Atheism is not a default position

[Monk Of Reason]

I grew up favoring science.
I did attend catholic schools....and read things like St.Thomas Aquinas....

but I could see the stress of the logic as Thomas used it.
I then lean to science....and I consider science a means of discovering the mind and motivation of God.
a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

This does nothing to answer my question.

 

[Willamena]

All things either have a belief in God or do not have a belief in God.
Which set does a rock fall into?

But belief is not a suitable object to refer to all things. Not all things have a relation to belief.

What's failing in this thread is grammar and sentence structure, not definition.

 

[Thief]

This does nothing to answer my question.

would you like to try again?

 

[Willamena]

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing?

Some people "does nothing" and became believer to god(s)?
Therefor the default position is theism?

While some other people also "does nothing" and became non-believer?
Therefor the default position is atheism?

Being a regular ole' human, for any of us, is not "doing nothing."

 

[Valjean]

so babies are not atheists
they have no definition....of God
they are ignorant.....of God

the term cannot apply to them
they cannot make a declaration of non-belief

Why do we keep going round and round with the same arguments and clarifications, over and over again (2000 posts)?

They don't need to make any declaration of non-belief -- they just have to not believe. Ignorance of God is atheism.

Yes there is, it a a rejection of theism as true. Every other parameter attached to atheism is the type or method of rejections.

Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing. It is simply a lack.
Why is this so difficult to accept?

From wiki:


Some varieties of atheism
on right Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
on left Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.

 

[Thief]

Why do we keep going round and round with the same arguments and clarifications, over and over again (2000 posts)?

They don't need to make any declaration of non-belief -- they just have to not believe. Ignorance of God is atheism.
Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing. It is simply a lack.
Why is this so difficult to accept?

From wiki:


Some varieties of atheism
on right Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
on left Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.

We are supposedly discussing a 'default position'.
the discussing fails when people want to 'adjust' the notion of atheism as a blanket.

There is no comfort to offer.

It's a declaration....thought about and formed.

the rest of your definitions work the same way.
You have to think about it.....and then declare.

babies are exempt.
unless you are willing to admit....atheism is built upon ignorance.
you don't know god.....ignorance.
can't know god.....another form of ignorance.
refuse to know god....more of the same....
deny god.....

 

[Shad]

Why do we keep going round and round with the same arguments and clarifications, over and over again (2000 posts)?

They don't need to make any declaration of non-belief -- they just have to not believe. Ignorance of God is atheism.
Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing. It is simply a lack.
Why is this so difficult to accept?

From wiki:


Some varieties of atheism
on right Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
on left Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.

Ergo rocks lack a belief in God, rocks are atheists. Reductio ad absurdum counter. Ignorance is ignorance not atheism. Also point 1 and 2 refute your statement since both are rejection of theism not a lack of belief. 3. is agnostic not atheism since it contradicts 1 and 2.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

would you like to try again?

Would you like to try again?

 

[Willamena]

Why do we keep going round and round with the same arguments and clarifications, over and over again (2000 posts)?

They don't need to make any declaration of non-belief -- they just have to not believe. Ignorance of God is atheism.
Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing. It is simply a lack.
Why is this so difficult to accept?

From wiki:


Some varieties of atheism
on right Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
on left Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.

Also from the wiki: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

 

[Thief]

Also from the wiki: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

I notice there is no mention of 'default'

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I notice there is no mention of 'default'

horse
hôrs/
noun

1. 1.
   a solid-hoofed plant-eating domesticated mammal with a flowing mane and tail, used for riding, racing, and to carry and pull loads.
   synonyms: mount, charger, cob, nag; More
2. 2.
   a frame or structure on which something is mounted or supported, especially a sawhorse

verb

1. 1.
   provide (a person or vehicle) with a horse or horses.

Or that it is used for riding by humans specifically. It could be monkeys. Or that there are dozens of breeds of horses.

 

[Shad]

I notice there is no mention of 'default'

Because atheism is not the default position. Only those that put forward the lack of view make this claim. No one else does.

 

[Valjean]

I just don't get it. Over and over again on this thread people keep insisting that atheism is a considered epistemic position and over and over again atheists reject this.

Ignorance of God is atheism. Rejection of God is also atheism, but it's a subset.
Strong atheism is a rejection of God or positive belief that He doesn't exist.
Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief, usually from ignorance or indifference.
All strong atheists are also weak atheists -- inasmuch as they lack belief. Not all weak atheists are strong atheists.
Weak atheism is the epistemic default position under the definition used by most atheists.

Yes. Rocks are technically atheist and yes, extending the usage this far is not generally useful, but just because something can be extended to the point of absurdity doesn't preclude the fact that it can , logically, be done.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because atheism is not the default position. Only those that put forward the lack of view make this claim. No one else does.

There are only two options.
NAZI and Not-NAZI.

What is the default position between the two? If one has never ever heard of the NAZI position would they no be classified as "not a NAZI"? If they have heard of the position but do not accept it, would they not be "not a NAZI"?

Can one be born a NAZI? Or does one first have to, by default, not be a NAZI and then accept the NAZI creed?

 

[Shad]

I just don't get it. Over and over again on this thread people keep insisting that atheism is a considered epistemic position and over and over again atheists reject this.

Ignorance of God is atheism. Rejection of God is also atheism, but it's a subset.
Strong atheism is a rejection of God or positive belief that He doesn't exist.
Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief, usually from ignorance or indifference.
All strong atheists are also weak atheists -- inasmuch as they lack belief. Not all weak atheists are strong atheists.
Weak atheism is the epistemic default position under the definition used by most atheists.

Yes. Rocks are technically atheist and yes, extending the usage this far is not generally useful, but just because something can be extended to the point of absurdity doesn't preclude the fact that it can , logically, be done.

Atheism is an ontological position, this is why you have issues. Showing absurdity in a statement shows that it is in error.

 

[Shad]

There are only two options.
NAZI and Not-NAZI.

What is the default position between the two? If one has never ever heard of the NAZI position would they no be classified as "not a NAZI"? If they have heard of the position but do not accept it, would they not be "not a NAZI"?

Can one be born a NAZI? Or does one first have to, by default, not be a NAZI and then accept the NAZI creed?

Wrong. There is a 3rd called agnostic. Your argument is a false dichotomy since you ignore this position. Theism is the ontological claim God exists. Atheism is rejection of theism. Agnostic is not taking a position for or against.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Wrong. There is a 3rd called agnostic.

False. You either are a NAZI or you are not a NAZI. You can be "agnostic" though strange choice of words for this particular analogy, which would still put you under the "not a NAZI" umbrealla.

Similarly there is a fundamental misunderstanding that permeates quite stubbornly through the ranks of this argument and that is the difference between agnostic and atheist. They answer two different things all together. Agnosticism asks if you "know" or "have knowledge of" the validity of something. Theism/Atheism only asks about the "beliefs" about something.

If I ask you what make/model car you drive and you tell me its "blue". Then you have effectively told me what "kind" of car you drive as you do drive a blue car, but it does not answer my question of make/model.

Similarly If I ask you what day it is today and you say "Friday" rather than 8/28/15 then you have given me the wrong information than what I asked for.

If I asked you if you believe in god and you stated you were "agnostic" I could use my thinky parts and figure out what your position might be but in reality it doesn't answer my question at all.

For example I am an agnostic atheist. I don't "know" if there is a god or not. I don't believe anyone "knows". However I still lack a "belief" in god.

 

[Valjean]

There are only two options.
NAZI and Not-NAZI.

What is the default position between the two? If one has never ever heard of the NAZI position would they no be classified as "not a NAZI"? If they have heard of the position but do not accept it, would they not be "not a NAZI"?

Can one be born a NAZI? Or does one first have to, by default, not be a NAZI and then accept the NAZI creed?

But default doesn't mean intermediate.

Atheism is an ontological position, this is why you have issues. Showing absurdity in a statement shows that it is in error.

But the absurdity in this case isn't a logical non sequitur, it's a stylistic absurdity.

Would it clarify things if we required the usage of "atheism" in this thread to contain a qualifier clarifying what flavor of atheism we're talking about?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But default doesn't mean intermediate.

Its status as "default" comes from the fact that the alternative, theism, requires the acceptance of a proposition and one can only accept the proposition if one is not already part of the proposition. It is simply logically impossible to hold theism as a default position by nature. Therefore atheism is the default as it does not require the acceptance of any propositions or claims.

 

[Shad]

False. You either are a NAZI or you are not a NAZI. You can be "agnostic" though strange choice of words for this particular analogy, which would still put you under the "not a NAZI" umbrealla.

Dismissed as a false dichotomy as pointed out above. Also nazi is not ontology thus fallacy

Similarly there is a fundamental misunderstanding that permeates quite stubbornly through the ranks of this argument and that is the difference between agnostic and atheist. They answer two different things all together. Agnosticism asks if you "know" or "have knowledge of" the validity of something. Theism/Atheism only asks about the "beliefs" about something.

Many attempt to assimilate agnosticism as atheism. It is a mistake often repeated. Agnostic has a duel function. It can be external knowledge, ie evidence but also internal knowledge. You are only applying the former and ignoring the later. Atheism/theism are both ontological claims. The only belief is one accepts one or the other. The belief that the claim is true or false.

If I ask you what make/model car you drive and you tell me its "blue". Then you have effectively told me what "kind" of car you drive as you do drive a blue car, but it does not answer my question of make/model.

Which is what many do when they makes statements about their mental state and confuse it for ontological claims

Similarly If I ask you what day it is today and you say "Friday" rather than 8/28/15 then you have given me the wrong information than what I asked for.

No, you asked for the day not the date. This is your mistake not the other person. Friday is a day, 8/28/15 is a date.

If I asked you if you believe in god and you stated you were "agnostic" I could use my thinky parts and figure out what your position might be but in reality it doesn't answer my question at all.

No agnostic would answer your question if you know the scopes agnostic covered. If you knew of these scopes you would realize the agnostic would be a refusal to take any position for or against.

For example I am an agnostic atheist. I don't "know" if there is a god or not. I don't believe anyone "knows". However I still lack a "belief" in god.

Which is the former scope I talked about. This is different from the later scope. You do not lack a belief, you have rejected theism due to lack of knowledge for theism. You reason is contained within your statement but you are oblivious to it.