Atheism does not exist

[idav]

Ok, so you do have a belief that there is nothing invisible in your room. Do you also have the "default belief" that gods do not exist?

Seeing is believing. Default is not having seen nor thought of.

 

[Willamena]

Seeing is believing. Default is not having seen nor thought of.

I think the salient objection is that the normal human condition should not be equated with atheism. Atheism isn't equated with it.

 

[idav]

I think the salient objection is that the normal human condition should not be equated with atheism. Atheism isn't equated with it.

The normal human condition is not being aware of all the thoughts of others especially through cultural divides. If we found a new world full of atheists it would be us doing the labeling not them. Just cause nobody told them about god doesn't mean a thing as far as labels are concerned.

Default is not knowing and not believing.

 

[Falvlun]

Seeing is believing. Default is not having seen nor thought of.

Default is not knowing and not believing.

You sure do have a lot of beliefs about what the default is.

From your post #275, you wrote:

I will maintain the default belief that nothing invisible in my room until I have reason to consider otherwise and someone just telling me it's there isn't enough to consider it.

I bolded the relevant portion. Was that a typo?

Since people have thought of gods and you are aware of the concept, does this mean that you can no longer claim the "default"?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The normal human condition is not being aware of all the thoughts of others especially through cultural divides. If we found a new world full of atheists it would be us doing the labeling not them. Just cause nobody told them about god doesn't mean a thing as far as labels are concerned.

I understand that in October of 1492 every inhabitant of the western hemisphere was an actual, really-existing heathen, but now you make me wonder whether they were all atheists.

I see a Spanish clerk, with a quill pen. He is sitting at a table on a sandy beach and his companions are bringing the Indians forward one by one.

"GOD EXISTS" is written on a large sign behind the scribe. As each Indian steps forward, the sitting guy jerks his thumb at the sign and barks at the native: "Assent? Or withhold assent?"

"Huh?" the native says.

"Assent or non-assent? Yes or no!"

I mean, someone had to divide the heathens into proper theists and atheists. I wonder if they did it on the beaches or if they waited until proper settlements were built?

 

[idav]

You sure do have a lot of beliefs about what the default is.

From your post #275, you wrote:


I bolded the relevant portion. Was that a typo?

Since people have thought of gods and you are aware of the concept, does this mean that you can no longer claim the "default"?

Problem is it wasn't a belief until someone mentioned the possibility. Was I a believer or nonbeliever before someone mentioned the possibility of invisible entities?

edit: remember I said seeing is believing. Counter to that, not seeing is not believing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Tom comes up to you and says that he lacks a dog. Then he asks why he can't be considered a dog owner. If you don't have a dog, you can't be considered a dog owner. Likewise, if you claim you merely lack a belief, then you can't claim to have a position. If you have a position, you have a belief.

Belief does not equal position. So the analogy fails. It would be
I am a person who has a dog. I am a person without a dog. Dog owner would be the equivalent of a theist. They have all different kinds and then there are people without. It doesn't mean that the person without a dog can't have an opinion on dogs.

None of this is relevant. It doesn't matter that you don't believe god exists because of a lack of evidence or because cheese gives you gas. The why doesn't matter. The fact that you have a position does.

Yes. My position is a conclusion. Not a claim. I can have a disbelief in god without knowing for a fact there is no god. I lack the belief in a god. I don't "know" that there is a god. I don't believe that there is a god.

Knowledge is not the same thing as belief. You can believe something without claiming to know something. You do this, I suspect, with a whole bunch of things. Why, I wonder, does the question of gods bring out the cautiousness in so many people?

Cautiousness? Main reason is because we don't want to fall into a theistic trap of "well you can't prove there isn't a god so your position isn't any more valid". We have to be careful not to make the claim that there is no god because once we do so the burden of proof shifts equally to both of our shoulders. However as an Agnostic atheist there is no burden of proof which is the only position where we don't have to provide evidence to support our position as the general lack of evidence does that for us.

Except that it's not the same with god, unless your position is based on absolutely nothing.

Here's the difference: Theists have provided what they consider evidence for their position. The problem isn't that they haven't provided evidence. The problem is that you have decided that that evidence isn't good enough for you to believe it. You have considered your options. You have weighed the evidence. You have come to a conclusion. And that conclusion is a belief. The belief that gods don't exist.

Same difference. I don't see how the two are different. He says that he is 6'9, buff and a karate master. Why isn't that evidence?

Same for god. Any religion can give you one hell of an anecdote but its not real evidence. It can be debunked. I say there is no evidence because I don't see the evidence. A theist points to a stump and calls it a cat. I don't see the cat and continue to believe its a stump.

If you want to call my conclusion that the thing that looks like a stump, can be measured, examined ect and conclusively seems to be within all viable reason....a stump is a belief that it is a stump and not a cat...then yes. However your terminology has to be translated as your "belief" and what an atheist would call 'belief" seems to be very very different.

How do you know that defaults exist, and how do you know what the default is? Amazing how your cautiousness vanishes!

I'm not cautious about my position as an Agnostic Atheist. I am cautious in how I describe the position and defend it from the word trap being set up by calling it merely a belief.

But if there are several positions. All positions require evidence except for one. No one has evidence. The default is the remaining position till new evidence or proof is provided. Disbelief is the default. I don't come per-programed believing in god.

I also despise the "burden of proof argument". It is a lazy argument, not worth any one's time. Any person who holds a position should have reason, evidence, and arguments to show why they hold that position. Anything less is an intellectual disservice to yourself, and a waste of time for anyone you are trying to convince.

Also note: Proof is for math. It really isn't relevant in any other venue.

No it isn't. Demeaning the reality of the situation just because I don't argue that something is there that cannot be proven doesn't mean anything. It isn't intellectually demeaning or lazy. You are trying to bring down my position to your same level of having proof.

What you are looking for is to try get me to say something you can argue against because You have nothing against my position. It isn't a new tactic. There is reasons for holding this position. The reason is because it is a default. If no evidence is provided on either side then neither side should logically be supported. So I do not support either. However by supporting neither I fall on the side of Atheism. I do not believe in a god.......I don't believe god is impossible or rule him now and forever, but simply do not believe the claims that have been presented. That is still atheistic after all that.

Your right on proof. The specific term it is impossible to "prove" anything. I have been trying to shake the habit of saying it and only using the word evidence.

Funny. Someone else might say that belief is the default position: After all, do you have reason to believe that this guy is untrustworthy?

I don't have to have a reason for doubt. Doubt and skepticism is default. If an idea does not hold up to doubt and skepticism then it doesn't deserve to be believed.

God is a claim. If I claimed god didn't exist then I would not be in the default position. Disbelief in god is the default so long as I don't actively believe there is no god. I have no way of knowing if there is a god or not. However I don't see a reason to believe in him.

Your decision not to trust the Internet guy is likely based upon a whole bunch of assumptions that you hold to be true, otherwise, you'd just believe him.

Not scientifically. "Trust" is another matter which I can discuss with you if you'd wish but it deviates from this thread's purpose. Trust is based on several things in our human lives. We have no choice but to trust as children and we have to "trust" that the things taught to us are true. However when we grow up and put big boy pants on we have to start doubting and need evidence.

Mutual trust between people is based on evidence provided in the past. I trust drives to stay on their side of the road because there is evidence that people don't want to die in a fiery wreckage of blood and steel. So I trust them to follow the rules. I do not blindly believe every claim I hear without criteria. That is literally impossible to do without overly conflicting beliefs.

There is no default.

So there is no logical answer ever for anything?

Additionally, "disbelief" is not synonomous with "lack of belief". In fact, in usual conversation, it means "belief in the negative".

Thats why I say lack of belief. Disbelief is the logical step forward from "lack of belief" but that is the cause of the position.

In the case of the internet guy, perhaps if someone asked your opinion on whether he was telling the truth or not, you would say "I don't know". In this case, you would be like my "true agnostic": You have no opinion either way. If you tell me you disbelieve him, however, I would assume that you meant that you thought he was lying.

True agnostic is still lacks a belief. Atheism is anything other than "there is a god". Doubting god to proclaiming it as a gnostic claim.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you tell me "I don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun!" you would be making the claim that you don't believe that the Earth orbits the sun. You believe that the Earth does not orbit the sun.

If there were not evidence to support the earth going round the sun then I would not believe it. If there is conventional evidence to the contrary then I would go along with that. But its a bad analogy as there is going to be evidence of something this key an physical to observe. There is also a lot of mis-evidence that can be interpreted incorrectly. As we did for thousands and thousands of years.

You need to refresh yourself on what "gnostic" and "agnostic" means. It has everything to do with claims of knowledge and nothing to do with claims of belief.

The Wiki page might be a good overview for you: Agnosticism

I already know it. I am consistent with it. If you don't like my specific wording then we can work that out.

You seem not to acknowledge a difference between a belief and a claim of knowledge. This example was meant to demonstrate the difference. Do you now acknowledge that there is a difference between a belief and a claim of knowledge?

I have done nothing but work my entire argument and position based off this? Have you somehow missed that?

I have already said my 3 criteria for those who neither believe that god exists nor believe that god does not exist:
1. Have never heard of god concepts.
2. Have never considered the question.
3. Popular sense agnostics: those who believe that it's just as likely for god to exist as it is for god not to exist.

Regardless, though, my statement was not about belief, but about labels. I do not think that everyone needs to be lumped in as a theist or an atheist.
I think theists should be defined as those who believe that a god exists, and that atheists should be defined as those who believe that gods do not exist. I am unconcerned that this may or may not include the entire human population. I don't think the two terms need to encompass the entire human population.

And I disagree. Atheism is anyone who does not believe in a god.

All three of those above would be Atheists by my criteria. If you would like to work out your terms and use them in a per-defined way as you have mentioned then that is fine. Just know that by those criteria I still call them Atheists.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is anyone who does not believe in a god.

I'm good with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know that. I just do not see the benefit or usefulness of defining atheism as a mere lack of belief, especially since it muddies the waters by including people that shouldn't be included and is contrary to how the word is used in the general population.

Why shouldn't they be included? I think you're mixing up connotation and denotation. IMO, a baby being an atheist is no more of a problem than an elderly, celibate priest being a bachelor (i.e. an unmarried man). Yes, neither one matches the stereotypical image of "atheist" or "bachelor", but I think that this just shows that our preconceptions are sometimes wrong.

EDIT: I forgot the other half of what I was going to say.

My response regarding the beer was regarding your position (I think?) that you won't claim to have the belief that gods don't exist since you haven't encountered every possible god concept and there might be one out there that you do accept.

If we applied that criteria to everything, then we wouldn't be able to have very many beliefs. And in fact, I doubt that you apply that criteria to many other beliefs that you do have.

No, I don't. And this points to a problem with your approach: other than beer, I can't think of any other descriptor that needs me to reject any and every variation on something vague.

When it comes to beer, I tell people that because, generally, a person's experience with pilsner or India pale ale says next to nothing about whether they'll like stout or fruit lambic.

OTOH, if someone doesn't drink any of the beers they know about, I'm happy to describe them as a non-beer-drinker... which would be the analogy I'd use with atheism, and which would also apply to babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I don't think rejecting every claim is really any less arbitrary then choosing to accept some and reject some.

And it could create logical issues too, such as if you reject both the claim that there are no black dogs and the claim that there are some black dogs.

Regardless, this "philosophical default" really isn't what people are talking about when they claim that not believing in gods is the default. They are talking a psychological default.

I think we may have a terminology issue here: when I talk about rejecting a claim, I don't mean asserting the opposite claim, just not accepting the original claim.

In the sense that I'm using the term "reject", a person who rejects the claim "there are no black dogs" and "there are some black dogs" does not hold a position on how many dogs there are. The position that they actually hold would be something like "neither claim has been demonstrated to a sufficient degree to reasonably accept it."

 

[ArtieE]

Babies (like rocks) lack the capacity to consider the proposition, "God exists," around which theism, and hence atheism, lie.

You can't "lack" something that doesn't exist.

Theism is not the proposition "God exists" it is the proposition at least one god exists. Atheism covers babies and rocks and is the default position of everyone and everything who has no belief in gods.

 

[ArtieE]

I think the salient objection is that the normal human condition should not be equated with atheism. Atheism isn't equated with it.

Atheism is the normal human condition until such time that one is told about gods and then one can become a theist, stay atheist or become a hard/strong atheist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Theism is not the proposition "God exists" it is the proposition at least one god exists. Atheism covers babies and rocks and is the default position of everyone and everything who has no belief in gods.

All atheists are insane. That's because one definition of 'God' is 'external, physical reality,' and those who have no belief in God are obviously insane. Or dead. They have to reason to dodge approaching buses, after all.

Rocks are also insane atheists, since they have no ability to believe or disbelieve and therefore do not believe in any sort of God at all.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is the normal human condition until such time that one is told about gods and then one can become a theist, stay atheist or become a hard/strong atheist.

When there's no significant difference beween atheism and agnosticism, I'll throw my hat in with atheism that actually means something.

 

[Willamena]

Theism is not the proposition "God exists" it is the proposition at least one god exists.

If at least one god exists, then god exists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm an atheist because of my beliefs about people more than my beliefs about god(s).

 

[Willamena]

Why shouldn't they be included? I think you're mixing up connotation and denotation. IMO, a baby being an atheist is no more of a problem than an elderly, celibate priest being a bachelor (i.e. an unmarried man).

It's a matter of convention. It's the same problem with referring to the baby as a bachelor: we use the word "bachelor" to indicate a marrage or coupled status. Now if the baby were marriable, the word might be acceptable. Similarly, if the baby were capable of forming a belief about god, but had somehow failed, declined or otherwise rejected or withheld belief, the word "atheist" might be acceptable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't think it's useful or accurate to describe anything as atheist which doesn't have the capacity to be a theist in the first place. A six-month old infant cannot be a theist, so labeling him/her as an atheist is meaningless. This convention extends out to things like rocks and such as well, which helps to avoid the nonsense position that inanimate objects are atheists.

 

[Titanic]

Atheist is really a wrong word if you break it down.