[AdmiralRalwood]

I had a post written, but karajorma said what I was going to say better.

[MP-Ryan]

I'd already said as much earlier in the discussion.

Also. The wikipedia page on Atheism you linked to says this.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

It's this kind of thing that has convinced me that this is a bad faith argument. You're clearly not even reading your own sources.

I didn't link to a page with that content, kara.  I linked to an article on agnosticism.  I just searched it in case I missed it, and the quoted section you just posted does not appear anywhere on that page.  I'm not sure where you just pulled that quote from, but it wasn't my source in the post you just linked to.  A quick Google search suggest it came from the wiki page on Atheism, which you linked to, not me.  This is the second time you've accused me of an argument in bad faith where none exists.  Please stop.

[karajorma]

Ah, my bad. I thought you'd linked to atheism on that one too. Still, there's something going on here that I don't particularly want to be part of. It is clear you've not bothered to read the wikipedia definition of atheism and that really, really should have been required reading for this discussion.

[NGTM-1R]

It is clear you've not bothered to read the wikipedia definition of atheism and that really, really should have been required reading for this discussion.

For all that I love wikipedia, if you're considering their thoughts on philosophy binding upon the rest of us...

[SypheDMar]

Wikipedia was necessary to establish the definition of atheism that some of us used. Any other sources could have been used as well, but we're all familiar with Wiki anyway to bother looking for something less familiar.

[karajorma]

For all that I love wikipedia, if you're considering their thoughts on philosophy binding upon the rest of us...

Given that he posted the link on agnosticism as a good primer. I think it behoves him to at least read the article on atheism for the exact same reason

[Bobboau]

So you all assert that atheism is the default position of all of humanity, an unconscious position with no choice made that we all implicitly share from birth, unless we choose theism at some point in our lives?  Everyone is born an atheist whether they choose to identify as such or not?

yes.

[MP-Ryan]

I'd already said as much earlier in the discussion.

Also. The wikipedia page on Atheism you linked to says this.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

Alright, so to address the argument.  First, relying on this paragraph from the Wikipedia page on atheism courtesy of kara, we have some opposing views already - we have one suggestion that breaks atheism down into subsets, while another contradicts that argument.  Even the philosophers don't seem to agree what constitutes an atheist.

But let's roll with the notion that all people are atheists until they choose otherwise.  Semantically, it's not a flawed position.  Practically, it may be.  It has the effect of including all kinds of people who don't want to refer to themselves as atheists, or who may shortly be theists.  It waters down the atheist position by adding massive numbers of people into subsets of atheism who are only there by virtue of the fact that they exist.  By this notion, to be human is to be atheist, unless you make a choice to add beliefs to your personal belief system.  It makes the idea of being an atheist generally a worthless descriptor - now, in order to convey a point about your belief system, you're left explaining to other people what implicit versus explicit versus gnostic versus agnostic atheism is, then identifying where you fall (if them and not a myriad of other atheist descriptors).

On a philosophical level there is no obvious logical fault in this, dilution of the atheist pool of thought notwithstanding, although on a purely philosophical level I do find some objection to people who have not made a decision being lumped into a philosophical camp with people who have made a very clear decision without any conscious action on their part, especially given the reality of how atheism is typically viewed in society at large.

I don't know if setting the definition of atheism this wide helps or hurts atheism as a whole.  I suspect hurts, which is where Nagel appears to be coming from too.  Regardless, there seems to be dissent in this matter.  Given the uncertainty even among atheist philosophers, it's not an expansion I'm comfortable with, particularly because I've made a conscious decision not to discuss the merits of atheism versus theism in wider debate, but to focus on material matters.

That said, I suppose if you folks want to use this definition of atheism then it probably includes me.  Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.  A wide definition just confuses the matter more, I think.

[Bobboau]

atheism is a religion philosophical position, like not collecting stamps is a hobby?

I'm guessing you've not heard that one either?

[MP-Ryan]

Given that he posted the link on agnosticism as a good primer. I think it behoves him to at least read the article on atheism for the exact same reason

And had you suggested that I may have done so, but as you quoted specific portions of it explicitly I relied on your references to discuss your points while skimming the actual article.  I'm going to hazard a guess that you didn't read the entire agnosticism article word-by-word either, which is perfectly reasonable.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.

What is "an unconscious belief in god(s)"?

[MP-Ryan]

Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.

What is "an unconscious belief in god(s)"?

Good question.  I can't answer it.  Go sit by yourself on the edge of a mirror lake in the mountains at dusk sometime and you might experience it (typically its where I have).  "Gut feeling" is probably the best descriptor I can put to it.  And yeah, that's a complete anathema to my usually-rationalist approach - I'm well aware of what a contradiction this is.  Regardless, it's an intensely personal experience that defies explanation.

[watsisname]

For the interests of this thread, are the following definitions agreeable? These are the definitions I've been using for some time now, so


All theists believe in at least one god.

All atheists have no belief in any god.

     Some atheists believe it might still be possible for there to be gods, but they have no active belief in any particular god. [weak atheism]

     Some atheists believe it is impossible for there to be gods. [strong atheism]


Reasoning for either sub-type of atheists can vary.


Gnostics believe there's a spiritual world that is more important than material world.

Agnostics acknowledge there is at least a possibility that a spiritual world exists, but tend to think that material world is more important than something we have no reliable information on.

[SypheDMar]

Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.

What is "an unconscious belief in god(s)"?

Good question.  I can't answer it.  Go sit by yourself on the edge of a mirror lake in the mountains at dusk sometime and you might experience it (typically its where I have).  "Gut feeling" is probably the best descriptor I can put to it.  And yeah, that's a complete anathema to my usually-rationalist approach - I'm well aware of what a contradiction this is.  Regardless, it's an intensely personal experience that defies explanation.

We're all human. I still can't imagine having an unconscious faith in god(s), but I can't deny it's impossible either.

When I do what you describe, I am awed at how great life is. It happens a lot for me.

[karajorma]

And had you suggested that I may have done so, but as you quoted specific portions of it explicitly I relied on your references to discuss your points while skimming the actual article.  I'm going to hazard a guess that you didn't read the entire agnosticism article word-by-word either, which is perfectly reasonable.

I skimmed it. But only cause I'd read the whole thing previously. Otherwise I'd have read it.

I'm not going to a discussion on agnosticism without having done my basic research.

[Herra Tohtori]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism


you might be interested in that, MP-Ryan.

[Luis Dias]

I had previously indicated that the difference may rest in psychological terms and not exactly in philosophical, rigorous terms. MP's latest commentary is, IMHO, a confirmation of this intuition:

Go sit by yourself on the edge of a mirror lake in the mountains at dusk sometime and you might experience it (typically its where I have).  "Gut feeling" is probably the best descriptor I can put to it.  And yeah, that's a complete anathema to my usually-rationalist approach - I'm well aware of what a contradiction this is.  Regardless, it's an intensely personal experience that defies explanation.

I do not think it "defies explanation". I think that we are just having difficulties working it out in here, as the stupid mortals that we are (don't get insulted please, I am just being humble here).

So we have here two different sets of discussions. The first is more philosophical, the second emotional. I do tend to agree with Bob that we are all born atheists and I don't mind this dillution at all. For instance:

Semantically, it's not a flawed position.  Practically, it may be.  It has the effect of including all kinds of people who don't want to refer to themselves as atheists, or who may shortly be theists.  It waters down the atheist position by adding massive numbers of people into subsets of atheism who are only there by virtue of the fact that they exist.  By this notion, to be human is to be atheist, unless you make a choice to add beliefs to your personal belief system.  It makes the idea of being an atheist generally a worthless descriptor - now, in order to convey a point about your belief system, you're left explaining to other people what implicit versus explicit versus gnostic versus agnostic atheism is, then identifying where you fall (if them and not a myriad of other atheist descriptors).

There is no watering down from the current definition that atheists do not harbor belief in God. Now, as you correctly put it, this is also (and probably mostly) an emotional state of mind, and for one I don't really think we can get much enlightment on this from the children, who are (again sorry if I am insulting anyone) pretty dumb at everything, even emotionally. But if a kid isn't emotionally bombarded with these feelings of divinity from the culture surrouding him/her, we can be pretty sure he/she is an atheist.

What I am really interested in, however, is what kind of conclusion one gets after experiencing both states of mind. That is, before a kid gets this emotional baggage being thrown at him/her, I'd equate such a state as being virginal of a sort. One must get into the real troubles of faith, experience that stuff and have the kind of emotional presence that MP talks about to know what the hell one is discussing, to understand the problem, to then rightfully consider oneself an atheist or a theist.


PS: The question of the numenous, the transcendant, it is very important to me. I have some problems when I suspect someone doesn't experience this vertigo of existence in certain moments of life, as if I'm dealing with a robot or something.

[MP-Ryan]

What I am really interested in, however, is what kind of conclusion one gets after experiencing both states of mind. That is, before a kid gets this emotional baggage being thrown at him/her, I'd equate such a state as being virginal of a sort. One must get into the real troubles of faith, experience that stuff and have the kind of emotional presence that MP talks about to know what the hell one is discussing, to understand the problem, to then rightfully consider oneself an atheist or a theist.

Precisely.  Like I said, my inherent issue with looking at atheism in the unconscious sense is that it doesn't require a decision by a rational actor.  I'm fond of Locke's tabula rasa, and given all the connotative baggage that the word "atheist" contains, it seems unfair to apply it to a state of non-decision.

I guess I just like Nagel's interpretation better, though Smith's isn't wrong

[Luis Dias]

Thing is, there are whole societies where atheism is the norm and these high emotions don't even register with the inhabittants as slightly more than what they are, emotions, awe, vertigo, part of the human condition, and so on. These people do not seem to have the need to suffer through theism or deism or pantheism or panentheism (curiously that Spinoza was accused of atheism) or whatever to be atheists. That is why I rather prefer the more inclusive term, for it also points to a not-so utopia world where atheism is the norm (the agnostic kind, of course, not the stalinist kind) and we don't have to suffer these issues to become men and women.

Just like people nowadays don't need to suffer the state of mind where one believes in magic in order to leave that nonsense away.

[swashmebuckle]

So now my dog is an atheist too? How is she supposed to go to heaven then? There is a business opportunity here.