The need to preach.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Sure, if rocks are atheists, then you can have implicit atheists.
But if rocks (or others unable to consider the concept of god at this particular moment) can't be atheists, then you can't have implicit atheists.

But either way the concept of implicit atheism is not dependent on the rocks.

Its all in the rocks really.

I've already made the distinction between a rock (physically, 'mentally' incapable of entertaining the idea of god) and a human isolated from the idea (physically and mentally capable of entertaining the idea of god).

To call a rock an implicit atheist would be redundant and absurd and dilute the meaning of the term. A rock will never be able to consider the issue.
The isolated human can potentially consider the issue at any moment, if it is put before him. Until then, he is an implicit atheist.

Pushtrak

I recall a story about some missionary that went to live with some tribe, and they had never heard of the god concept. They were pure pragmatists. They couldn't understand how this missionary was talking about someone he hadn't seen, and he didn't know anyone who had seen Jesus and he was talking about it with as much conviction as he was. After spending years with this tribe, he actually became an atheist too.

So, if we were to have talked about them before the missionary going there, they would have been implicit atheists.

ColmDawson

Pushtrak wrote: »

I recall a story about some missionary that went to live with some tribe, and they had never heard of the god concept. They were pure pragmatists. They couldn't understand how this missionary was talking about someone he hadn't seen, and he didn't know anyone who had seen Jesus and he was talking about it with as much conviction as he was. After spending years with this tribe, he actually became an atheist too.

So, if we were to have talked about them before the missionary going there, they would have been implicit atheists.

Yeah, I had them in mind. Fascinating stuff!

I think I've heard Dawkins say a few times that every culture on earth has had its gods; I'm surprised he hasn't heard of that particular tribe.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

I personally don't think you need a word for someone who doesn't believe in something they have never heard of. If that were the case you require a word for anything since there is an infinite number of things I don't believe in and have never heard of.

You certainly don't need to have a word for things people don't believe in, in general. But, since theism is so prevalent we have to use a word to define people who don't subscribe to the concept of a personal god.

However, even though we may not use a word to define all these things you never heard of, you still conceptually lack belief in them.

Ultimately, we are arguing over whether atheism is 'rejection of' or 'absence of' theist beliefs. Both seem to be compatible with most definitions of the word so I'm not sure how to resolve this.

ColmDawson

liamw wrote: »

You certainly don't need to have a word for things people don't believe in, in general. But, since theism is so prevalent we have to use a word to define people who don't subscribe to the concept of a personal god.

However, even though we may not use a word to define all these things you never heard of, you still conceptually lack belief in them.

Ultimately, we are arguing over whether atheism is 'rejection of' or 'absence of' theist beliefs. Both seem to be compatible with most definitions of the word so I'm not sure how to resolve this.

The absence of belief in god is sufficient to call someone an atheist. If that counts as rejection, I don't know, but it doesn't matter: they're an atheist if they lack belief.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

To call a rock an implicit atheist would be redundant and absurd and dilute the meaning of the term. A rock will never be able to consider the issue.

Its not really, if to be an atheist requires the ability to understand the concept of a god. Therefore a rock/infant cannot be one, but neither can someone with zero knowledge.

They simply aren't equipped to understand the concept, they may as well be rocks.

ColmDawson wrote: »

The isolated human can potentially consider the issue at any moment, if it is put before him.

But until it is put before them they can't consider it, ergo they can't be implicit atheists since it requires the active element of processing the facts and coming to a decision.

Any how I've rocks to arrange so I'll call it a day

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not really, if to be an atheist requires the ability to understand the concept of a god. Therefore a rock/infant cannot be one, but neither can someone with zero knowledge.

They simply aren't equipped to understand the concept, they may as well be rocks.


But until it is put before them they can't consider it, ergo they can't be implicit atheists since it requires the active element of processing the facts and coming to a decision.

Any how I've rocks to arrange so I'll call it a day

Being adult humans of normal intelligence, they are of course equipped to deal with the issue should it be presented to them.

It's entirely possible that a person could have experience, even expertise, with matters of logic, evidence and rationality without having encountered the specific issue of god.

Dades

I reject the notion that a person who has never heard of gods or religion is an atheist, implicit or otherwise.

If there is no alcohol on their desert island, does that make them a tee-totaller? If there are no animals for meat are they vegans?

No, like the term atheist these are terms to describe people who beliefs or philosophy consciously lack or reject something so commonplace as to require a term for people who don't have it.

Genghiz Cohen

Dades wrote: »

I reject the notion that a person who has never heard of gods or religion is an atheist, implicit or otherwise.

Atheist, without belief. I don't believe in any God I've never heard of.

Dades wrote: »

If there are no animals for meat are they vegans?

Yes
Google "define: vegan"

a strict vegetarian; someone who eats no animal or dairy products at all

Says nothing about choice or reasons.
It's black and white, you do or don't.

ColmDawson

I agree that someone who's never heard of the idea of god is a very different kind of atheist to your average A&A poster, but I think that's ok because we can specify implicit or explicit.

strobe

Dades wrote: »

I reject the notion that a person who has never heard of gods or religion is an atheist, implicit or otherwise.

If there is no alcohol on their desert island, does that make them a tee-totaller? If there are no animals for meat are they vegans?

No, like the term atheist these are terms to describe people who beliefs or philosophy consciously lack or reject something so commonplace as to require a term for people who don't have it.

I disagree. In my opinion atheist is the default and original human position. You are born an atheist and only stop being an atheist if you become a theist. It makes no difference weather you had the option of being a theist or not.

A-theism, a-sexual, a-political, a-gnostic = without theism, without a sex, without a political association, without gnosticism. If you are without a political association, it doesn't matter if you are in that state because you have lived in a cave all your life and have never heard of politics or if you heard of politics throughout your life but made the decision to be uninvolved with it. You are still a-political.

philologos

liah wrote: »

To be honest, it is a bit sad. Each thread is the same people arguing in circles with, inevitably, Jakkass. Which is understandable, as a lot of the stuff he says can be pretty infuriating, and I've been guilty of arguing back at him in the distant past, but I gave up a long time ago because I figured what's the point of wasting time on someone who's never going to change their mind? What's the point? What does it achieve other than frustrating me? Absolutely nothing.

Hm, at the same time, I think from time to time we've had some pretty good discussions on the A&A forum as specific to any other area.

Just curious, you seem to say that people shouldn't argue against me because I will never change my mind. Who of necessity said that discussion must lead to someone changing their mind?

Apologies if I have frustrated you by this post, but if your only purpose of talking to me, or other theists is to change our mind, then I don't really think you actually value the discussion we could have. Rather you value your attempt to change our thinking rather than valuing us as individuals.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, at the same time, I think from time to time we've had some pretty good discussions on the A&A forum as specific to any other area.

Just curious, you seem to say that people shouldn't argue against me because I will never change my mind. Who of necessity said that discussion must lead to someone changing their mind?

Apologies if I have frustrated you by this post, but if your only purpose of talking to me, or other theists is to change our mind, then I don't really think you actually value the discussion we could have. Rather you value your attempt to change our thinking rather than valuing us as individuals.

Well if the alternative to changing minds is to just explore your viewpoint for the sheer joy of doing so, then I'm afraid most people would probably find this a bit unfulfilling and frustrating.

Shenshen

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Nothing really to be confused about. I respect everybodys view point but ultimately (when it comes to this matter) the only view point that I should care about is my own. Likewise the only view point that should concern you is yours. I have not tried to preach my own view, I have merely responded to others who say that my view is "simply wrong." In reality the thread is destined to go around in circles with users re-introducing the same examples and ideas while adding nothing to the overall discussion. Its pretty stale already.

The major misunderstanding seems to be that you consider the meaning of words to be a point of view, rather than an agreed phraseology to describe certain aspects.

I can go around calling myself a Christian, when I decide that to my point of view, the meaning of that word does not describe somebody who believes in Christianity, but rather somebody who has once been told about it.
That will in no way change the agreed actual meaning of the word, but it should lead to some very interesting debates on forums like this one.

Dades

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Yes
Google "define: vegan"

a strict vegetarian; someone who eats no animal or dairy products at all

Says nothing about choice or reasons.
It's black and white, you do or don't.

On the contrary, the definition you quote highlights my point. A vegan is a strict vegetarian, i.e. a vegetarian that very consciously adheres to a code of consumption. My point was that such terms as vegan and atheist and "pioneer" are terms applied to people who have given thought to the matter.

This is of course, my perception of the term atheism, but nobody has yet shown me any convincing evidence that this is not the case.

The people of an island that has no gods or religions (and never had) are possibly irreligious, but not atheists, imo.

axer

Dades wrote: »

The people of an island that has no gods or religions (and never had) are possibly irreligious, but not atheists, imo.

I think this all depends on who is looking in on the people of the island i.e. who is labelling them.

The islanders themselves would not have the word Atheism in their dictionary since they do not have theism.

If we are looking in upon this island (which we are in this case) then the people are Atheists to us since we are aware of theism. Atheism to us would describe them as being without a belief in a deity.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

I think this all depends on who is looking in on the people of the island i.e. who is labelling them.

The islanders themselves would not have the word Atheism in their dictionary since they do not have theism.

If we are looking in upon this island (which we are in this case) then the people are Atheists to us since we are aware of theism. Atheism to us would describe them as being without a belief in a deity.

But we've clearly defined at this stage to be an atheist you must be able to make a reasoned decision. Which is why infants and animals are excluded.
But by that logic so should the islanders, because they also are incapable of arriving at a decision until its presented to them.

You are basically saying since the hypothesis wasn't presented to them they must have rejected it, clearly that's not right.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But we've clearly defined at this stage to be an atheist you must be able to make a reasoned decision. Which is why infants and animals are excluded.
But by that logic so should the islanders, because they also are incapable of arriving at a decision until its presented to them.

They are more than capable of arriving at a decision that there is a deity but probably haven't because they have not seen any evidence that suggests to them that one (or many) exist. You don't have to reject belief in the sense that you are suggesting to be an atheist - you just have to be without belief.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You are basically saying since the hypothesis wasn't presented to them they must have rejected it, clearly that's not right.

I am saying that we can label them atheists since we know they are without belief in a deity. They wouldn't label themselves atheist since they have never heard of a deity so would not have any use of the word Atheist. They are de facto atheists to us - but they wouldn't use that label to describe themselves.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

I am saying that we can label them atheists since we know they are without belief in a deity. They wouldn't label themselves atheist since they have never heard of a deity so would not have any use of the word Atheist. They are de facto atheists to us - but they wouldn't use that label to describe themselves.

But they can't be, we've defined that a mandatory characteristic is be able to actively reject the proposition that gods exist.
Both the atheist and theist position are in response to a hypothesis. Until that condition is satisfied the labels simply aren't applicable.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But they can't be, we've defined that a mandatory characteristic is be able to actively reject the proposition that gods exist.
Both the atheist and theist position are in response to a hypothesis. Until that condition is satisfied the labels simply aren't applicable.

By not believing in a deity or deities they are without belief in a deity or deities. They are de facto Atheists as we would label them - not as they would label themselves.

They are fully free and capable of coming to the conclusion that there is a deity or deities but have not come to that conclusion probably since no evidence has been presented to them to suggest that there is a deity.

I can imagine if we as a human race had entered the world with the knowledge of science as we know it now we would not have had a need to have a deity or deities to describe things. We would be de facto atheists but would not use that term if theism did not exist.

I think the confusion here is your use of "actively reject" and what you mean by that. There is a difference between implicit (de facto) atheism and explicit atheism but the fact remains that atheism is being without belief in a deity or deities.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But they can't be, we've defined that a mandatory characteristic is be able to actively reject the proposition that gods exist.

Actually no, we haven't defined that. I've twice laid out in front of you the difference between being (a) oblivious to the matter of god but also mentally incapable of tackling it (the baby), and (b) being oblivious to the matter of god but mentally capable of tackling it (the adult islander). So far, you've refused to recognise that there's any difference between the two.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Both the atheist and theist position are in response to a hypothesis. Until that condition is satisfied the labels simply aren't applicable.

I suggest that being atheist (a- + theos = without god) is the default position and that you don't need to have encountered theism to be without belief in it.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

I think the confusion here is your use of "actively reject" and what you mean by that. There is a difference between implicit (de facto) atheism and explicit atheism but the fact remains that atheism is being without belief in a deity or deities.

Nope I believe there isn't

Clearly you believe all that is required to be an atheist is to not have a belief in gods, your ability to reason it out is immaterial. That I can accept, points to the geological structure.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Actually no, we haven't defined that. I've twice laid out in front of you the difference between being (a) oblivious to the matter of god but also mentally incapable of tackling it (the baby), and (b) being oblivious to the matter of god but mentally capable of tackling it (the adult islander). So far, you've refused to recognise that there's any difference between the two

That's because there isn't. If the islanders are athiests, then so too are the babies.
You can't reason out something you're unaware off.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Clearly you believe all that is required to be an atheist is to not have a belief in gods, your ability to reason it out is immaterial. That I can accept, points to the geological structure.

To be an atheist is to not have a belief in a deity or deities and but be capable of believing a deity or deities. Can you accept that?

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's because there isn't. If the islanders are athiests, then so too are the babies.
You can't reason out something you're unaware off.

When did I suggest they were reasoning it out? I said they're simply without belief in god, therefore they're implicit atheists.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

To be an atheist is to not have a belief in a deity or deities and but be capable of believing a deity or deities. Can you accept that?

Why is the capability of believing in deities important, you either or you don't.
If you don't then your ability to reason it out is immaterial.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's because there isn't. If the islanders are athiests, then so too are the babies.
You can't reason out something you're unaware off.

There is a big difference between the islanders and babies. The islanders are capable of coming to the conclusion that there is a deity - babies are not.

If people had used reason (and knowledge that we know of now) then we would not have people worshiping deities right now. I can understand how people came to the conclusion that there were deities in the past (ignorance of science) but there is no excuse for it now considering how much we now know. That said the majority of atheists im sure you'll find will not say with 100% certainty that there is no higher power etc They will tell you it is highly unlikely and extremely unlikely that there is a higher power etc as religions have defined them.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why is the capability of believing in deities important, you either or you don't.
If you don't then your ability to reason it out is immaterial.

Think about it this way: the only reason I wouldn't call a baby an atheist is because there is no situation in which the baby, with its current brain power, could contemplate theism.
The islanders, on the other hand, do have the brain power to contemplate theism. They just haven't had to.

Dades

ColmDawson wrote: »

I suggest that being atheist (a- + theos = without god) is the default position and that you don't need to have encountered theism to be without belief in it.

If we're sticking strictly to the term "without god", then you have to include babies and dolphins. There's no mention of an arbitrary clause like "an atheist must have the capacity to reason about gods even if they've never heard of them" in that definition, so I don't how it's okay to assume it applies.

I think if we are to look to the intention of the word, like vegan or pioneer, it exists to label those who are conscious of what it entails.

axer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why is the capability of believing in deities important, you either or you don't.
If you don't then your ability to reason it out is immaterial.

What is the point of defining a rock as an atheist as you suggest? Surely we know that a rock is not capable of being a theist. Should we call a rock apolitical too? asexual? and so on?

I think at this stage you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.