I see no value in atheism

[Curious George]

I know. And just as the labels "cabbage" and "meat" and their associated ideas can lead you to state "cabbage is not meat", I can state the the labels "theist" and "God" and their associated ideas can lead me to state "someone who does not believe in a God isn't a theist". I really see no reason why you're able to accept "cabbage is not meat", but you're utterly resistant and stubborn to the suggestion that atheism and theism refer to specific things, or that using their actual definitions is somehow arbitrary? Isn't "cabbage is not meat" an equally "arbitrary" distinction by this logic?

Using actual definitions is not what I am suggesting is arbitrary, defining the terms is what I am suggesting is arbitrary.

I don't think you are characterizing my "stubborn[ness]" and "utter[] resistan[ce]" fairly.

I am not resistant to the use or the definition, I am resistant to the idea that defining the terms in a specific way is not arbitrary.

 

[McBell]

What difference?

the presence of or lack of belief.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't matter. The fact is that your position is ALWAYS a lack of belief (or acceptance, i.e: rejection) with regards to claims that you are unaware of or uncertain of. We are all born not believing in practically anything, and over time our experiences shape and define that which we do believe as we grow to hear and understand various claims. There's nothing particularly complicated or controversial about that idea. It's just reality.

It matters to me, because I don't believe in non-existent things. That we are all born with a blank slate defies that we are born full of non-existent things (like not-beliefs and not-cars). We learn about things and we believe in them, and we learn about more things and we don't believe in them. And there's nothing controversial about that, either.

Something being noit understood has no bearing on something being acepted as true or not - they are two different subjects. People can accept things being true without understanding them, and of course the reverse is true as well.

The reverse, that people can reject things being true without understanding them? I disagree.

Me too. Rejection is not accepting a claim.

Yes, it is.

 

[Bunyip]

the presence of or lack of belief.

Both statements are essentially identical - holding a disbelief, and not holding a belief. They add up to effectively the same thing. As I said, the only difference is that they are worded slightly differently.

So I am not dismissing any difference - I am saying that the difference is merely semantic.

Not believing god exists

and

Believing god doesn't exist

Are two different wordings of essentially the same thing. I don't see how wording something a little differently is supposed to transform weak atheism into strong atheism - or for that matter how it makes any meaningful difference.

 

[McBell]

Yes, it is.

How is rejecting a claim accepting said claim?

 

[McBell]

Both statements are essentially identical - holding a disbelief, and not holding a belief.

If you cannot see the difference, I do not know that I can help you.

They add up to effectively the same thing.

No, they do not.
One has a belief involved, one does not.

As I said, the only difference is that they are worded slightly differently.

Repeating the same mistake over and over does not make it go away.

So I am not dismissing any difference - I am saying that the difference is merely semantic.

Yet you did not know what the difference was?
If you did, why did you ask what the difference was?

 

[Bunyip]

If you cannot see the difference, I do not know that I can help you.

I can see the difference - it is a semantic difference.

No, they do not.
One has a belief involved, one does not.

A belief in an absence, and an absence of belief are essentially the same thing.

Repeating the same mistake over and over does not make it go away.


Yet you did not know what the difference was?
If you did, why did you ask what the difference was?

Because I am asking you what you think the difference is. That is - in practice, what difference does it make? Other than semantics. In this context both positions bear the same lack of a burden of proof and are drawn from the same reasoning.

 

[Willamena]

How is rejecting a claim accepting said claim?

He had said:

Rejection is not accepting a claim.

I agreed.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think we should be OK with the redefining of terms at will. It will lead to utter confusion.

Many for this exact reason dismiss the notion that uncertain (people who have not decided whether they believe in God or not) are atheist. There is a large contingency that see the defining of atheist so broadly, as a rejection of a whole body of work of previous philosophers.

The idea of a strong atheist and a rock share a characteristic in their worldview is dismissive. That a strong atheist is comparable with someone who is doesn't have a have a belief either way is not flattering.

There are plenty of definitions and reasons to support atheism as a belief that god does not exist. The question is why does it matter?

My position is that it does not matter. However, if we are to compare these two perspectives, we se that the strong atheists have more powerful reasoning on their side.

As I have said numerous times, I am ok with either as long as we set the terms in advance, so they don't get switched halfway through. But the assertion that people who define atheism as what has been referred to in this thread as "strong atheism" are somehow wrong in suggesting such, or the failure to acknowledge that the defining the terms in such that rocks, agnostics, and unknowns are all atheists is arbitrary, is a failure to acknowledge valid perspectives. I will gladly pick up that semantic game and run with it. Btw, it ends with me either getting tired and walking away or someone getting huffy because they only have "that is just the way it is" to fall back on for their "reasons."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you believe in Mriswiths?

According to you you cannot not believe in them until you know what they are...

Precisely...I do not know what the concept of Mriswiths is meant to represent...i therefore I can not have any opinion at all until you provide a conceptual explanation...

How would anyone justify believing or disbelieving in something before they even knew what it was they were believing or disbelieving in?

No one is that stupid!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have never heard of implicit atheism have you.

One can be an atheist and not make a conscious rejection of theism, that is how it is defined. It is not up for debate

How would anyone justify disbelieving in their idea formed from learning of the concept of god before they even knew what the concept of god was meant to represent?

It's insane...

 

[outhouse]

How would anyone justify disbelieving in their idea formed from learning of the concept of god before they even knew what the concept of god was meant to represent?

It's insane...

Disbelief or knowledge or a conscious rejection is not required. To be a theist one must first form a belief, if one has no knowledge of a deity, they are still an atheist.


Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration

You know, like babies.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Disbelief or knowledge or a conscious rejection is not required. To be a theist one must first form a belief, if one has no knowledge of a deity, they are still an atheist.


Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration

You know, like babies.

No one is talking about implicit atheism...implicit atheism, according to the definition in Wiki would mean someone not exposed to the concept of god and who would therefore not know the meaning of the concept of atheism....this discussion from the get go was about a real atheists....how could anyone disbelieve in the concept of God before learning of the concept of god was meant to represent?

You see...it could not happen in reality...if you think so...show me an atheist who claims they did?

 

[Bunyip]

No one is talking about implicit atheism...implicit atheism, according to the definition in Wiki would mean someone not exposed to the concept of god and who would therefore not know the meaning of the concept of atheism....this discussion from the get go was about a real atheists....how could anyone disbelieve in the concept of God before learning of the concept of god was meant to represent?

You see...it could not happen in reality...if you think so...show me an atheist who claims they did?

Well before they learned of the concept of god, they did not have a belief in it - and after they were exposed to the concept, they still did not believe it. They were atheist before learning of any specific God concept, and atheist afterwards.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well before they learned of the concept of god, they did not have a belief in it - and after they were exposed to the concept, they still did not believe it. They were atheist before learning of any specific God concept, and atheist afterwards.

But before they learned of the concept of god...they were not atheists...they did not disbelieve in the concept of god before they learned of it...

 

[Bunyip]

But before they learned of the concept of god...they were not atheists...

Of course they were. Atheism simply means that you do not believe in a God, before they learned of the concept of God they naturally lacked the belief in it and were therefore atheist.

they did not disbelieve in the concept of god before they learned of it...

What? Of course they did. They did not believe in God before they learned of it, and afterwards.

 

[outhouse]

But before they learned of the concept of god...they were not atheists...they did not disbelieve in the concept of god before they learned of it...

They lacked theism, that makes them atheist.

"Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"

An atheist is an atheist, the road taken or not taken matter not.

this discussion from the get go was about a real atheists

Oh im sorry but you don't get to define what is or is not an atheist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course they were. Atheism simply means that you do not believe in a God, before they learned of the concept of God they naturally lacked the belief in it and were therefore atheist.
What? Of course they did. They did not believe in God before they learned of it, and afterwards.

Well as long as you're happy in delusion, who am I to break the spell...lala

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They lacked theism, that makes them atheist.

"Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"

An atheist is an atheist, the road taken or not taken matter not.

Oh im sorry but you don't get to define what is or is not an atheist.

Stay deluded for all I care...lalala

 

[Bunyip]

Well as long as you're happy in delusion, who am I to break the spell...lala

What delusion is that Ben?