[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Mr.wizard]

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.

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. 

 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.

Because Atheism only requires that you don't believe, that's all it is. Not believing is not believing, the reasons do not matter in regards to being an atheist. You are trying to make being an atheist into some deep meaningful position, when in fact it's just a really simplistic default position.

[Belacqua]

Because Atheism only requires that you don't believe, that's all it is. 

Yes, I understand that. Atheism means not believing. 

This doesn't mean that a baby, a thinking adult, and a lizard are the same.

Not believing is not believing, the reasons do not matter in regards to being an atheist.

Thinking adult atheists may be atheists for lots of different reasons. When people decide that religious claims are unpersuasive, I think that the reasons do matter. 

The fact that thinking people have reasons for not believing means that we do have a burden of proof. We should show that our reasons are good reasons. 

If we say, "that's foolish," or "that's a bad argument," we should be prepared to say why.

 You are trying to make being an atheist into some deep meaningful position, when in fact it's just a really simplistic default position.

It may be deep for some people and shallow for others. I suppose it depends on their reasons. 

It is a simplistic default position for babies. I claim that for adults raised in majority-religious cultures, it is not a default position. It is one possible position among many. 

We have apparently evolved to ask for reasons as to why the world works as it does. Children in majority-religious cultures are likely to be taught religious reasons. Other children will be taught differently. Remaining without explanations is not the default. 

As I wrote before, the analogy I see is to Chomsky's explanation of language. Everyone is born without language, but remaining without one is not the default. Which one you pick up will depend on when and where you are raised. Likewise, which explanation for the world you believe in -- religious or not -- will be contingent on your society, accidents of your birth and education, etc.

[downbeatplumb]

Yes, I understand that. Atheism means not believing. 

This doesn't mean that a baby, a thinking adult, and a lizard are the same.

Their level of belief in gods is the same.

[Belacqua]

It occurs to me that part of the problem here may be the misleading nature of the word "have."

We say that neither I, the lizard, nor the bicycle have a particular belief. In what sense can we say "have" in such a case?

Neither I, the lizard, nor the bicycle have I-phones. Perhaps this means there is a common characteristic that we share. But I doubt that a lizard or a bicycle can "have" something in this sense, which I take to mean something like "claim ownership of," "have personal rights to," or something similar. Neither bicycles nor lizards can claim ownership of things.

Maybe "have" means that the thing is a part of our nature or constitution. So we can say that neither the lizard nor I have wheels, while the bicycle does. This gives me and the lizard something in common. But I doubt that we have ideas in this same way. "Having" an idea is not the same as saying that the idea is a part of my nature or constitution. And I think that's clear because a person can get different ideas, and jettison the old ones, and still remain himself.

A belief is not an object or a characteristic that one has in the above senses. It is a mental state. Specifically, it is the mental state of affirming a proposition. So when one affirms the proposition "God exists," then one has the belief that God exists.

An adult who has heard and rejected the idea "God exists" has declined to affirm a proposition. The lack of belief is not the same as lacking an I-phone or lacking wheels. It is the option of not affirming a proposition that has been offered.

Neither lizards nor bicycles have the capacity to affirm propositions -- or to decline to affirm them. This is not something they can do. An adult human atheist, therefore, is a person who is mentally capable of affirming the proposition "God exists," but has not done so. Since the same cannot be said for lizards and bicycles, I think it's fair to say that my atheism is completely unlike that of lizards and bicycles.

[downbeatplumb]

It occurs to me that part of the problem here may be the misleading nature of the word "have."

We say that neither I, the lizard, nor the bicycle have a particular belief. In what sense can we say "have" in such a case?

Neither I, the lizard, nor the bicycle have I-phones. Perhaps this means there is a common characteristic that we share. But I doubt that a lizard or a bicycle can "have" something in this sense, which I take to mean something like "claim ownership of," "have personal rights to," or something similar. Neither bicycles nor lizards can claim ownership of things.

Maybe "have" means that the thing is a part of our nature or constitution. So we can say that neither the lizard nor I have wheels, while the bicycle does. This gives me and the lizard something in common. But I doubt that we have ideas in this same way. "Having" an idea is not the same as saying that the idea is a part of my nature or constitution. And I think that's clear because a person can get different ideas, and jettison the old ones, and still remain himself.

A belief is not an object or a characteristic that one has in the above senses. It is a mental state. Specifically, it is the mental state of affirming a proposition. So when one affirms the proposition "God exists," then one has the belief that God exists.

An adult who has heard and rejected the idea "God exists" has declined to affirm a proposition. The lack of belief is not the same as lacking an I-phone or lacking wheels. It is the option of not affirming a proposition that has been offered.

Neither lizards nor bicycles have the capacity to affirm propositions -- or to decline to affirm them. This is not something they can do. An adult human atheist, therefore, is a person who is mentally capable of affirming the proposition "God exists," but has not done so. Since the same cannot be said for lizards and bicycles, I think it's fair to say that my atheism is completely unlike that of lizards and bicycles.

You're over complicating things needlessly.

positive belief in a god is theist. 
Not having a positive belief in a god atheist.

You are saying that something needs to have a thorough grasp of the god concept before it can weigh it up and either reject or accept it.

But that isn't right its binary either people believe or they don't, if they haven't heard the concept they don't believe by default so atheist. Of course there are some of us who have been exposed to the concept and reject it.  find it childish myself. 

So if you take atheism as the default then anything that doesn't have a positive belief is atheist.

[Belacqua]

You are saying that something needs to have a thorough grasp of the god concept before it can weigh it up and either reject or accept it.

No, I have never said that, and do not think it.

Very few people have a "thorough grasp" of the subject. Yet most people have formed an opinion about it anyway.

if they haven't heard the concept they don't believe by default so atheist. 

That's right. Babies, people raised by wolves who have never had contact with human civilization, etc., are trivially atheist.

Of course there are some of us who have been exposed to the concept and reject it.  find it childish myself. 

That's an example of what I've been talking about. Except I don't think "some of us" is really the best way to say it. Every human raised in civilization who is capable of conceptual thought has heard about some religious concept or other. 

The fact that you have judged it to be "childish" indicates that you have applied standards of judgment and made a judgment. "Childish" is a specific adjective describing your impression and judgment. 

So if you take atheism as the default then anything that doesn't have a positive belief is atheist.

But I don't take atheism as the default. Not for thinking humans raised in a civilization. For them, some religion-like beliefs have been the most common position. Trivial atheism is the default for babies, but not for adults who have given any thought to how the world works.

Nor is it meaningful to say that atheism is the default for bicycles, lizards, and the vast empty light years of space, for reasons I wrote above. 

In thinking adults, atheism is the mental state of declining to affirm the religious claims that one has heard. Since nearly every human in recorded history has been raised in a civilization with some religious beliefs, having heard them and formed some opinion about them is the default.

[arewethereyet]

It amuses me that theists think they can define atheists and agnostics but those same theists don't like it when atheists define them.

It's as simple as holding or not holding a belief in a god or gods.

Beyond the belief bit there are so many variables but those variables have nothing to do with the labels of theist and atheist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Were arguing about the word have, now...

I wonder what the difference is supposed to be between trivial atheism™ and atheism. It honestly seems to me like this thread has been a pejorative free association exercise. We might need to break out the dolls and see where atheism touched someone.

Regardless of whether a person thinks atheism is trivial, and regardless of whether a person thinks that atheism would be lazy, dumb, or stupid. Incoherent. Bad at words. On and on and on. It remains a fact that a person need only know what they do or do not believe in to be an atheist. A person never has to hear the word god a single time in their life to be an atheist. If, when someone does use the word god, and the thing they describe is something that this person already doesn't believe in - they didn't just become an atheist, or a "non-trivial atheist" - they already were. It's a simple issue of translation.

It's like not believing in the chupacabra. Doesn't matter what the word means in spanish. I don't need to have anyone explain that, and little to nothing that the person explains about a chupacabra, or their version of a chupacabra, will have any relevance to the question of what -I- do or don't believe.

If you don't believe in monsters..you were an a-chupacabra-ist before anyone ever told you what that word meant.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

You are saying that something needs to have a thorough grasp of the god concept before it can weigh it up and either reject or accept it.

That is my claim. A person cannot be an atheist, if they do not understand what theism and atheism are. If the person is unaware of the concepts, then they are secular.

But that isn't right its binary either people believe or they don't, if they haven't heard the concept they don't believe by default so atheist. Of course there are some of us who have been exposed to the concept and reject it.  find it childish myself. 

So if you take atheism as the default then anything that doesn't have a positive belief is atheist.

I think it has to do with the materialism/idealism duality. I do not believe people incarnate beliefs by some magical/inexplicable process. I believe that the only way people can believe in something is by the introduction of information describing the entity, or experience of the entity.

The other view, that people magically/inexplicably behold a belief, is what Christians would like for belief in god to be; but we know they have to be indoctrinated, because there is no supernatural dimension to do the magic trick of making people believe.

Furthermore, theism is an ontology suggesting that a supernatural dimension creates reality. Ontologies cannot be devised/designated in opposition to a defined ontology. Ontologies are essentially a list of all that exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

A person can have a concept of theism and deism before anyone ever presents either claim to them.

The first people to believe in gods must have.

---

Furthermore, theism is an ontology suggesting that a supernatural dimension creates reality. Ontologies cannot be devised/designated in opposition to a defined ontology. Ontologies are essentially a list of all that exists.

Some theistic beliefs include this claim, not all. Theism is not an ontology suggesting any such thing. It is the belief in personal intervening gods.