Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[snt]

What does Gaian Daoism involve? (what are its purpose, principles or values?)

The Gaia Hypothesis, extended from the world to the whole universe, lived according to Daoist principles (in general).

Interesting. Can you explain a bit more about it?

1. What does it involve?
2. Do you have rituals?
3. Do you perform activities on behalf of it?

How did you come to yours?

I am not religious and intend to adhere to 'philosophical plausible'.

[Astro Cat]

You seem to make an appeal to a restriction to utilitarian or 'usefulness' within the scope of a human perspective. Your argument is essentially "for anything to be is must be a Being".

I think my argument is that "for anything to be, it must be something. To be something means to be what it is and not be what it is not: it is limited."

To even consider venturing beyond the limit of logic, one should start with the motivating consideration: "is usefulness within a human perspective all that can be relevant for existence?". Surely, the foundation of existence (Being) cannot be itself, thus there one discovers a big door to a mysterious area that demands exploration.

What exactly does it mean to be "beyond logic?"

Logic is about things being limited, it's about something being what it is and not being what it isn't. For any X that's claimed to be "beyond logic," does that mean that X is not X? But then why is it called X? Does it mean that X is both X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect (a contradiction)? I am very unclear on what it means to be "beyond logic," and I don't think I'll understand any of this until that is more clear.

The next question would be how to explore it responsibly?. The citation of Emmanuel Levinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - shows that one is to pursue a quest for a meaning that precedes knowledge, i.e. a meaning that precedes useful meaning.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

My previous post hinted that the use of poetry - the use of experience as addition to logical reason would enable to make an attempt of exploration.

With regard the question: if it doesn't involve knowledge, what would be the use? The result of the work can be considered 'philosophical plausible insight'. While it may not be recognized today, it may involve a new to be discovered concept similar to 'knowledge' for qualitative referencing the nature of plausible insight beyond knowledge.

Unfortunately it looks like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is down right now (I tried from two different browsers).

Also unfortunately, we have moved from one concept I don't understand ("preceding knowledge") to another concept I don't understand ("philosophical plausible insight"). If I were to spitball, I would guess that this term means that there is an insight that seems plausible from a philosophical point of view, but isn't knowledge? Could we use the word intuition here? Is this a different concept from intuition? Are we talking about something epistemological here, with the aim of justifying, with the aim of seeking knowledge?

It could be a philosophical plausible insight but there might be many more options that for example use emotions or spiritual experience.

With regard the insight not being able to be said. That would concern the notion that it involves an aspect that precedes anything that can have been said. It would be nonsensical to argue that only that what can be said is relevant for existence, because if that were to be so, nothing would ever need to be said.

Again: one reaches a door to a mysterious world.

I am still left with the feeling that I just read a paragraph but am not quite sure I have more understanding than I did before I read the paragraph.

Can you explain this to me like I'm a child, without fearing condescension would offend me? Since I'm asking for it, I promise it won't this one time. I do not understand that much that I might need this.

Are you saying there are insights that can't be communicated with words? If so, I am skeptical that such a thing exists, or at least I don't possess any insights that can't be communicated with words. I have some insights that would take a great many words to elaborate on or to specify, but I do not think it makes sense to have a thought that can't be communicated. It makes sense to me to have a feeling that can't be communicated, but not a thought.

An expert on the book Tao Te Ching mentioned the following: "Logic has its place in human affairs, but it isn’t everything. There is a limit to what we can understand through rationality and reasoning. To transcend that limit, we need to fully engage the intuition."

So that is what the book Tao Te Ching attempted to do. However, it was an attempt in ancient times with ancient readers with ancient interests. Today there may be new insights that can be unlocked by venturing beyond the limit of logic.

For example from a astrophysics perspective, venturing beyond the limit of logic may provide valuable philosophical plausible insights that can then be used to innovate (advance) in useful reality. (i.e. it can provide a foundation or clues to 'think out of the box'). The venture would still concern a search for truth, but it's simply not about knowledge.

Ok, so this I understand more: if we are too rigid and only concerned with what is logically deduced, we are handicapped because our intuition often guides us into new territory, yes?

If so, I would 100% agree with that. But intuition is still cognizable: we can communicate what we intuit, we can seek knowledge with what we intuit. It's not "beyond logic" or ineffable or anything like that; it's precisely that our intuition is cognizable that makes it useful. So I don't understand everything above this portion. This portion makes the most sense.

[snt]

You seem to make an appeal to a restriction to utilitarian or 'usefulness' within the scope of a human perspective. Your argument is essentially "for anything to be is must be a Being".

I think my argument is that "for anything to be, it must be something. To be something means to be what it is and not be what it is not: it is limited."

Well, doesn't a limit indicate a border with a different world? How can it be said that that other world - that 'beyond the limit' - is not relevant for existence?

To even consider venturing beyond the limit of logic, one should start with the motivating consideration: "is usefulness within a human perspective all that can be relevant for existence?". Surely, the foundation of existence (Being) cannot be itself, thus there one discovers a big door to a mysterious area that demands exploration.

What exactly does it mean to be "beyond logic?"

Beyond and precede refer to the same. What precedes a subjective perspective on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within that perspective.

A limit cannot stand on its own. Being cannot stand on its own. The limit of logic is indicative of a more fundamental area of relevance and it shows a door to an other world that demands philosophical exploration.

A door to 'beyond knowledge'
mystical-door-beyond-knowledge.jpg (20.73 KiB) Viewed 1199 times

Also unfortunately, we have moved from one concept I don't understand ("preceding knowledge") to another concept I don't understand ("philosophical plausible insight"). If I were to spitball, I would guess that this term means that there is an insight that seems plausible from a philosophical point of view, but isn't knowledge? Could we use the word intuition here? Is this a different concept from intuition? Are we talking about something epistemological here, with the aim of justifying, with the aim of seeking knowledge?

What is indicated is that something precedes Being and consciousness is a direct exponent of that aspect, which means that certain aspects of consciousness, such as intuition, emotions/feelings or experience, can be used to access area's that are unreachable by logic alone.

Are you saying there are insights that can't be communicated with words?

Yes. An example would be human experience, and while you could use imagination on behalf of other persons, there is animal experience.

[Pattern-chaser]

What does Gaian Daoism involve? (what are its purpose, principles or values?)

The Gaia Hypothesis, extended from the world to the whole universe, lived according to Daoist principles (in general).

Interesting. Can you explain a bit more about it?

I can, but I'm not going to; not here and now, in this topic. It isn't relevant to any discussion we're having, that I can see. I would be happy to wax lyrical if I could see a benefit for someone...

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, doesn't a limit indicate a border with a different world?

No, it indicates a border. You make a great many assumptions.

[3017Metaphysician]

AC!

Nice OP, but I don't think the premises are sound (used for the conclusion). Lot's of directions to go with this one. Don't you just love politics and religion! Anyway, just a few bullet points...

1. In the logic of language/dialectics, presuppositions are required for an a-theist (or theist) to arrive at his/her judgement/belief system.
2. A priori logic (mathematics) described the initial conditions of Singularity, therefore, they infer a 'transcendence' of our temporal existence.
3. A priori logic (the cosmological argument) posits causation as logical necessity in order to stop infinite regress (turtle power), unless of course, one can prove eternity is a requirement for existence ( the concept of infinite regress). (Think: 'Singularity' might have always existed in 'eternity'.)
4. If the BB theory is correct (it's only a theory), then something transcendent of time actually caused time (also think relativity).
5. A priori logic (the ontological argument) dialectically posits the concept of God.
6. Excluding emotion, an a-theist belief system is dependent on dialectic reasoning and antinomies-contradictions-since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements.

I am not sure what you mean, especially by the end here. Atheists don't have a "belief system... dependent on dialectic reasoning... since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements." Where do you get that idea?

In a priori logic (or even common sense to a large degree) presuppositions themselves, can be argued as logically necessary for any dialectic reasoning to even take place at all. The opposite, or antecedent, of a-theism is theism.

To your point in your OP 'conclusion', whether or not the actual nature of a God is dependent on the limitations of logic, is an informal fallacy that doesn't address the concept of a transcendent God. For the above reasons, your conclusion fails only because it's a non sequitur.

I'm not seeing how my argument in the OP is a non sequitur, though. It aims to set out to show that arguments that God is transcendental to logic can't work because they put the cart before the horse; and it succeeds at doing so. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, but which part exactly is a non sequitur?

However, I think your initial idea about the nature of logic itself, from your OP, is a good one to parse. For instance, one philosophical question could be: What is the "Foundation of Logic"? Any thoughts?

I am not sure anything is a foundation of logic. I think logic is really just limitation: things are limited to being what they are and limited from being what they are not. Reality requires limitations to be real (to "be" anything at all), and I think that's all that logic is.

AC!

Thank you for your reply. It may be a good idea to take one concern at a time.

You said: I am not sure what you mean, especially by the end here. Atheists don't have a "belief system... dependent on dialectic reasoning... since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements." Where do you get that idea?

Two things to consider:

1. Belief; an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Are you saying that an a-theist, in some ways, doesn't have or hold any belief's, as being part of one's own belief system?

2. The unity of opposites philosophy tells us that common sense dialectic's presupposes the understanding of opposites, in order to provide the coherence of opposing views about the subject matter. In epistemology, knowing or understanding a particular concept in language is a prerequisite to understanding one's argument, position, belief, and so on, relative to making sense of thing that's being argued. We often have to have the ability to understand a particular concept's antecedent. Hence: a-theism means not-theism. Right?

For fun, think of it another way. For our purposes, if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism? In the alternative, would it be more accurate to label your belief as maybe 'a-nothing' or 'not-nothing'. Of course, that would certainly be problematic because there is something and not nothing. Right? (I hope I'm not telling you the obvious, but felt like breaking it down a bit before we move on might be a good idea... .)

[Pattern-chaser]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

[3017Metaphysician]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

PC!

The logic of language requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Am I missing your point?

[Pattern-chaser]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

The logic of language requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Am I missing your point?

I think so. You asserted, or at least implied, that someone with a-theist leanings might not understand God, when you knew, as we all do, that this was incorrect. It was a distraction in the form of a straw man attack.

No-one said they didn't understand God. No-one has accused anyone else of not understanding God. You used the idea that someone has not understood God to create your straw man attack. Logical fallacies are not a suitable basis for meaningful discussion.

[3017Metaphysician]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

The logic of language requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Am I missing your point?

I think so. You asserted, or at least implied, that someone with a-theist leanings might not understand God, when you knew, as we all do, that this was incorrect. It was a distraction in the form of a straw man attack.

No-one said they didn't understand God. No-one has accused anyone else of not understanding God. You used the idea that someone has not understood God to create your straw man attack. Logical fallacies are not a suitable basis for meaningful discussion.

PC!

Nope. The opposite. As I said, the logic of language (and understanding-epistemology) requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Make sense?

[Astro Cat]

Well, doesn't a limit indicate a border with a different world? How can it be said that that other world - that 'beyond the limit' - is not relevant for existence?

I'm willing to acknowledge that things can exist beyond what we know about if that's what this means. I just think that it would still be true that whatever they are, they exist as what they are (and not as contradictions, they would still be logical). I don't know what a slithey tove is, but a slithey tove would still be a slithey tove and not a dandelion.

Do we agree? That's all I mean when I say that there would still be logic. By logic I don't mean reasoning, I just mean logic as in self-consistency. Even if nobody knows about slithey toves, if they exist, they are self-consistent. Right?

Beyond and precede refer to the same. What precedes a subjective perspective on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within that perspective.

A limit cannot stand on its own. Being cannot stand on its own. The limit of logic is indicative of a more fundamental area of relevance and it shows a door to an other world that demands philosophical exploration.

I think maybe we are just using the word "logic" differently, which is OK if so. Some people use the word "logic" more in line with what the word "reason" is for (e.g., Spock from Star Trek, when he says "that is logical Captain," is using the word in this way where it would actually be more apt to use the word "reasonable").

When I use the word logic, I'm using it not to refer to human reasoning processes, but to refer to existence, limitation, and self-consistency.

That A = A is logic (A is self-consistent), the phrase "there is a married bachelor" is illogical (because it contains a contradiction). But "if Sara is shorter than Bill, and Bill is shorter than Tom, then Sara is shorter than Tom" is the use of reason. It happens to be logical as well because it's self-consistent and doesn't contain contradictions. I think it's important to distinguish between what "logic" and "reason" mean, but it's difficult because a lot of people use "logical" to mean "reasonable," and I don't want to feel like I'm the definition police (also many dictionaries do contain the "logic as reason" definition, so how could I argue with how a word just happens to be used?) I guess I'm just saying I think it would be philosophically useful to demarcate the two words.

[qupte="snt"]What is indicated is that something precedes Being and consciousness is a direct exponent of that aspect, which means that certain aspects of consciousness, such as intuition, emotions/feelings or experience, can be used to access area's that are unreachable by logic alone.

Are you saying there are insights that can't be communicated with words?

Yes. An example would be human experience, and while you could use imagination on behalf of other persons, there is animal experience.
[/quote]

Ok, I'm fully on board with being able to intuit things about other minds and maybe not having the best way to describe them. I think?

So for instance if my cat boops his nose on me, I might intuit that he's showing me affection. Or putting his scent on me to claim me as his human. Or whatever. Yes? But at the same time, it seems I am able to put words to those intuitions.

[Astro Cat]

AC!

Thank you for your reply. It may be a good idea to take one concern at a time.

You said: I am not sure what you mean, especially by the end here. Atheists don't have a "belief system... dependent on dialectic reasoning... since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements." Where do you get that idea?

Two things to consider:

1. Belief; an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Are you saying that an a-theist, in some ways, doesn't have or hold any belief's, as being part of one's own belief system?

No, not saying that. Atheists are people and of course we have beliefs just like anyone else. I believe that my phone case is pink, I believe the sun will appear to rise tomorrow, I believe Star Trek TNG is the best Star Trek, I believe I'm typing this right now, I believe it's likely that other life exists somewhere in the universe, and so on. As you can see, some of these beliefs even comes in shades of likelihood (for instance the last one: I don't believe that life definitely exists elsewhere in the universe, I just think that it's statistically very likely).

Atheists just don't believe theism is true. That can be because they actively think theism is false, it can be because they just aren't convinced by theistic claims, etc.

I believe some theistic claims are false, but for many theistic claims, I'm simply just not convinced they're true. It's an important distinction because I'm not claiming those ones are false. If I made a claim like that, I'd have to support it with evidence, which I can't. So I stay in my lane, so to speak.

2. The unity of opposites philosophy tells us that common sense dialectic's presupposes the understanding of opposites, in order to provide the coherence of opposing views about the subject matter. In epistemology, knowing or understanding a particular concept in language is a prerequisite to understanding one's argument, position, belief, and so on, relative to making sense of thing that's being argued. We often have to have the ability to understand a particular concept's antecedent. Hence: a-theism means not-theism. Right?

Ok, yes. With you so far. What I was objecting to is that I thought you were saying something to the effect that being an atheist means only being able to think of everything in terms of opposites. I would object because not everything has opposites, and sometimes there are "middle" or privative positions. For instance the existence of extraterrestrial life: once can believe it definitely exists, one can believe it definitely does not, one can withhold a definite position and consider whether it is more or less likely, and so on. I just wanted to be sure to note that atheism isn't just about opposites.

For fun, think of it another way. For our purposes, if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism? In the alternative, would it be more accurate to label your belief as maybe 'a-nothing' or 'not-nothing'. Of course, that would certainly be problematic because there is something and not nothing. Right? (I hope I'm not telling you the obvious, but felt like breaking it down a bit before we move on might be a good idea... .)

There are different ways to answer this depending on what is meant.

Philosopher George H. Smith for instance demarcates between explicit atheism and implicit atheism. An explicit atheist is aware of theistic claims and rejects them. An implicit atheist is someone that isn't aware of theistic claims (e.g., hypothetical person born on an island somewhere); but since they aren't theists, they are technically atheists. That would be "implicit atheism" per George H. Smith. Kind of a niche scenario, but there it is.

More likely is a case where some theistic proposition isn't cognizable. Maybe this is what you mean when you say "if you didn't understand the concept of God..." So for instance if someone said to me that God is a Euclidean square-circle, a square and circle in Euclidean space at the same time and in the same respect, that is noncognitive: it wouldn't be a claim I could find either true or false because it is an empty claim signifying nothing. In such a case of course I wouldn't believe the claim is true. If it's considered a theistic claim, then in that case I would still be an atheist in regards to that claim.

I think a lot of theistic claims are non-cognitive in this way. For instance, when someone claims that God is transcendental to logic, this puts the cart before the horse and is exactly as illogical and noncognitive as talking about married bachelors. Such a claim can't possibly be true, so I reject it.

[snt]

I'm willing to acknowledge that things can exist beyond what we know about if that's what this means. I just think that it would still be true that whatever they are, they exist as what they are (and not as contradictions, they would still be logical). I don't know what a slithey tove is, but a slithey tove would still be a slithey tove and not a dandelion.

Do we agree? That's all I mean when I say that there would still be logic. By logic I don't mean reasoning, I just mean logic as in self-consistency. Even if nobody knows about slithey toves, if they exist, they are self-consistent. Right?

No, the limit of logic is that it cannot explain its own origin or 'what makes logic possible'. What is indicated is a world beyond the limit of logic and reason (which would precede it on a fundamental level). A world that cannot be Said (isn't to be captured in logic or to be observed in repeatability) but that is still of significance as the foundation of the possibility of logic, and its corresponding implications with regard explaining reality.

Beyond and precede refer to the same. What precedes a subjective perspective on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within that perspective.

A limit cannot stand on its own. Being cannot stand on its own. The limit of logic is indicative of a more fundamental area of relevance and it shows a door to an other world that demands philosophical exploration.

I think maybe we are just using the word "logic" differently, which is OK if so. Some people use the word "logic" more in line with what the word "reason" is for (e.g., Spock from Star Trek, when he says "that is logical Captain," is using the word in this way where it would actually be more apt to use the word "reasonable").

No, your notion of logic to produce reason is one that I would share.

Of reason it can be said that it encapsulates anything of which it can be said to posses the nature Being, since without reason, those beings would remain unknown. Therefore, since logic cannot explain its own origin (its potential for Being), there is a world of a different nature than Being that is still relevant for Being since it precedes Being.

As mentioned, the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas addresses it in his concept The duality of Saying and Said.

Levinas commentator Giuseppe Lissa provides the following description of Levinas’ project Otherwise than Being (his latest work):

By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing, Levinas investigates a "reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge … because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."

Levinas his wor kwould be a good place to start since it is a modern work that attempts to explore that 'other world', although Levinas his work is primary focussed on ethics in human relations.

The film documentary about Levinas Absent God may be of interest.

Being is essentially 'useful meaning' within the scope of a human perspective. It is easy to be lax and consider that the human Being as the only possible ground relevant for significance when it concerns existence, but from a philosophical perspective there is a complete different world to explore and it could be of vital importance that the human does explore that world in the right way to secure longer term survival and prosperity.

As can be seen in the work of Levinas, exploration of that other world might be of vital importance for morality but there may be many other important interests.

A door to 'beyond logic and knowledge'
mystical-door-beyond-knowledge.jpg (20.73 KiB) Viewed 1073 times

Ok, I'm fully on board with being able to intuit things about other minds and maybe not having the best way to describe them. I think?

So for instance if my cat boops his nose on me, I might intuit that he's showing me affection. Or putting his scent on me to claim me as his human. Or whatever. Yes? But at the same time, it seems I am able to put words to those intuitions.

Yes, but what about a dream about your cat's intentions? How could you 'know' or logically explain it?

[3017Metaphysician]

if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism?

Straw-man contributions don't help. We all know, in general, what we mean when we refer to God. It's not that someone doesn't "understand" God, but that, for whatever reasons, they don't find the idea convincing. And you know that as well as any of us do.

The logic of language requires one to conceive of the word-concept in order to make a judgement about it. Am I missing your point?

I think so. You asserted, or at least implied, that someone with a-theist leanings might not understand God, when you knew, as we all do, that this was incorrect. It was a distraction in the form of a straw man attack.

No-one said they didn't understand God. No-one has accused anyone else of not understanding God. You used the idea that someone has not understood God to create your straw man attack. Logical fallacies are not a suitable basis for meaningful discussion.

PC!

Just to make the point more emphatic. Most a-theists try to argue for the concept of no-thing (I.E., alta, and other's) or nihilism, etc. which of course is a straw man, when as well all know (as you say) there is something and not nothing. So denying that they don't base their belief system on the concept of a God is a non sequitur.

[3017Metaphysician]

AC!

Thank you for your reply. It may be a good idea to take one concern at a time.

You said: I am not sure what you mean, especially by the end here. Atheists don't have a "belief system... dependent on dialectic reasoning... since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements." Where do you get that idea?

Two things to consider:

1. Belief; an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Are you saying that an a-theist, in some ways, doesn't have or hold any belief's, as being part of one's own belief system?

No, not saying that. Atheists are people and of course we have beliefs just like anyone else. I believe that my phone case is pink, I believe the sun will appear to rise tomorrow, I believe Star Trek TNG is the best Star Trek, I believe I'm typing this right now, I believe it's likely that other life exists somewhere in the universe, and so on. As you can see, some of these beliefs even comes in shades of likelihood (for instance the last one: I don't believe that life definitely exists elsewhere in the universe, I just think that it's statistically very likely).

Atheists just don't believe theism is true. That can be because they actively think theism is false, it can be because they just aren't convinced by theistic claims, etc.

I believe some theistic claims are false, but for many theistic claims, I'm simply just not convinced they're true. It's an important distinction because I'm not claiming those ones are false. If I made a claim like that, I'd have to support it with evidence, which I can't. So I stay in my lane, so to speak.

2. The unity of opposites philosophy tells us that common sense dialectic's presupposes the understanding of opposites, in order to provide the coherence of opposing views about the subject matter. In epistemology, knowing or understanding a particular concept in language is a prerequisite to understanding one's argument, position, belief, and so on, relative to making sense of thing that's being argued. We often have to have the ability to understand a particular concept's antecedent. Hence: a-theism means not-theism. Right?

Ok, yes. With you so far. What I was objecting to is that I thought you were saying something to the effect that being an atheist means only being able to think of everything in terms of opposites. I would object because not everything has opposites, and sometimes there are "middle" or privative positions. For instance the existence of extraterrestrial life: once can believe it definitely exists, one can believe it definitely does not, one can withhold a definite position and consider whether it is more or less likely, and so on. I just wanted to be sure to note that atheism isn't just about opposites.

For fun, think of it another way. For our purposes, if you didn't understand the concept of a God, why would it be labeled a-theism? In the alternative, would it be more accurate to label your belief as maybe 'a-nothing' or 'not-nothing'. Of course, that would certainly be problematic because there is something and not nothing. Right? (I hope I'm not telling you the obvious, but felt like breaking it down a bit before we move on might be a good idea... .)

There are different ways to answer this depending on what is meant.

Philosopher George H. Smith for instance demarcates between explicit atheism and implicit atheism. An explicit atheist is aware of theistic claims and rejects them. An implicit atheist is someone that isn't aware of theistic claims (e.g., hypothetical person born on an island somewhere); but since they aren't theists, they are technically atheists. That would be "implicit atheism" per George H. Smith. Kind of a niche scenario, but there it is.

More likely is a case where some theistic proposition isn't cognizable. Maybe this is what you mean when you say "if you didn't understand the concept of God..." So for instance if someone said to me that God is a Euclidean square-circle, a square and circle in Euclidean space at the same time and in the same respect, that is noncognitive: it wouldn't be a claim I could find either true or false because it is an empty claim signifying nothing. In such a case of course I wouldn't believe the claim is true. If it's considered a theistic claim, then in that case I would still be an atheist in regards to that claim.

I think a lot of theistic claims are non-cognitive in this way. For instance, when someone claims that God is transcendental to logic, this puts the cart before the horse and is exactly as illogical and noncognitive as talking about married bachelors. Such a claim can't possibly be true, so I reject it.

AC!

Ok, I think we can agree now that you see my point about the normalcy of everyone's ability to hold beliefs and in part, what that might mean. But, the "non-cognitive" part you speak about is a bit troubling, or at least is an intriguing enough concept worthy of more discussion. First, I admire your passion for logic (feeling and logic somehow/illogically mixed together), so I'll start with that concern.

First, for clarification, are you saying that all things in life (remember the concept of a God is all encompassing) are somehow logical? Excluding emotions, for example, do you think consciousness/cognition itself, operates logically within the framework of formal logic?