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

[Anachronous Rex]

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

It's self evident Irkun. Someone either believes in god(s), or they do not. This fact about the person is true regardless of if it can be perceived.

And it starts with the belief in a god as a reference point, because without that, there is no lack of belief in a god.

You're simply wrong. You do not have to know that a concept exists in order not to believe in it. For years and years I did not believe in shoggoths, it simply does not matter that no one bothered to explain to me what a shoggoth is.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

I recognize that you follow plato's version of what an objective fact is. It's likewise where the concept of scientific objectivity is found (wikipedia). Again, it also states where it is also an objective fact where one perceives something provided there is no bias nor emotion.

That's scientific (dictionary) objectivity.

Philosophical objectivity has a seperate meaning. As the IEP says: "The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. In other words, the object would "be there," as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability."
It also says that it's used in philosophy for "anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it."

Hence, the statement from the concept is not made. It's there. It's an objective fact.

For example, in the hypothetical universe where nobody believes in a god, nobody is making the statement of atheism, but people are still atheist. Of course, I make that statement now as I have the concept (and am thus referring to the lack of the concept, as you say), but I'm not part of that hypothetical universe where the concept does not exist.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

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

And it starts with the belief in a god as a reference point, because without that, there is no lack of belief in a god.

I like to remind you on your own illustration:

Simple illustration.

yz
yz+x

xyz
xyz - x

yz

Don,´t you see that? There is no difference between the first and the last line of your illustration. Conzept x (in this case god) doesn,´t need to exist in order to lack it.

 

[borrofburi]

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

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.

So you're saying that we can't know if a baby is an atheist because we don't know the baby's thoughts? Can you know if dawkins' is an atheist?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

So you're saying that we can't know if a baby is an atheist because we don't know the baby's thoughts? Can you know if dawkins' is an atheist?

Ultimately you can't, I guess. It could all be a clever ruse, but that's not the point of the situation this discussion arose out of, because it was a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It's the wrong meaning of the word "objective".

 

[Noth]

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

Right. Even though I think the discussion should either become a debate on terms and the correct applying of those or basically an agree to disagree , a short summary of where (again: perhaps...) the crux lies:

Statement:

"We lack belief in everything that has not yet been thought of, that will - once thought of - require belief."

Or maybe I should make a separate topic for that one just to get a fresh discussion :roll:

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Statement:
"We lack belief in everything that has not yet been thought of, that will - once thought of - require belief."
Or maybe I should make a separate topic for that one just to get a fresh discussion :roll:

No need, that is pretty much it.

 

[borrofburi]

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

Right. Even though I think the discussion should either become a debate on terms and the correct applying of those or basically an agree to disagree , a short summary of where (again: perhaps...) the crux lies:

Statement:

"We lack belief in everything that has not yet been thought of, that will - once thought of - require belief."

Or maybe I should make a separate topic for that one just to get a fresh discussion :roll:

I would disagree of your use of the word "belief". Squawk would too.

I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

definition of an atheist is neither someone who actively disbelieves in god nor someone who lacks belief in god, but someone who doesn't see the need to posit a god in the first place, thereby putting the emphasis on theists to prove their crazy claims

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

<tangent>Just a side note, but I would note that faith can also be evidence based. I have faith in my brother to pay his part of the rent, because he has a history of doing it, for instance. I don't know that he will, but I believe he will because he has done so in the past. It's a faith claim. Faith isn't necessarily bad, just blind faith.</tangent>

 

[Andiferous]

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

I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

<tangent>Just a side note, but I would note that faith can also be evidence based. I have faith in my brother to pay his part of the rent, because he has a history of doing it, for instance. I don't know that he will, but I believe he will because he has done so in the past. It's a faith claim. Faith isn't necessarily bad, just blind faith.</tangent>

I suppose I only bring it up because it's topical (on the Atheist=faith thread), but I believe you can have belief and faith at the same time. You can't have faith without belief. However, I believe also you can have belief without faith.

Although admittedly, I think most of us have little faiths we don't even recognise in our daily lives...

But don't take that on faith.

 

[DepricatedZero]

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

I suppose I only bring it up because it's topical (on the Atheist=faith thread), but I believe you can have belief and faith at the same time. You can't have faith without belief. However, I believe also you can have belief without faith.

Although admittedly, I think most of us have little faiths we don't even recognise in our daily lives...

But don't take that on faith.

Well played, Andie, well played.

 

[Andiferous]

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

I suppose I only bring it up because it's topical (on the Atheist=faith thread), but I believe you can have belief and faith at the same time. You can't have faith without belief. However, I believe also you can have belief without faith.

Although admittedly, I think most of us have little faiths we don't even recognise in our daily lives...

But don't take that on faith.

Well played, Andie, well played.

Sorry.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

Statement:
"We lack belief in everything that has not yet been thought of, that will - once thought of - require belief."

I would disagree of your use of the word "belief". Squawk would too.
I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

That's a bit of a silly distinction in this context. Would you then have a belief in everything that has not yet been thought of but that has evidence? It's a bit redundant.

 

[Noth]

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

I would disagree of your use of the word "belief". Squawk would too.

I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

definition of an atheist is neither someone who actively disbelieves in god nor someone who lacks belief in god, but someone who doesn't see the need to posit a god in the first place, thereby putting the emphasis on theists to prove their crazy claims

Yeh awesome thread that one . I wish we could live in a world where it wouldn't be rightly necessary to 'come out as an atheist' because it was simply the common standard. But when possibly debating one of those fundies who insists on using the stupid 'leap of faith' argument against atheism terming it 'no need to posit a god' is a really good one .

As for the use of the word belief. Both words have different meanings, so both with belief and faith you'll have to define which one you're using. I used the meaning religious faith for it, where religious isn't necessarily broad enough and should encompass other superstitious beliefs as well .
In that sense I agree with the use of faith as you meant it.

 

[borrofburi]

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

I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

<tangent>Just a side note, but I would note that faith can also be evidence based. I have faith in my brother to pay his part of the rent, because he has a history of doing it, for instance. I don't know that he will, but I believe he will because he has done so in the past. It's a faith claim. Faith isn't necessarily bad, just blind faith.</tangent>

And I would say that you're equivocating definitions of faith and belief.

Faith has two definitions: (1) belief without evidence, (2) trust in something

Personally I think the second should be avoided because the first is so poisonous. In contrast, I use "belief" to mean "belief with evidence" (or generally "things I'm fairly certain of because of these reasons and that evidence"), though I am aware that "belief" can mean "belief based on faith" I try to be rather rigid in avoiding that meaning. This way I can create a relatively clear set of meanings: when I say faith I mean the bullshit "well of course there's no evidence, you just have to have faith", and when I say belief I mean "I believe my brother will pay his part of the rent (as he always has)".

 

[borrofburi]

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

I would disagree of your use of the word "belief". Squawk would too.
I would choose "faith" to mean "belief without evidence" and use that instead. There's also this interesting thread: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6129

That's a bit of a silly distinction in this context. Would you then have a belief in everything that has not yet been thought of but that has evidence? It's a bit redundant.

I think you misunderstand, I would say:
"We lack belief in everything that has not yet been thought of, that will - once thought of - require faith."

I believe a lot of things; I believe the sandwich I just ate isn't going to kill me. I have pretty adequate reasons to believe the things I do (mostly, I hope).... But I think you misunderstand my definitions: I use "belief" to mean "I'm pretty certain this is true based on evidence and reasoning", and I use "faith" to mean "belief without evidence".

Unless you don't misunderstand my definitions... In which case in a few days I'll believe that the sandwich I have yet to make isn't going to kill me; it's not quite right to call it knowledge, because the tomato I put on it could have salmonella on it which is particularly virulent, but I'm rather certain about it for (in my opinion) fairly good reasons. I'm not "taking it on faith" that the sandwich isn't going to kill me, yet eating my sandwich will require the belief that it's not going to kill me... Yet I maintain I still fit the above definition, despite believing something.

As for the use of the word belief. Both words have different meanings, so both with belief and faith you'll have to define which one you're using. I used the meaning religious faith for it, where religious isn't necessarily broad enough and should encompass other superstitious beliefs as well .
In that sense I agree with the use of faith as you meant it.

Yah, it's an unfortunate vagueness in the english language. I've picked faith as the bad one and belief as the good one, because that seems to be close to how they're used. I.e. it seems that belief means "I'm rather certain of X because of evidence" most of the time, while faith means "leap of faith" most of the time.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

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

That's a bit of a silly distinction in this context. Would you then have a belief in everything that has not yet been thought of but that has evidence? It's a bit redundant.

I think you misunderstand, I would say:
"We lack belief in everything that has not yet been thought of, that will - once thought of - require faith."

Oh alright, gotcha. I was looking at the wrong "belief" in the sentence.