Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[Falvlun]

Sorry, I found this pretty funny so had to go back:

The claim was made that atheism was the default position and I made an argument against that claim.

That is correct. Atheism isn't a position. It's the absence of the position that gods exist.

Here you equate the claim that atheism is the default position with the statement that atheism isn't a position.

What is the purpose of claiming that atheism is the default position? The purpose is to support the idea that atheism is not a position, and that one is just naturally an atheist, without any effort taken by the atheist.

How can possibly claiming that atheism is the default position support the idea that atheism is not a position?

And here you suddenly can't think of how defining atheism as the default state could possibly support the idea that it is not a position, when you yourself made the exact equation like two sentences previously.

 

[ArtieE]

Prove it. Prove that atheism is the default state. Give me your reasons for believing that.

You want me to prove that a week old fetus without a brain is not capable of believing gods exist? Isn't it obvious?

 

[ArtieE]

Then you are not in a default state, since you have considered the concept of gods and have decided to with-hold your belief.

I am not a theist. Not being a theist is the default state.

 

[ArtieE]

Kilgore is saying that a default position doesn't exist. You can't agree because you are arguing that one does

No I'm not. I'm arguing that not being a theist is the default state.

I agree with Kilgore. The whole concept of a default position regarding beliefs is meaningless. Why is it so popular among atheists

It isn't. Atheism is the lack of a position, the absence of a position, not having taken a position. Strong atheists have taken a position but that is not necessary to be an atheist. A strong atheist started off without a position but has taken one.

 

[ArtieE]

And here you suddenly can't think of how defining atheism as the default state could possibly support the idea that it is not a position, when you yourself made the exact equation like two sentences previously.

You are just terminally confused.

 

[Falvlun]

You want me to prove that a week old fetus without a brain is not capable of believing gods exist? Isn't it obvious?

Fetus without a brain? That's seriously what you are basing your default position on? Why not just make it a rock? It's no less absurd. Jeez, at least most people go for infants.

You do bring up a good point: we don't know what fetuses believe. It's an assumption that they don't believe in gods. It's an assumption I make too, but it's still just a belief.

So, so far your argument rests on an absurdity and an assumption.

Let's go further:
Your argument above hinges upon the fetus being incapable of god belief. So, which is the default: incapability of god belief or "not theism"?

I have been arguing for incapability. You have been arguing for "not theism". Why, at this point, should we choose "not theism"? You have not given an argument for choosing "not theism" as the default, as opposed to incapability.

A strong atheist is a "not theist". Is he in the default state?

 

[Falvlun]

You are just terminally confused.

I'm going to assume that such a pathetic deflection is due to the likelihood that you just didn't understand my post, so I shall explain it to you more thoroughly.

X = default position
Y = not a position

Me: A claim was made that atheism was the default position.
You: Correct. Atheism isn't a position.

Therefore, according to you: X = Y

Me: the purpose of calling atheism a default position is to support that it is not a position.

You: what? How can X support Y?

Me: :face palm:

Your question is answered by yourself when you equated X and Y.

 

[Falvlun]

I am not a theist. Not being a theist is the default state.

You're not keeping up.

"Not being a theist" doesn't preclude making active choices (regarding beliefs in god's existence).

You agreed that making active choices precludes you from being in a default state.

You have made active choices.

Therefore, you are not in a default state, by your own criteria for a default state.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not really, atheism is an inherently arrogant position in the first place. But. before someone gets upset, let me explain. The atheist no more knows there is no god any more than the average devotee knows there is. They're both simply guessing...

The atheist presumes that since they aren't aware of any spiritual being they will just pretend they're not there. The follow of faith doesn't know any better, but they're willing to pretend just in case they **** that guy off.

There's nothing arrogant about stating that I have yet to be presented with enough evidence to believe in whatever claim someone has made. If I have yet to be presented with sufficient evidence that Bigfoot exists, does that mean that I'm 'pretending' that Bigfoot is not there? I can only 'pretend' that something doesn't exist if I've already been presented with verifiable evidence that it does. Otherwise I'm simply indicating that no verifiable evidence has been presented, no 'pretending' is involved.

 

[Falvlun]

No I'm not. I'm arguing that not being a theist is the default state.

Kilgore is arguing that NO default state exists.

Explain how "not being a theist is the default state" meshes with the statement that "no default states exist".

It isn't. Atheism is the lack of a position, the absence of a position, not having taken a position. Strong atheists have taken a position but that is not necessary to be an atheist. A strong atheist started off without a position but has taken one.

Notice again you are here equating a default state with "no position". Lol.

 

[ArtieE]

Fetus without a brain? That's seriously what you are basing your default position on?

Is something seriously wrong with you? How many times do I have to explain that I'm not talking about any default position but the absence of a position, lack of a position, having no position?

Why not just make it a rock?

Because a theist is defined as a person.

Your argument above hinges upon the fetus being incapable of god belief. So, which is the default: incapability of god belief or "not theism"?

LOL... If you are incapable of god belief you can't be a theist so you are not a theist. Not a theist is the default.

I have been arguing for incapability. You have been arguing for "not theism". Why, at this point, should we choose "not theism"?

Choose? If you are incapable of believing in gods you are not a theist.

A strong atheist is a "not theist". Is he in the default state?

He has chosen a position and isn't in the default state anymore.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm going to assume that such a pathetic deflection is due to the likelihood that you just didn't understand my post, so I shall explain it to you more thoroughly.

X = default position
Y = not a position

Me: A claim was made that atheism was the default position.
You: Correct. Atheism isn't a position.

The original lines were:

"The claim was made that atheism was the default position and I made an argument against that claim.
That is correct. Atheism isn't a position. It's the absence of the position that gods exist."

You made an argument against the claim that atheism was the default position. Read "That is correct" as "You are correct in making an argument against that claim. The claim is incorrect."

 

[ArtieE]

You're not keeping up.

"Not being a theist" doesn't preclude making active choices (regarding beliefs in god's existence).

Never said it did.

You agreed that making active choices precludes you from being in a default state.

You can make an active choice to be a theist or a strong atheist. Then you're no longer in the default state.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, they'd be arguing against your lack of belief too. They are arguing that their belief is preferable AND that your current position is incorrect. Some arguments might fall more on one side or the other and some might work simultaneous on both.

I don't think there's necessarily a clear cut separation. After all, in order to accept their argument you have to give up your current position.



Your position is fine; My argument doesn't invalidate the third position of "no belief either way."

I do not see it, however, as a non-position, without bias. It's clearly an intellectual decision to withhold belief due to lack of evidence. There's the implied belief that sufficient or acceptable evidence has not been offered.

"It's clearly an intellectual decision to withhold belief due to lack of evidence."

Now this is truly a bizarre claim. If I have yet to be presented with sufficient evidence to believe in something, how am I 'withholding' my belief? That suggests that I DO believe, but I'm simply keeping myself from accepting my belief. That's silly. You act as if all it requires is that you flip some BELIEF/NON-BELIEF switch in your head. Genuine belief only comes with genuine evidence, otherwise it's just pretending to believe.

 

[ArtieE]

Kilgore is arguing that NO default state exists.

Explain how "not being a theist is the default state" meshes with the statement that "no default states exist".

It doesn't.

Notice again you are here equating a default state with "no position". Lol.

Of course I do. The default state is not having taken the position that gods exist and not having taken the position that gods don't exist.

 

[Falvlun]

Is something seriously wrong with you? How many times do I have to explain that I'm not talking about any default position but the absence of a position, lack of a position, having no position?

You have never once said "I am not talking about a default position". This entire conversation has been about a default position from the time you commented on my post, which was responding to the claim of a "default position", by Fire Monkey.

It's not my fault you butted in, changed the subject, and didn't tell anyone.

Because a theist is defined as a person.

And a week old fetus should be considered a person? (Abortion debate... attack!) A person like yourself should be compared with a fetus? You have just as much in common with a rock as a week old fetus, as far as cognition goes. It's an absurd comparison.

LOL... If you are incapable of god belief you can't be a theist so you are not a theist. Not a theist is the default.

Oh, so you ARE talking about the default. Whew.

You are missing a step.

We have:
1. Fetuses are incapable of belief
2. Anyone incapable of belief is a non-theist.
3. ???
4. Therefore, Non-theism is the default.

What is step 3? Why should non-theism be considered the default?

Just because a fetus is in a particular state doesn't make that a default. Fetuses can't walk, or talk, or eat food with their mouths. Heck, they might not even have a mouth yet. Is not having a mouth our default state?

Choose? If you are incapable of believing in gods you are not a theist.

But, as shown above, that doesn't prove that not theism is the default state.

He has chosen a position and isn't in the default state anymore.

But a strong atheist is "not a theist". To quote you "not a theist is the default." But if a "not a theist" is "not in the default state anymore", then you're going to have to change your critieria to something besides "not a theist".

1. A "Not a theist" is in the default position.
2. A strong atheist is "not a theist"
3. Therefore, a strong atheist is in the default position.

 

[Falvlun]

It doesn't.

So you don't agree with Kilgore.

Of course I do. The default state is not having taken the position that gods exist and not having taken the position that gods don't exist.

So I was right. You equate the two.

 

[Falvlun]

Never said it did.You can make an active choice to be a theist or a strong atheist. Then you're no longer in the default state.

Then "not a theist" cannot be the default. You have to narrow it down.

You also make an active choice to reject the arguments for the existence of gods, once you are capable of understanding and considering them. You have made an active choice, too. Saying "I don't believe either way" is an active choice. It certainly isn't passive. And it certainly is a different state than someone who is incapable of understanding or considering the concepts.

 

[Falvlun]

"It's clearly an intellectual decision to withhold belief due to lack of evidence."

Now this is truly a bizarre claim. If I have yet to be presented with sufficient evidence to believe in something, how am I 'withholding' my belief? That suggests that I DO believe, but I'm simply keeping myself from accepting my belief. That's silly. You act as if all it requires is that you flip some BELIEF/NON-BELIEF switch in your head. Genuine belief only comes with genuine evidence, otherwise it's just pretending to believe.

Not believing something, in this scenario, is just as much an intellectual choice as believing something. I am not implying that you are pretending to not believe. You are not believing, because you have decided that the evidence is lacking. You will remain not believing until you are convinced.

 

[ArtieE]

You have never once said "I am not talking about a default position". This entire conversation has been about a default position from the time you commented on my post, which was responding to the claim of a "default position", by Fire Monkey.

I have lost track. Be more specific.

And a week old fetus should be considered a person? (Abortion debate... attack!) A person like yourself should be compared with a fetus? You have just as much in common with a rock as a week old fetus, as far as cognition goes. It's an absurd compariso

I was once a fetus. You too.

Oh, so you ARE talking about the default. Whew.

You are missing a step.

We have:
1. Fetuses are incapable of belief
2. Anyone incapable of belief is a non-theist.

Not a theist.

Just because a fetus is in a particular state doesn't make that a default. Fetuses can't walk, or talk, or eat food with their mouths. Heck, they might not even have a mouth yet. Is not having a mouth our default state?

Yes they don't walk, they don't talk, they don't eat food with their mouths, and they don't believe in gods. That's the default state for a fetus and that's where we start off.

But a strong atheist is "not a theist". To quote you "not a theist is the default." But if a "not a theist" is "not in the default state anymore", then you're going to have to change your critieria to something besides "not a theist".

1. A "Not a theist" is in the default position.

How many times do I have to tell you that it isn't the "default position" it's the ABSENCE OF A POSITION?

2. A strong atheist is "not a theist"
3. Therefore, a strong atheist is in the default position.

A strong atheist is "not a theist" PLUS BELIEVES GODS DON'T EXIST. He's not just "not a theist" anymore. He's taken a position.