Atheism is not a default position

[Valjean]

We're not in disagreement here, monk.
The default setting is the factory operating system we're born with. 'God' files may or may not be added later.

 

[Shad]

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

It was never meant to be a logical non-sequitur. It was to show a claim is absurd when taken to extremes which those that put it forward failed to consider.

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?

I have no issue with this since all but one flawed definition matches what I have put forward. That defination has been refuted by my reductio ad absurdum counter. Thus it can be dropped completely or acknowledge as agnostic rather than atheism. Beside the flawed definition I have made arguments for "hard" atheism by rejection of theism and putting forward naturalism. For "soft" it is rejection of theism with no alternative.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

They are both positions and that is the nature of which I have addressed. Atheism is not specifically ontology. It can be ontology.

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.

I have not ignored the latter. Its refereed to as esoteric knowledge which was a topic first arising from the concepts that eventually led to Gnosticism. Gnosticism was an early Christian movement that felt that knowledge of god could no be learned externally but directly from personal internal experiences from god. This line of thinking came from even earlier pre-Christian Greek philosophies that postulated that the whole world was simply fake and the only thin real was this esoteric experiences and knowledge that one could gain. Originally Agnosticism was "not Gnosticism". It was the counter to the Gnostic way of thinking. However this has changed over time to its more modern meaning of "lacking knowledge" as it was its literal meaning.

Neither of these claims have been dismissed. The fact you think it is makes me think you don't comprehend the argument.

Atheism does not have to have a position accepted. It simply means that the concept of theism is not accepted. There is a key and fundamental difference between "not accepting" a belief and "believing that belief is false". If you can come to accept that then it makes it much easier to explain.

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

Indeed. Such as you who have misunderstood the concept of your belief with your knowledge. Granted they are connected and even similar usually. However they are not the same thing.

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.

Failed analogy aside. Do you comprehend the point?

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.

Not necessarily. One can be against a position you do not know to be true. One can be for a position you do not know to be true. Thus we have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists as sub categories that do objectively exist. I am an example of one.

I also argue that if you do not accept or reject the claim of theism then you by extension are still an atheist. To be an atheist one must not actively reject the claim but simply not accept the claim.

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.

False. Though not entirely. I currently feel I have developed a belief that god does not exist. I don't feel it is a tenable position except that there is no evidence for god and I feel there should be evidence for god if such a thin existed.

HOWEVER, and hold onto your hats for this one, I do not accept theism but it doesn't mean that I have always rejected the thought. I have, until recently at least, felt that theism is possible and could very well be the truth. I never once believed it to be "false" but simply lacked the capacity to lend my self to belief in such a thing. Though I did not believe or rather hold the notion of "there is no god" to be "true".

That is still atheism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Without a definition of God atheism has no meaning whatsoever.

Exactly!

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't see your point. How "God" is conceptualised doesn't impact atheism. Doesn't atheism cover pretty much all concepts of God?

Sorry for butting in on your dialogue with Legion, but I'd like to add my 2 crazy cents to this.

How "God" is conceptualized does impact atheism very much. If the God concept is said to be the universe (as in pantheism) or nature or something else that do exist, then the atheist can't reject the concept as such, but have to reject the definition of God rather than the concept. In the end, a real atheist isn't rejecting just a word "God", but he/she is actually rejecting (or unbelieving) in the concept that the word represents.

Let's imagine a little story.

Two guys meet. One is an atheist, the other is... well, we don't know.

A (atheist) asks B if he's an atheist.
A - Are you an atheist?
B - I don't know. What is it?
A - It's someone who doesn't believe in God
B - What is God?
A - It doesn't matter. Do you believe in God or not?
B - I don't know what it is.
A - Then you're an atheist by definition because you don't believe in God, therefore you're an atheist
B - Okay.

Now, then the conversation goes on about the idea and concept of what God is, and B suddenly shows the true cards that he believes there's a magical sky-daddy with long beard sitting in a supernatural throne room pulling strings and controlling the world. Which leads to that the atheist now says:

A - But then you're a theist. You do believe in God.
B - You said that I didn't
A - That was before I knew that you believed in God.
B - But I don't believe in God. I believe in a magical sky-daddy. I still don't know what this "God" that you're talking about.

It all comes down to that we're carrying ideas of what God is based on our culture, upbringings, traditions, media, etc. We have, in the modern western world, identified "God" to be certain things and we assume that everyone we talk to have the exact same idea and concept. Atheism assumes that "God" is defined to certain particular concepts, and it's dependent on those concepts. Atheism can't deny all concepts to be false, some concepts are true, however, in those instances, the atheist has to reject the definitions instead of the concepts.[/QUOTE]

 

[outhouse]

Atheism does not require a conscious rejection of theism.

If one does not know of, or does not believe in theism, one is factually an atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Just one addition, several of the people that keep insisting that is atheism is considered an epistemic position are in fact atheists as well.

It's not non-atheists vs atheists, but actually some of the other fence are atheists as well.

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.

This has been discussed to no end, and no, many disagree that rocks can technically be atheists. To be an atheist, it's not just lacking belief, but being a person, having the capacity to belief or don't believe, and having some conceptual understanding of what God is. It's not just ignorance.

Ignorance is a word that is best explained and described with the word "ignorance." That's what the word stands for, and that's the word we use for that.

Atheism should not be equated with ignorance. Atheists are educated, and have made their position based on well thought out reasons.

 

[Willamena]

We're not in disagreement here, monk.
The default setting is the factory operating system we're born with. 'God' files may or may not be added later.

That doesn't work. We are not, by default, children. We are not, by default, wetting our pants. Etc.

 

[Shad]

They are both positions and that is the nature of which I have addressed. Atheism is not specifically ontology. It can be ontology.

It is ontology. It is often confused with epistemology and mental states. The issue here is both theists and atheists want to lay claim to this so-called "default" position based on sources which do nothing to address the question in proper context. We can not communicate with babies thus we have no idea what they think. However both sides want as many on the bandwagon as position since ad populum fallacies are the trademark of group thinking.

I have not ignored the latter. Its refereed to as esoteric knowledge which was a topic first arising from the concepts that eventually led to Gnosticism. Gnosticism was an early Christian movement that felt that knowledge of god could no be learned externally but directly from personal internal experiences from god. This line of thinking came from even earlier pre-Christian Greek philosophies that postulated that the whole world was simply fake and the only thin real was this esoteric experiences and knowledge that one could gain. Originally Agnosticism was "not Gnosticism". It was the counter to the Gnostic way of thinking. However this has changed over time to its more modern meaning of "lacking knowledge" as it was its literal meaning.

I have argued that if one puts forward rationalism rather than empiricism one could argue this. However few atheists are rationalists in my experience. However empiricists will reject this position. Hence why people link studies of 5 year old rather than a single study of a baby. This is due our inability to communicate with babies on their terms rather than our terms. We teach them our language which includes words such as God which has a vast amount of information contained within. The empiricists can only point of emergence at the point of communication on our terms. The rationalist could argue by putting forward such ideas of self, agency and pattern find. This would cover innate knowledge with some empirical evidence. However both position since have huge holes until a more reliable method is found.

Neither of these claims have been dismissed. The fact you think it is makes me think you don't comprehend the argument.

No I understood the argument. It was a false dichotomy as a comparison since it was black/white two position answers while there is a 3rd, agnostic, between atheism and theism. It was also based on a single flawed defination of atheism while ignore the other definition which all continue rejection of definitions.

Atheism does not have to have a position accepted. It simply means that the concept of theism is not accepted. There is a key and fundamental difference between "not accepting" a belief and "believing that belief is false". If you can come to accept that then it makes it much easier to explain.

Atheism as a rejection of theism is to state that theism as a creator/creation/intervention dynamic is false. Agnostic would be withholding judgement for or against thus is not atheism.

Indeed. Such as you who have misunderstood the concept of your belief with your knowledge. Granted they are connected and even similar usually. However they are not the same thing.

Nope. Agnostic can be withholding judgement for or against. It is only relational to knowledge when one accepts theism or atheism. Hence "lack of knowledge for/disbelief in theism" agnostic atheist. "Lack of knowledge for/believe in theism" agnostic theist. Like I said you ignore the other scope.

Failed analogy aside. Do you comprehend the point?

Yes I did. I am just pointing about it was flawed thus failed due to your error. However to address the point when asking person X their view they are considering reasons why thus it is not a lack of but a rejection of. If they have no knowledge of the concept they would be agnostic since they lack knowledge. They would be literally "'I have no idea what the words you are using mean" Or I could ask "Do you believe hahfasdfalf is true?" I can not claim you are an a-hahfasdfalf if you have no idea what I am talking about. This would apply to children.

Not necessarily. One can be against a position you do not know to be true. One can be for a position you do not know to be true. Thus we have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists as sub categories that do objectively exist. I am an example of one.

Which covers the scope I talked about but ignore the other scope.

I also argue that if you do not accept or reject the claim of theism then you by extension are still an atheist. To be an atheist one must not actively reject the claim but simply not accept the claim.

Which is based on a flawed definition of atheism. They would be agnostic not atheist nor theist.

False. Though not entirely. I currently feel I have developed a belief that god does not exist. I don't feel it is a tenable position except that there is no evidence for god and I feel there should be evidence for god if such a thin existed.

Which are justifications for rejecting a view.

HOWEVER, and hold onto your hats for this one, I do not accept theism but it doesn't mean that I have always rejected the thought. I have, until recently at least, felt that theism is possible and could very well be the truth. I never once believed it to be "false" but simply lacked the capacity to lend my self to belief in such a thing. Though I did not believe or rather hold the notion of "there is no god" to be "true".

That is still atheism.

Plausibility of an idea and engaging is normal. However you are still rejection an idea. You just have no counter proposal for the metaphysical implication of theism. Atheism can be based on simple probability greater than 0.5 such as in your case. While say a metaphysical naturalist whom is an atheist would have say be a 0.9. It is the assimilation of 0.5 agnostic under the guise of atheism which I take issue with.

 

[Willamena]

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.

How is rejection of God a subset of ignorance of God? Can you explain that to me?

Strong atheism is a rejection of God or positive belief that He doesn't exist.

How is belief that God doesn't exist a subset of ignorance of God? How do you fit that into that set?

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]

It is ontology. It is often confused with epistemology and mental states. The issue here is both theists and atheists want to lay claim to this so-called "default" position based on sources which do nothing to address the question in proper context. We can not communicate with babies thus we have no idea what they think. However both sides want as many on the bandwagon as position since ad populum fallacies are the trademark of group thinking.

Explain to me in detail why it is you feel atheism is always ontology. I have also never found any sort of argument that supported theism as a default position. The only thing that could possibly be even close to a failure of said argument has to do with the fact that it is the "norm" rather than the exception in our societies. This does not, however, hold evidence that it is default.

I have argued that if one puts forward rationalism rather than empiricism one could argue this. However few atheists are rationalists in my experience. However empiricists will reject this position. Hence why people link studies of 5 year old rather than a single study of a baby. This is due our inability to communicate with babies on their terms rather than our terms. We teach them our language which includes words such as God which has a vast amount of information contained within. The empiricists can only point of emergence at the point of communication on our terms. The rationalist could argue by putting forward such ideas of self, agency and pattern find. This would cover innate knowledge with some empirical evidence. However both position since have huge holes until a more reliable method is found.

The difference that does not require empiricist or rationalist viewpoints is the logical succession of concepts and our adherence to them. I argue that atheism is not required to be an ontological position. At its broadest it is simply the lack of adherence to a specific ontological position. If it is simply the lack of a specific position then it would render all positions that are not of that specific position under its umbrella.

The whole of your position and every argument made rests cautiously on the axiom that "atheism" IS and ALWAYS IS a very specific and actual ontological position with points and beliefs that it upholds. You have yet to make an argument that this is the case.

No I understood the argument. It was a false dichotomy as a comparison since it was black/white two position answers while there is a 3rd, agnostic, between atheism and theism. It was also based on a single flawed definition of atheism while ignore the other definition which all continue rejection of definitions.

The broad definition of atheism vs a more specific subsection of atheism. I am using the broad term because it most accurately describes the logical argumentative positioning during a debate. I do not debate that god does not exist. I debate the negative of a theistic position. I have never set out to make an argument that god does not exist. Rather I have laid out arguments as to why the claims of and about gods made by theists are flawed or wrong.

Thus the key difference that you STILL do not understand. You claim it is flawed. You have yet to provide as to why it is flawed. I saw an ironically flawed argument in another post and if that is the one you wish to use I do have a rebuttal. If there is a fresh argument yet to be made in this thread then I am all ears to it.

Atheism as a rejection of theism is to state that theism as a creator/creation/intervention dynamic is false. Agnostic would be withholding judgement for or against thus is not atheism.

Atheism is the lack of acceptance of theism.

If a guy walks up and claims he has a red shirt there are three responses.
I believe you.
I don't believe you have a red shirt.
I mean its possible but I don't really believe you until you present evidence.

Stark rejection and a belief in the negative or falsehood of the claim is atheism. The rejection or lack of acceptance of the claim based on no evidence but still open to the possibility of it being true is also atheism. It is also agnosticism. The terms are not interchangeable but they are also not conflicting.

Nope. Agnostic can be withholding judgement for or against. It is only relational to knowledge when one accepts theism or atheism. Hence "lack of knowledge for/disbelief in theism" agnostic atheist. "Lack of knowledge for/believe in theism" agnostic theist. Like I said you ignore the other scope.

Ironic that you say that I am ignorin the scope of something while you intentionally hack away at the scope of something else. I don't ignore the scope. I simply recognize the scope of atheism as well. They overlap and rightly so. If you cannot see how or why then I don't know how to more simply describe it.

Yes I did. I am just pointing about it was flawed thus failed due to your error. However to address the point when asking person X their view they are considering reasons why thus it is not a lack of but a rejection of. If they have no knowledge of the concept they would be agnostic since they lack knowledge. They would be literally "'I have no idea what the words you are using mean" Or I could ask "Do you believe hahfasdfalf is true?" I can not claim you are an a-hahfasdfalf if you have no idea what I am talking about. This would apply to children.

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. One cannot believe in hahfasdfalf if they don't know what it means. Now the only other argument to be made here is if there is evidence that children are born with an innate belief in god. If you wish to argue that there is an innate belief in god then we can. However no other concept seems t o be "innate" to children.

Which covers the scope I talked about but ignore the other scope.

You are the one ignoring the scope.

Which is based on a flawed definition of atheism. They would be agnostic not atheist nor theist.

You are ignoring the scope of atheism. You are working with a definition you have not substantiated .

Which are justifications for rejecting a view.

Such is my current position but not the position I have always held nor is it the tenable concept of discussion.

Plausibility of an idea and engaging is normal. However you are still rejection an idea. You just have no counter proposal for the metaphysical implication of theism. Atheism can be based on simple probability greater than 0.5 such as in your case. While say a metaphysical naturalist whom is an atheist would have say be a 0.9. It is the assimilation of 0.5 agnostic under the guise of atheism which I take issue with.

You take issue with the fact that one can be both agnostic and atheistic at the same time. You ignore the scope of atheism while wrongly claiming that it is atheists who have ignored the scope of agnosticism.

As an agnostic atheist I see the full scale of both and accept both.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How is rejection of God a subset of ignorance of God? Can you explain that to me?

You misunderstand him and I believe you did so intentionally. Lacking a belief in god due to ignorance is a subset of atheism. Lacking a belief in god because you specifically believe there is no god is a subsection of atheism.

The broad definition of a theism is lack of belief in a god no matter what reason it may be.

 

[ArtieE]

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."

If you had bothered to continue the quote it goes like this: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence ofdeities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7]"

In case you didn't understand the wording: "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist" means that all atheists are included in the definition "atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist" so this definition covers all atheists.

Therefore if a person says he is an atheist you can be 100% sure that this person is not a theist and does not believe gods exist because that applies to all atheists.

 

[Copernicus]

This thread is really hard to keep up, but that's not surprising. Arguments over linguistic usage can get very political, and, in my experience, atheists will go to the mat trying to defend the "lack of god belief" definition. TBH, they have a point in that words can have multiple senses, and the "lack of belief" sense is self-validating, if enough people actually end up using it that way. However, all the arguments in the world won't make the more widespread sense of "rejection of god belief" go away. English speakers determine what words mean, not self-proclaimed language experts in an internet forum. Dictionaries get around this problem by listing a number of possible, but slightly different, senses that a word can have.

I do think it would be helpful if folks made a distinction between the proper noun "God" and the common noun "god". Atheists are people who reject belief in the latter and only by instantiation the former. Being "God" entails being "a god", but not vice versa. Atheists reject polytheism as well as monotheism.

Another helpful practice would be to distinguish between a word's definition and it's meaning. Definitions are heuristic declarations. They do not comprehensively describe a word's meaning, but they help people discover its common usage in a language community. Meanings are much more amorphous, non-declarative things. They are very complex bundles of associations, which, on a grand scale, are largely what make up human cognition--our minds. Definitions attempt to describe as concisely as possible a nexus of associations--what the word itself associates with or "points to". What all of this means is that there are usually no sharp boundaries in the description of a meaning, but there are more or less strong associations with related concepts.

When Bunyip says that there is no "official definition" of "atheist", he is correct up to a point, but his statement was misleading in that it sounded like he was saying there was no way to define a word. I don't think he intended to imply that. Lexicography is not an exact science, but there is a methodology--a set of skills and standards--that lexicographers try to follow in making up definitions. And lexicographers can be just as angry, bitter, and obsessive about their definitions as the amateur lexicographers in this thread, but they have a better idea of what they are talking about. There is such a thing as a good definition and a bad definition. That value judgment depends on how well the proposed definition captures actual usage. Dictionaries hire "usage panels"--experts in linguistics, lexicography, and literature--to craft definitions, and the art of defining a word must always depend on actual citations of usage. That isn't happening in this thread, because none of the people here are really trained in lexicography. I myself, although a professional linguist, am not really specialized in lexicography, but I have worked with lexicographers and done lexicography.

The reason I made a distinction between "atheist" and "nontheist" is that we do not normally describe every nontheist as an atheist. If a person doesn't have a "god" concept--and this is the point of our proverbial baby--then we just don't think of that person as an atheist. An atheist is someone who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them. You could define atheism in that sense in many different ways. You could say that atheists "deny the existence of gods" or "believe that gods are imaginary" or "conceive of all gods as mythical beings". Those would be reasonably good definitions. If you want to claim that "atheists" are people who "lack belief in gods", that strikes me as a reasonable secondary definition, because it does describe some actual community of users--primarily people in internet communities who engage in debates over the meaning of "atheism".

 

[ArtieE]

But default doesn't mean intermediate.
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?

When we say "atheism" we mean "weak atheism" because that term defines all atheists. When we want to specify that a person is not a theist and also actively believes gods don't exist we say "strong atheist" who are a subset of all atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

The reason I made a distinction between "atheist" and "nontheist" is that we do not normally describe every nontheist as an atheist. If a person doesn't have a "god" concept--and this is the point of our proverbial baby--then we just don't think of that person as an atheist. An atheist is someone who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them.

That is the definition of a "strong atheist."

You could define atheism in that sense in many different ways. You could say that atheists "deny the existence of gods" or "believe that gods are imaginary" or "conceive of all gods as mythical beings". Those would be reasonably good definitions.

Of "strong atheism".

If you want to claim that "atheists" are people who "lack belief in gods", that strikes me as a reasonable secondary definition, because it does describe some actual community of users--primarily people in internet communities who engage in debates over the meaning of "atheism".

But dear Copernicus, all atheists without exception "lack belief in gods" so this is the primary definition of atheism. All atheists "lack belief in gods" but not all atheists actively believe gods don't exist. That subset we call "strong atheists".

If a person tells you he's an atheist you automatically know one thing for sure about him which is common to all atheists: He is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist.

 

[Willamena]

If a guy walks up and claims he has a red shirt there are three responses.
I believe you.
I don't believe you have a red shirt.
I mean its possible but I don't really believe you until you present evidence.

Technically, whatever shirt he is wearing is evidence, presuming he's not referring to some other shirt, so the responses are:
Yes, you do;
No, you don't; and
Is this a test?

 

[Willamena]

You misunderstand him and I believe you did so intentionally. Lacking a belief in god due to ignorance is a subset of atheism. Lacking a belief in god because you specifically believe there is no god is a subsection of atheism.

The broad definition of a theism is lack of belief in a god no matter what reason it may be.

I disagree that I am misunderstanding him, but I allow for the possibility.

 

[outhouse]

An atheist is someone who knows what gods are and rejects belief in them.

Only problem there is that implicit atheism does not require a conscious rejection of theism.

Theist refuse to accept that babies don't have theism. Theism is a learned trait. Atheism is not a learned trait, it is simply a state of not being a theist.

 

[Willamena]

Only problem there is that implicit atheism does not require a conscious rejection of theism.

Theist refuse to accept that babies don't have theism. Theism is a learned trait. Atheism is not a learned trait, it is simply a state of not being a theist.

It requires a concept of god, still, that is posed as not accepted--hence, the rejection is implicit. It's a third-party evaluation; a third-party has evaluated, based on the "god" that he knows, that "this person has no belief in god".