism as a natural state of being, with the added note that I don't like the definition much for the reasons pointed out in the "I am NOT a Nazi' thread and others.

I admit that the terminology only came into effect upon the emergence of the term theism, but I DO feel that this emergence is the point from which the observer, atheist and theist all can look back with hindsight and rightly state that before the first believer in (a) god (let's not get into that this person didn't call himself a theist for the moment) everyone had (now apparent to them) always BEEN an atheist. That they didn't define themselves with that term out of lack of need to do so is for the basis of the argument that everyone starts off as atheist... irrelevant.

There are two things you will need to (I think) work out:

1) Are babies atheists by default?

I would argue that they are because babies (I suspect) do not have beliefs, and therefore no belief in (a) god. This is so whether we term atheism as 'lack of belief' or 'disbelief' or any other.

2) But since most debate here is over matters of definition, an answer to the question: "Once the phrase theism was coined and understood, was only then everyone who was not a theist an atheist?"

It seems it is being argued that since atheist is something we brand ourselves and (among others) babies people are only 'atheists' because WE as observers recognise that this is what they are.
I have the following problem with this:

IF this is true, then upon the emergence of the first (let's say: group of, for the ease of it) theists (those who coined the phrase), everyone else became, out of necessity, an atheist (unless they DID have a belief in a god). Because it was only then that the (previously irrelevant to mention- ) non-belief in (a) god became the definition of atheism. The people then knew what theism was and were able to brand themselves or others (if they didn't believe) atheists.
However 'previously irrelevant to mention' does not equate 'previously not existent'.

IF at the aforementioned time the term atheist became applicable because there were people who could now apply it, then everyone else in the world (who didn't believe) suddenly 'became' an atheist at the exact time the first person said "this is theism. and/or I'm a theist!" It doesn't matter if they realised it or not. So also people on the other side of the world (provided they didn't believe in some god) were suddenly 'atheists' from the viewpoint of the people who were familiar with the term.

So in short:

it is impossible to equate "babies are atheists" with "people are atheists because we recognise they are/ because we can apply the term" because then there would be a more of less fixed point in time in the past where (go with me here) a tribe of non-believers in South-America and their infants suddenly were atheists because there emerged people (on another continent) who recognised non-believers as atheists due to the coining of a phrase.

---

Somehow though I have the feeling I have not explained it as clearly as I could have... But hey

 

[Andiferous]

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

I think what you are saying (although it's not easy to follow), is that we cannot retreat into a previous state of ignorance, as demonstrated by the parallel of atheists and babies. Atheists have measured evidence and made their choice, and thus, they have taken upon themselves the position and by default, the label, "atheist".

In response (if I am correct in interpretation), I would argue that perception is everything. As soon as a person percieves a theist, they necessarily percieve atheism, because the two are in opposition. It's the way people tend to think.

What you are saying is that to say "I am an atheist" is to understand the argument, and take a position.

What I would say in response, is that taking a position is only necessary when faced by your opponents. So, in a way it is absurd that atheists must label themselves when returning to a natural state of being. Many of us are necessarily perceived as atheist, because the two are in opposition. It's the way people tend to think. It's the unfortunate side effect of being in the minority. Thus, it could be considered a "lack of faith" as defined by people with faith.

I know it goes deeper than this, but the philosophy (as you realise) is hard to communicate.

 

[lrkun]

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

It's simple really. Knowing what atheism is compels you to see atheism in events where there is a lack of belief in a god. That's from your knowledge of what atheism is. Just as belief in a god isn't necessary to explain why we are here. Atheism isn't necessary where there lacks a belief in a god.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

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

It's simple really. Knowing what atheism is compels you to see atheism in events where there is a lack of belief in a god. That's from your knowledge of what atheism is. Just as belief in a god isn't necessary to explain why we are here. Atheism isn't necessary where there lacks a belief in a god.

Well, even in a hypothetical society in which it is totally pointless to identify as atheist, would that really change anything? It's not like the point made in The Incredibles where the idea of everyone being super ultimately means no one is super... that's a qualitative measure on a continuum of values. If nobody believes in a god, then okay, there's no point in calling oneself atheist, but it wouldn't change the fact that nobody believes, and therefore everybody is atheist.

I think where the difference lies is in this question of self-identifying as being a crucial matter. I would argue that identifying as an atheist is absolutely irrelevant in every way to the question of whether you actually are or not. Since theism/atheism/deism/pantheism/etc... are all defined as different varieties of belief and/or lack thereof, the only question that actually matters is what a person does or does not believe. Yes, there's the whole "ist" suffix which implies that it applies only to human beings, but that's exactly why it's still technically valid to say that babies are atheists in the sense that they do not have any such belief... doesn't matter that they don't have the belief because of their ignorance of the concept or whether they've actively identified themselves in that way. All that matters is that they don't believe in a god.

 

[lrkun]

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

It's simple really. Knowing what atheism is compels you to see atheism in events where there is a lack of belief in a god. That's from your knowledge of what atheism is. Just as belief in a god isn't necessary to explain why we are here. Atheism isn't necessary where there lacks a belief in a god.

Well, even in a hypothetical society in which it is totally pointless to identify as atheist, would that really change anything? It's not like the point made in The Incredibles where the idea of everyone being super ultimately means no one is super... that's a qualitative measure on a continuum of values. If nobody believes in a god, then okay, there's no point in calling oneself atheist, but it wouldn't change the fact that nobody believes, and therefore everybody is atheist.

I think where the difference lies is in this question of self-identifying as being a crucial matter. I would argue that identifying as an atheist is absolutely irrelevant in every way to the question of whether you actually are or not. Since theism/atheism/deism/pantheism/etc... are all defined as different varieties of belief and/or lack thereof, the only question that actually matters is what a person does or does not believe. Yes, there's the whole "ist" suffix which implies that it applies only to human beings, but that's exactly why it's still technically valid to say that babies are atheists in the sense that they do not have any such belief... doesn't matter that they don't have the belief because of their ignorance of the concept or whether they've actively identified themselves in that way. All that matters is that they don't believe in a god.

I don't dispute that. Instead, what I'm saying is from the point of view of the viewer, that baby is an atheist, because the viewer recognizes it through his or her knowledge of what atheism is.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

It's simple really. Knowing what atheism is compels you to see atheism in events where there is a lack of belief in a god. That's from your knowledge of what atheism is. Just as belief in a god isn't necessary to explain why we are here. Atheism isn't necessary where there lacks a belief in a god.

That's a concept.
Concepts are not the same as objective facts.

Instead, what I'm saying is from the point of view of the viewer, that baby is an atheist, because the viewer recognizes it through his or her knowledge of what atheism is.

POV of a third person is irrelevant. The objective fact of the baby not believing in a god remains, no matter if a third person is there.
Stop bringing in third persons. We're establishing objective facts here, not concepts.
Concepts are not the same as objective facts.

 

[lrkun]

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

If based on objective fact. That baby is just a baby. However, I recognize such as a baby, because I know what a baby is. In a more basic term. It could likewise be generalized as an it or a lifeform or something alive where it just came out from it's mother's womb.

Atheism isn't objective. You can't observe something and say it's an atheist.

Case in point. Does this picture tell you wether the character in question is an atheist or not? It doesn't, because objectively, atheism isn't something that can be observed without a reference point or knowledge if such character is such.

Another case in point. We know Richard's an atheist, however, by this image alone, it doesn't say that he is one.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins, transcribed from a short video titled, Russel's Teapot.wmv found on yoism.org

Having read the quote, you now know he is one.

Here's Ray Comfort, we know him to be a theist, however, by that picture alone, we don't know if he is one.

http://www.videosurf.com/video/hell%27-55790905?vlt=ffext&vlt_position=inline

The video shows Ray explaining his BS. By his acts, we are certain he is a theist.

 

[borrofburi]

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

If based on objective fact. That baby is just a baby. However, I recognize such as a baby, because I know what a baby is. In a more basic term. It could likewise be generalized as an it or a lifeform or something alive where it just came out from it's mother's womb.

Atheism isn't objective. You can't observe something and say it's an atheist.

But from a picture of a microprocessor you can't tell if it works or not, yet whether it works or not is an objective fact.

 

[lrkun]

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

If based on objective fact. That baby is just a baby. However, I recognize such as a baby, because I know what a baby is. In a more basic term. It could likewise be generalized as an it or a lifeform or something alive where it just came out from it's mother's womb.

Atheism isn't objective. You can't observe something and say it's an atheist.

But from a picture of a microprocessor you can't tell if it works or not, yet whether it works or not is an objective fact.

It becomes such the moment you have a basis or information. Not when you don't. However, in a strict sense. Objective refers to something that you can observe. If you can't observe that a microprocessor works or doesn't, then it does not count. ^^,

An example of such is the picture of Richard, he's smiling. That's an objective fact. However, if I were to say he's happy, that's no longer an objective fact.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

If based on objective fact. That baby is just a baby.

And it is also an objective fact that it does not believe in a god, therefore it is an atheist.

However, I recognize such as a baby, because I know what a baby is.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as an baby is using a concept. Someone being a baby is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

Atheism isn't objective. You can't observe something and say it's an atheist.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as an atheist is using a concept. Someone being an atheist is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

Case in point. Does this picture tell you wether the character in question is an atheist or not? It doesn't, because objectively, atheism isn't something that can be observed without a reference point or knowledge if such character is such.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as an atheist is using a concept. Someone being an atheist is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

Another case in point. We know Richard's an atheist, however, by this image alone, it doesn't say that he is one.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as an atheist is using a concept. Someone being an atheist is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

Having read the quote, you now know he is one.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as an atheist is using a concept. Someone being an atheist is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

Here's Ray Comfort, we know him to be a theist, however, by that picture alone, we don't know if he is one.
The video shows Ray explaining his BS. By his acts, we are certain he is a theist.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as a theist is using a concept. Someone being an theist is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

 

[lrkun]

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

You need to get your facts straight. ^^, You do realize that objective can be defined as something based on observable phenomenon provided one's personal bias and emotion isn't included. This is demonstrated by being a third person who views the fact or event taking place. @.@

The pictures if viewed without bias shows richard smiling. It also shows ray smiling. It shows the anime girl wearing clothes. But to claim they are per say atheists is a hasty conclusion. You need to know your facts. Your facts serve as your basis or foundation.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

You need to get your facts straight. ^^, You do realize that objective can be defined as something based on observable phenomenon provided one's personal bias and emotion isn't included.

One could do that, but that defeats the point of using the word in a philosophical discussion.
I propose we not argue about the semantics of the word "objective" and that we stick with what I obviously mean to say.

But to claim they are per say atheists is a hasty conclusion. You need to know your facts. Your facts serve as your basis or foundation.

Third person concept, not an objective fact.
Labeling someone as an atheist is using a concept. Someone being an atheist is a fact that does not need to be stated or perceived in order for it to be true.
A concept is not same as a fact.

 

[lrkun]

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

Oh well, it's not my place to teach you the basics. If you really think that's what an objective fact is. Feel free to do so. I'll contest it, but it seems like you won't change your mind.

---

Keypoints to ponder. You're mistaking objectivity in the sense as it results from the scientific method and objectivity in the sense that it is absent of a person's personal bias or emotion.

You're concluding your statement based on the objective fact in the view point of science where it is independent from the person's bias due to the scientific method. Even still, what you failed to comprehend is, such objectivity is still based on knowledge and knowing the state of the object, where it undergoes an experiment as observed via the scientist/experimentor.

--

Premise conclusion.

Conclusion premise.

Experiment result.

It's okay as long as you have a basis, but never without. Doing so is an argument from ignorance.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Oh well, it's not my place to teach you the basics. If you really think that's what an objective fact is. Feel free to do so. I'll contest it, but it seems like you won't change your mind.

Oh, I do in fact think that someone who starts an semantic argument to push her contextually incorrect definition of a word as a red herring in order to divert attention away from the point at hand indeed does not have a place to teach others about the correct usage of said word in a philosophical context.

You're mistaking objectivity in the sense as it results from the scientific method and objectivity in the sense that it is absent of a person's personal bias or emotion.

You're concluding your statement based on the objective fact in the view point of science where it is independent from the person's bias due to the scientific method. Even still, what you failed to comprehend is, such objectivity is still based on knowledge and knowing the state of the object, where it undergoes an experiment as observed via the scientist/experimentor.

I'm not, but if that's what you need in order to slip away from the philosophical point at hand, sure.

 

[lrkun]

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

As long as you realize the difference between the two, you'll realize where you committed your error. Besides, illustrating it as how it is properly used is better than your makeshift definition.

Without knowing what someone is with respect to his or her belief template, it is improper to allege whether he or she is an atheist. That's why it is important to always have a basis as where I illustrated through the pictures.

To illustrate the way you did is like this.

This is an atheist. ( Assumption without basis)

Where I on the other hand did it like this.

This is an atheist, because ...

It lacks basis. The assumption that it is objectively an atheist without prior knowledge or ascertaining if it truly is one (means we have to believe that your claim is true).

Like in the case of Richard. Yes, he is an atheist (we know he is as demonstrated by his book). If a person who doesn't know he is one meets him. It does not change the fact that he is an atheist. Where in the case of Ray Comfort. He, on the other hand, is a theist (as demonstrated by his promotion of god). If a person who doesn't know he is one meets him. It does not change the fact the he is a theist. But such are not observable via their appearance alone, but through their acts or omissions, unless you can say that you can read their thoughts. In other words, one still has to observe what makes them one and the other.