I have no problem with those definitions. However, I do not think that one needs to proclaim, "I hearby accept this given proposition as true" in order for it to be considered a belief. Any position, opinion, etc, is a belief.
Except for a position of disbelief, by definition.
I also think it is generally quite rare to lack belief in a proposition and not hold the opposite proposition as true. Thus, the large flock of people claiming such a phenomenon only in regards to the question of gods is rather suspicious to me.
See the analogy in my post above, i.e: saying "I don't believe the number of grains of sand on this beach is even" is not holding the opposite position of "I believe the number of grains of sand on this beach is odd". It is the exact same logic with claims regarding the existence (or nonexistence) of a God or Gods. This is why it's the null hypothesis - it doesn't just apply to questions of Gods, but all claims about anything. The default position is to not believe something until demonstrated in some capacity, and this can be applied to basically any positive or negative claim you can make.
The part I bolded is precisely my beef. It's a semantic argument which is popular precisely because it makes people feel that they do not need to support their position.
I support my position all the time in all manner of debates, and so do many atheists. You'll see it all the time all over the forum, atheists are constantly having to support their arguments and positions on all fronts. The difference comes down to who is making a claim with regards to this singular question of the existence of a God, and the simple fact that the burden of proof for a claim always rests with the person making it.
Everybody makes a claim. Everybody has a "burden of proof". No one, not one, is exempt.
That depends entirely on the claim and who is making it. With regards to the proposition "God exists", the claim is being made that a God exists - nobody who doesn't believe that proposition carries the burden of proof. This is how the null hypothesis works.
Whoa, simmer down, cowboy. I never said you said that. I was asking clarifying questions. Because I have just as clearly stated that I believe opinions are beliefs.
Opinions are a sub-set of beliefs, but they aren't just beliefs.
I do not see how this formulation is any different than saying that either option is just as likely. That's what "not knowing the probabilities" would entail.
How does saying "I don't know the probability" entail "they are just as likely"? That makes no sense.
Furthermore, if you have rejected the theists' proposition, and their evidence, you must have done so for a reason. Or did you just do it because it was Thursday, and you're ****** off on Thursdays?
The reason is usually that the evidence isn't compelling, and whenever such evidence is presented I normally explain why I don't find it compelling since "your evidence is insufficient" carries with it a burden of proof. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether atheism itself is a claim or atheists carry a burden of proof.
Explain how a belief and an opinion are different.
I've already just gone through this. A belief is "holding a proposition to be true", this is REGARDLESS of the reasons for it. An opinion is a belief that you accept is either subjective or just as valid as another contradicting view, or one for which there isn't an objective answer. For example, you can believe that 2+3=5, but 2+3=5 isn't a matter of opinion.
Are you another person who thinks that a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge are the same thing?
Nope.
I'm not the one who wishes to count them as atheists. It is the definition you advocate that makes it so.
And why is that a problem? So what if babies are technically atheists?
If a definition is so ridiculously broad as to include things that shouldn't be included, then that points to a problem with the definition.
And whether you think things "shouldn't be included" is obviously a matter of presumption that has no bearing whatsoever on the actual definition of the word.
There is no such thing as a default position.
Yes there is.
As I have asked the Monk of Reason, how do you know it is the default? Is this a belief of yours?
Now you're just playing games. The default position
applies to a specific response to a specific claim. I hold lots of beliefs about lots of different things,
but with regards to the specific claim "a God exists" I hold the default position of a lack of belief.
And yes, I have a problem with the unnecessarily broadening of a label that is intended to indicate a considered belief position. Babies shouldn't be given any label, whether it be Christian, or Democrat, or Atheist.
Then don't give them it. It makes absolutely no difference to the validity (or invalidity) of anything. The fact is that babies lack beliefs until taught or instructed to do so. I don't think I'm scoring any points by using a definition of atheism that includes babies or even people who are unaware of God concepts, I'm just using the actual definition of the word to explain my position - which is a lack of belief. If it troubles you to think that atheism might, in fact, be the default position, that is your problem.
It's what you want the word to mean, and which a minority of vocal atheists on internet forums want the word to mean.
It's precisely what the definition of the word says, and I doubt you've crunched the numbers to determine who, exactly, are the minority.
But to the rest of the English speaking populace, it generally means the belief that gods don't exist.
And those people would be generally incorrect.
I've already indicated my issues with the definition. So far, your argument has simply been "Nyah. Well you're wrong!". Not particularly convincing, I'm afraid.
Because it really is that simple. Your argument boils down to "I don't want babies to be atheists". You've not made a convincing argument yourself. My argument is
that it's what the word literally means, which is far stronger than "I don't want to use that definition because I don't like the though of such a thing as a default position".
