This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Implicit atheism is the lack of belief for lack of knowledge.
And like I said, that's no different than saying they have implicit theism.
Implying a denial is no different than implying an affirmation.Atheism simply means "No belief in God."
Whether that be conscious rejection of the belief in gods by an adult, or the lack of belief for lack of knowledge, the point is they do not have belief, and thus, the word atheist is appropriate.
We're not talking about religious choice, we're talking about what word best fits a definition.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
DoctorLore, as soon as you're asked to make a call on something, you cannot be implicit anymore, because you make a conscious stand on it. You can be positive explicit or negative explicit, up to you, but you cannot possibly be implicit anything.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
To quote my edit:
It's a very, very simple semantic argument all based around the understanding that there are several ways in which things can be opposites. When taking a phrase made of up distinct parts, such as "to have belief in God," the opposites can be derived by negating different parts. Both "to not have belief in God" and "to have a non-belief in God" are opposites of the first and opposites of each other. So we have a little triangle. We call one theism, another atheism, and now you want to arbitrarily call the third one atheism too just because it happens to be formulated with "not" in it.
Neither of you are seeing what I'm saying.
DoctorLore, I'm the one who made the distinction between disbelief and non-belief. Don't pretend like you need to repeat the distinction back to me.
Skreeran, you're begging the question. The argument is about definition, so using the definition as your starting point won't get you anywhere.
Post by
Skreeran
DoctorLore, as soon as you're asked to make a call on something, you cannot be implicit anymore, because you make a conscious stand on it. You can be positive explicit or negative explicit, up to you, but you cannot possibly be implicit anything.Correct, but as babies are not asked to make a call on something, they can happily remain implicit in their lack of belief.
Skreeran, you're begging the question. The argument is about definition, so using the definition as your starting point won't get you anywhere.Newborns do not believe gods, I can tell you that much. They're not even developed enough to understand the concept.
That's the definition. You're arguing about which word to use to describe their state: atheist or theist.
I posit that because they lack belief, they are atheist, but since they are not yet aware of the the thing they lack belief in, they are not explicit, but implicit.
Edit: And in regard to your triangle there, what would you call it? Atheism encompasses not only the positive disbelief in gods, but the negative lack of belief in gods as well.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I posit that because they lack belief, they are atheist, but since they are not yet aware of the the thing they lack belief in, they are not explicit, but implicit.
I already posited a reply to that. If you're going to argue with me, don't ignore my points.
To define Atheist and Theist as semantic opposites is to assign the same level of active intellection to each.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Correct, but as babies are not asked to make a call on something, they can happily remain implicit in their lack of belief.
You miss my point. It's not possible for you to present HSR with something for him to be implicit about, because the act of presenting it results in a conscious call.
This is why a phrase like "An implicit Atheist is one who does not believe in deities, but also does not reject their existence." (donny's) is not technically correct.
1. The question was rhetorical.
2. You have not been exposed to the concept of F'tanx, it is as alien to you as the only thing you know about theology being the word "god" (or to make it more apt, the word "god" in a language you don't speak and can't translate).
Did you just reply to me twice?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Atheism is not defined simply as the disbelief in gods, but encompasses a lack of belief as well. Someone who says that "God does not exist." is an atheist, but someone who says "I don't believe in God." is also an atheist.
Babies do not have disbelief in gods, but they don't have belief either. Since they do not believe in gods, "a-theist" (from a- "no" theos "god") is an appropriate label.
You're the one making semantic opposites out of the two, not me. Atheism is a much broader term than theism (one implying simply no belief, and the other implying a specific belief).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Edit: And in regard to your triangle there, what would you call it? Atheism encompasses not only the positive disbelief in gods, but the negative lack of belief in gods as well.
No it doesn't. Your definition of atheism is not rigorous. Your definition claims that a rock is an atheist. If you don't see how ridiculous that is, then don't know what to say.
What would I call it? I'd call it
irrelevant
. That which cannot believe or disbelieve is not relevant to a question of belief or disbelief. You could also call it a
pre-rational/non-rational conceptual relation
.
Atheism is not defined simply as the disbelief in gods, but encompasses a lack of belief as well. Someone who says that "God does not exist." is an atheist, but someone who says "I don't believe in God." is also an atheist.
Both of those are statements of disbelief. Your "both x and y" setup makes no sense.
Post by
Squishalot
Please don't attribute quotes to me that don't belong to me, HsR does that enough.
Oh bah, thanks for that. I'm going blind (and rushed). Wasn't intentional. In proper response to you:
1. The question was rhetorical.
2. You have not been exposed to the concept of F'tanx, it is as alien to you as the only thing you know about theology being the word "god" (or to make it more apt, the word "god" in a language you don't speak and can't translate).
Either way, as soon as you make a call that you can't tell one which way or another about it, it's an explicit belief. As such, there's no point in either calling oneself implicit about anything, since it means that either a) you're not capable of consciously concluding anything; or b) you don't understand what 'implicit' means in this context, and therefore, aren't adding anything to the conversation (or poll, as the case may be).
Correct, but as babies are not asked to make a call on something, they can happily remain implicit in their lack of belief.
You miss my point. It's not possible for
you
anyone to present HSR with something for him to be implicit about, because the act of presenting it results in a conscious call.
(Responded properly now.)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I need to go to bed. I don't even know if you, Squish, agree with me or if you're arguing a side point, but either way, I leave it in your hands for tonight.
Post by
Squishalot
Have fun. I do agree with you, but I'm arguing a side point with DoctorLore / Skreeran atm. I'll try to pick up your case if/when they respond. Mind you, my earlier response in this thread suggests I'm probably not focused enough to :P
Post by
Skreeran
No it doesn't. Your definition of atheism is not rigorous. Your definition claims that a rock is an atheist. If you don't see how ridiculous that is, then don't know what to say.
What would I call it? I'd call it irrelevant. That which cannot believe or disbelieve is not relevant to a question of belief or disbelief. You could also call it a pre-rational conceptual relation.To use your triangle metaphor, in one corner you have Theism, in one corner you have implicit weak atheism, and in the third corner you have explicit strong atheism.
Implicit weak atheism does not hold a belief in gods, but it does not reject them, as a baby might be.
Explicit atheism means that you are aware of the issue and have chosen to make the statement "I do not believe in gods."
Both of those are statements of disbelief. You're "both x and y" setup makes no sense.Incorrect, my friend. There is a very big difference between the statements that "God does not exist," and "I do not believe in God."
One is presenting a active belief that God does not exist, where the other presents a passive lack in belief of God.
Or: the difference between strong and weak atheism.
I myself am an explicit weak atheist. I am explicit because I am aware of the issue and have consciously chosen a stance. I am a weak atheist because I do not claim to be able to show that gods do not exist, but I lack belief in them.
An explicit strong atheist, on the other hand, would claim to be able to demonstrate that no gods exist.
You miss my point. It's not possible for you anyone to present HSR with something for him to be implicit about, because the act of presenting it results in a conscious call.But we are not talking about HSR, we are talking about newborns, who, for lack of being presented with the issue, remain blissfully implicit.
Related.
Post by
Squishalot
But we are not talking about HSR, we are talking about newborns, who, for lack of being presented with the issue, remain blissfully implicit.
This is what I was responding to:
You couldn't claim to believe it exists, you couldn't claim you believe it doesn't exist, you lack a belief in it until you know what it is. You are an implicit, negative Af'tanxist just like a newborn who doesn't know what a deity is (and lacks the capacity to) is a negative implicit atheist.
The reason a newborn is implicit is because it's not capable of forming a conscious thought. The lack of knowledge about the deity is irrelevant. I don't care about the religious beliefs of newborns, to be honest. I'm arguing that 'implicit' has no place in a discussion on religion between conscious, reasonably intelligent people.
One is presenting a active belief that God does not exist, where the other presents a passive lack in belief of God.
No. If you do not believe in God, then you must rationally believe he does not exist.
I am a weak atheist because I do not claim to be able to show that gods do not exist, but I lack belief in them.
A claim that you lack belief in them is the same as a claim that you believe in a lack of them.
An explicit strong atheist, on the other hand, would claim to be able to demonstrate that no gods exist.
The ability to demonstrate existence is irrelevant to whether you are strong, weak, implicit, explicit or even atheist at all.
Post by
Skreeran
The reason a newborn is implicit is because it's not capable of forming a conscious thought. The lack of knowledge about the deity is irrelevant. I don't care about the religious beliefs of newborns, to be honest. I'm arguing that 'implicit' has no place in a discussion on religion between conscious, reasonably intelligent people.But newborns are simply the most extreme (human) example. There might be people (perhaps on some remote island or territory) that had never heard of gods, or whose definitions of gods is so distant from ours as to be considered independent.
No. If you do not believe in God, then you must rationally believe he does not exist.
A claim that you lack belief in them is the same as a claim that you believe in a lack of them.No, that's not true. I do not believe that God exists. I don't have that belief. However, I don't necessarily claim to believe that he does not exist. I do, however, think that's most probable.
If you want to say that considering something to be probable, and believing that it is in a religious sense, that fine with me, but I do not consider them to be the same thing (a scientist who thinks that a particular theory is most probable most certainly does not believe in it in a religious sense).
We're simply arguing semantics. I think you understand my position well enough. We don't need to argue about what words I use.
I grow tired of these word games. I'm off to watch My Little Pony.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
But newborns are simply the most extreme (human) example. There might be people (perhaps on some remote island or territory) that had never heard of gods, or whose definitions of gods is so distant from ours as to be considered independent.
That's a philosophical discussion, not a religious one.
No, that's not true. I do not believe that God exists. I don't have that belief. However, I don't necessarily claim to believe that he does not exist. I do, however, think that's most probable.
So what you're saying is, you're agnostic, i.e. you don't know what the truth about God is.
If you want to say that considering something to be probable, and believing that it is in a religious sense, that fine with me, but I do not consider them to be the same thing (a scientist who thinks that a particular theory is most probable most certainly does not believe in it in a religious sense).
This is why I think the ability to demonstrate (or prove) existence is meaningless. If you believe that Pythagoras's theorem works, then you believe that it does. By making an explicit call, your view must be that it works or it doesn't, or that you don't know.
I think you understand my position well enough. We don't need to argue about what words I use.
I've argued about this with you before. You're not an atheist, you're agnostic.
Nope, because the latter is a positive assertion and I'm not making an assertion. I lack a belief in the deities that people have presented to me, I did not present a concept then claim it doesn't exist.
Aside from the logic that the statement is derived from, your net belief is the same.
Why not? We both implicitly disbelieve in everything we've never imagined. I think that's an interesting thought.
Interesting from a philosophical perspective; irrelevant for a religious discussion. But I disagree with you - we don't implicitly disbelieve in everything we've never imagined - I'm personally very agnostic in that respect. I don't know why you come to the conclusion that everything you've never imagined must be disbelieved.
Post by
Skreeran
I've argued about this with you before. You're not an atheist, you're agnostic.I really don't care what you call me.
I lack a belief in gods, so I consider myself an atheist.
I'd recommend that you watch the video I linked up there. It sums up my points quite nicely. But whether you do or don't, I really see no point in continuing to argue.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.