(April 20, 2020 at 7:39 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Saying "a lizard isn't a republican and neither am I" is not equating the thought process of humans and lizards, it is merely stating the fact that the person and the lizard are not republicans. The lizard may not be able to comprehend the concept of Republicans but it doesn't change the fact that the lizard is not a republican.

It's true that lizards aren't Republicans. They have no political alliance.

I, on the other hand, have a web or system of beliefs about what is good for society and what it is good for government to do. This leads me to the conclusion that the Republican party is not good for me to support. 

The fact that my beliefs are ongoing, and continue to maintain my opposition to the Republican party, means that my mental condition is entirely unlike non-Republican lizards. 

The fact that I concluded long ago that the Republican party is bad doesn't mean that my brain has shut down and is now in the condition of a non-thinking lizard or bicycle.

Good for you. Are your beliefs about what's good for society based on your disbelief in god? Mine aren't.

Next.

(April 20, 2020 at 7:57 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 7:39 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Saying "a lizard isn't a republican and neither am I" is not equating the thought process of humans and lizards, it is merely stating the fact that the person and the lizard are not republicans. The lizard may not be able to comprehend the concept of Republicans but it doesn't change the fact that the lizard is not a republican.

It's true that lizards aren't Republicans. They have no political alliance.

I, on the other hand, have a web or system of beliefs about what is good for society and what it is good for government to do. This leads me to the conclusion that the Republican party is not good for me to support. 

The fact that my beliefs are ongoing, and continue to maintain my opposition to the Republican party, means that my mental condition is entirely unlike non-Republican lizards. 

The fact that I concluded long ago that the Republican party is bad doesn't mean that my brain has shut down and is now in the condition of a non-thinking lizard or bicycle.

I don't care about any of that it doesn't change the fact that a lizard is not a republican. The lizard is also not a basketball in the same way that you are not a basketball. You didn't reason or believe your way to not being a basketball, you just aren't a basketball.

Well, let's not be hasty. Maybe Bel wants to argue that he is basketball, from here to eternity.

(April 20, 2020 at 8:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 7:57 pm)Belacqua Wrote: It's true that lizards aren't Republicans. They have no political alliance.

I, on the other hand, have a web or system of beliefs about what is good for society and what it is good for government to do. This leads me to the conclusion that the Republican party is not good for me to support. 

The fact that my beliefs are ongoing, and continue to maintain my opposition to the Republican party, means that my mental condition is entirely unlike non-Republican lizards. 

The fact that I concluded long ago that the Republican party is bad doesn't mean that my brain has shut down and is now in the condition of a non-thinking lizard or bicycle.

I don't care about any of that it doesn't change the fact that a lizard is not a republican. The lizard is also not a basketball in the same way that you are not a basketball. You didn't reason or believe your way to not being a basketball, you just aren't a basketball.

Do you want to argue that people are non-religious in the same way that they aren't basketballs?

I think that thinking adults have heard and decided not to accept religious claims based on reasons. 

Do you think that you have heard and decided not to accept religious claims for no reasons at all?

(April 20, 2020 at 9:20 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 8:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I don't care about any of that it doesn't change the fact that a lizard is not a republican. The lizard is also not a basketball in the same way that you are not a basketball. You didn't reason or believe your way to not being a basketball, you just aren't a basketball.

Do you want to argue that people are non-religious in the same way that they aren't basketballs?

I think that thinking adults have heard and decided not to accept religious claims based on reasons. 

Do you think that you have heard and decided not to accept religious claims for no reasons at all?

Me personally yes, but had I not heard the claims, not accepting the claims is the only position I could be in, for no other reason than I haven't heard the claims.

(April 20, 2020 at 9:59 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 9:20 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Do you want to argue that people are non-religious in the same way that they aren't basketballs?

I think that thinking adults have heard and decided not to accept religious claims based on reasons. 

Do you think that you have heard and decided not to accept religious claims for no reasons at all?

Me personally yes, but had I not heard the claims, not accepting the claims is the only position I could be in, for no other reason than I haven't heard the claims.

Right. A person, like a baby, who has not heard the claims is trivially atheist. 

I'm talking about adults who are not brain dead, who have grown up in any human society that has existed on the planet in the last two millennia or so. All of these people have heard religious claims. 

If such a person finds the claims of religious people unpersuasive, then he is an atheist in the adult, non-trivial sense.

(April 20, 2020 at 9:59 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 9:20 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Do you want to argue that people are non-religious in the same way that they aren't basketballs?

I think that thinking adults have heard and decided not to accept religious claims based on reasons. 

Do you think that you have heard and decided not to accept religious claims for no reasons at all?

Me personally yes, but had I not heard the claims, not accepting the claims is the only position I could be in, for no other reason than I haven't heard the claims.

You are not inclined to call yourself an atheist if you do not understand what the meaning of atheism is. You don't call yourself a "theist," because you know it does not apply, because you understood the meaning of it, as a subsequent aspect of research.

(April 20, 2020 at 10:07 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 9:59 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Me personally yes, but had I not heard the claims, not accepting the claims is the only position I could be in, for no other reason than I haven't heard the claims.

Right. A person, like a baby, who has not heard the claims is trivially atheist. 

I'm talking about adults who are not brain dead, who have grown up in any human society that has existed on the planet in the last two millennia or so. All of these people have heard religious claims. 

If such a person finds the claims of religious people unpersuasive, then he is an atheist in the adult, non-trivial sense.

Why should anyone care if you consider a babies non-belief trivial? So a baby doesn't exit the womb contemplating the existence of a god, why is this a problem and why does this require a change to the definition of atheism?

---

(April 20, 2020 at 10:13 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote:

(April 20, 2020 at 9:59 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Me personally yes, but had I not heard the claims, not accepting the claims is the only position I could be in, for no other reason than I haven't heard the claims.

You are not inclined to call yourself an atheist if you do not understand what the meaning of atheism is. You don't call yourself a "theist," because you know it does not apply, because you understood the meaning of it, as a subsequent aspect of research.

The label doesn't matter, the concept is the important part. Don't call yourself an atheist, I don't care, but not believing in god is not believing in god no matter the label you want to slap on it.

(April 20, 2020 at 10:16 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Why should anyone care if you consider a babies non-belief trivial? 

I'm saying that they are atheist in a trivial sense. They lack belief in God, but they lack belief in everything else, too.

Quote:So a baby doesn't exit the womb contemplating the existence of a god, why is this a problem[?]

It's not a problem. It's a fact of life. 

Quote: and why does this require a change to the definition of atheism?

It doesn't. But some people are claiming that their atheism, as thinking adults, is the same as that of a baby who has never heard of or believed anything in its life. I don't accept this.

Some people claim that the atheism of a thinking adult is lack, only lack, and nothing but lack. I say it is a lack, but one that is sustained by beliefs (=what we hold to be true) about the world and what constitutes good evidence.

---

While most societies have included people who don't believe in god[s], the history of atheism has a history that is full of contingencies -- like everything else about people.

How people in a majority-religion culture can think thoughts that lead to rejecting that religion is an interesting history. The book reviewed here adds to that history:

https://genealogiesofmodernity.org/blog/...-modernity