Atheism is not a default position

[Shad]

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.

It is very simple to almost be self-evident. What is theism as a whole? It is a claim that God exist as part of reality, ontology, which includes a number of bells and whistles about it's function within reality. In most cases it the more commonly known concept of a creator and intervening God are part of it's role in reality. Without God there is no reality, creation, external to God. There is only the self of God. Atheism is the rejection of this ontological claim. Using whatever term you wish atheism is still a rejection of this ontological claim and that it is unjustified. So if one says they do not believe in God this is to say that God does not exist in reality.

I never argued for theism as a default. I think the only conclusion we can draw is that the default is to be agnostic since a child lacks knowledge of the concept of God as per theism. However this conclusion is only based on slim inductive logic, nothing more. We lack the ability to communicate with children on their terms. Ouroboros put forward a hypothetical scenario showing how God is a loaded term, It is a very good example. God is part of language, it has context, it has meaning. So to understand the word God one must be familiar with everything behind the term not just the word.

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.

One view must be accepted or there is no basis of reasoning. Without doing so there is no soundness of logic as soundness requires evidence. Even the rationalists use evidence. The only contention between the two is innate knowledge versus learning from experience knowledge. Lacking adherence is still to rejection a view as true. So a position of withholding judgement, 0.5 probability, can not fall under this 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 it rests on the ontological nature of atheism and theism. I should require no argue as the ontological nature of both should be evident to anyone that spends a moment reading about both concepts in philosophy. However the argument is contained within this post.

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.

Which fall under rejection of theism as true due to lack of justification. You just decline in putting forward an alternative such as metaphysical naturalism. Atheism does not require an alternative proposal since it is just rejection of a proposal.

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.

I said your comparison was flawed since it did not include the 3rd option of agnostic. A flawed comparison can be rejected for being a false dichotomy as you made a mistake in your logic.

Atheism is the lack of acceptance of theism.

Which is rejection of theism as defined by your own use of acceptance

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.

4th option of withholding judgement

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.

No agnostic is to withhold judgement. Atheism is still to reject an ontological claim. The terms are conflicting.

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.

You did rejected the scope since you conflate atheism with agnostic as the same when these are not. On the other hand I only undermined a flawed definition not the complete scope of atheism. A definition which can not even pass a reducto ad absurdum counter

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.

I reject the idea of theism as being innate since there is no argument for this position which is sound as per my language barrier counter. Perhaps the philosophy of self is innate but that is for another thread.

You are the one ignoring the scope.

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

Nope. I refuted a part of the scope, I didn't ignore it. My working definition is argued in this comment and has been made a number of times.

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

It is relevant since it is an example of rejection of rather than lack of. However your own personal reasons need not be discussed

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.

I do not such thing. You didn't read what I have posted. One can be an agnostic atheist, "lack of knowledge for but disbelief anyways" which is just being irrational. Just as people can be agnostic theists. My point was that agnostic is also the middle ground between atheism and theism rather than a parameters of either. It has a separate scope. It would be 0.5, no support for nor against a position thus to withhold judgement.

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

This does not seem like it to me.

 

[ArtieE]

If you believe in the existence of ice cubes, you believe in the existence of es batu, regardless of whether or not you are aware of what the symbol es batu refers to. This is why if you don't understand the referent of a symbol, you simply profess ignorance of its referent, rather than lack of belief in its referent.

I completely fail to see the point. Either you believe something or you do not. If you don't know about that something, you automatically do not believe it because you don't know about it.

 

[Augustus]

I completely fail to see the point. Either you believe something or you do not. If you don't know about that something, you automatically do not believe it because you don't know about it.

Language is a symbol that should point to a thing or concept that exists objectively of your understanding of it.

There are many symbols that refer to ice cubes. Once you are aware of the existence of ice cubes, you also believe in the existence of the concept or thing referred to by the symbol es batu or any other symbol that points to ice cubes. That you don't understand the words es batu, doesn't mean you don't believe in the concept or thing referred to by the symbol es batu.

Not understanding a symbol is not the same as not believing in the concept or thing referred to by that symbol.

If you meet a new person, you still believe in their existence before the point that they tell you their name.

 

[Yorutenchi]

My post was in reply to someone who said there are only 3 possible states regarding beliefs about possession of a red shirt.

I added a 4th to show that saying there are only 3 possible states is false.

If I can never understand what you mean by 'red shirt', then you can't say I 'don't believe' in red shirts. You can only say 'I don't know what you mean by red shirt'.

You can't 'not believe' in the existence of a concept or thing referred to by a symbol, unless you know what the referent of that symbol actually is. I'm specifically talking about when you don't understand what the word means. Not understanding what a referent is is not the same as not believing in the existence of the referent.

Assuming there are not communication errors there seems to be only three possible states of belief. What you have introduced is just communicative errors rather than the conversation about the topic.

 

[ArtieE]

If you meet a new person, you still believe in their existence before the point that they tell you their name.

Earlier you said and I quote: "You can't 'not believe' in something unless you understand what the something you don't believe in actually is." Of course you can. I have "not believed" all my life in everything I never knew it was possible to believe in because I never knew about them.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have managed to not believe in gfdhgfdhfdh all my life because I heard about it just now.

What if the word gfdhgfdhgfdh is a word in ancient Blurgblurh language, and it can be translated to reality. Does this mean that you haven't believed in reality, or that you haven't believe in the word's definition? Or, let's say it's translated to "Not God". You have managed to not believe in "Not God" your whole life.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. We call such a person who is on the fence (weak) atheist. Seriously, this is getting tiresome.

1. Theist (Believes god(s) exist.)
2. Weak atheist (Neither believes god(s) exist nor believes god(s) don't exist. On the fence.)
3. Strong atheist (Believes god(s) don't exist.)

I recommend you read some basic information about atheism before posting more.

4. Weak (or is it strong?) Theist: Lack belief in No-God.

 

[Thief]

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.

no rocks are NOT atheists.....
or maybe you are referring to the stones that would speak......
those stones mentioned by the Carpenter as He rode into Jerusalem....
as the Pharisees objected to the large crowd that welcomed Him.

 

[Thief]

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.

Your last two lines contradict each other.
Theism is a declaration
the flip of the coin is likewise....a declaration.
knowledge of the word..god...is required for either.

ignorance is the default position.

 

[Thief]

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.

You would need a concept of 'god' in either case.
unless you include anyone lacking the word ...god...in their vocabulary.

if you lack the word....god....in your vocabulary you cannot make declaration of non-belief.

the default would be ignorance.

 

[Thief]

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.

what you describe is a state of ignorance.

 

[Bunyip]

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



Dictionary do record correct definitions and context of the definitions, it is the purposes of dictionaries.

No mate it isn't. Dictionaries record USAGES, they do not define terms. That is an elementary misunderstanding you have there.

,.. Which is based on phonetics and etymology. The only set of dictionaries which include common usage are general purpose dictionaries which are lowest form of dictionaries since it will include slang or any word people may have used. If enough people start using the word dog in place of the word cat then these dictionaries will include it. Other dictionaries which are not influenced by the masses failure in use of proper language will not include these definitions. You confuse general dictionaries with all dictionaries. You confuse general dictionaries as even reliable in comparison to specialized dictionaries. Philosophical terms are specialization thus are found in specialized dictionaries. Atheism is a philosophical term and has been rooted in philosophy for centuries. You ignore this context instead relying on usage by a largely ignorant masses.
Think about the word theory. Anti-evolutionists will use the word theory outside of it's scientific context to undermine ToE. Likewise you are doing the same by ignoring the philosophical context. Just as I refuted "lack of" definition as being coherent I can likewise undermine other usages. Incoherent usage is not convincing in anyway.

What is the point in undermining usages? All that could achieve is to prevent whoever you are talking to from explaining their position. It would be a totally fatuous tactic for preventing meaningful dialogue and nothing more.

Wherever you got this idea from of 'refuting usages', you really need to let it go - it is a misconception that will prevent you from ever even getting as far as allowing whoever you are talking to to explain what they mean.

It is a tactic of distraction and obfuscation, not discussion, debate or even meaningful dialogue.

I hope you understand - undermining and refuting usages is just a barrier to meaningful dialogue.

 

[Copernicus]

Artie, you are confusing me. I quoted your exact words and commented on your words. Now you paraphrase what I said with different words and act as if I were trying to say words that you put in my mouth. I was talking about a person who asserts or claims to be an "atheist". If someone says "I am not a theist", that is not necessarily the same as claiming to be an atheist, because it could be said by someone who is completely on the fence about whether or not gods exist.

Yes. We call such a person who is on the fence (weak) atheist. Seriously, this is getting tiresome.

1. Theist (Believes god(s) exist.)
2. Weak atheist (Neither believes god(s) exist nor believes god(s) don't exist. On the fence.)
3. Strong atheist (Believes god(s) don't exist.)

I recommend you read some basic information about atheism before posting more.

Artie, this discussion would be less tiresome, if you would stop posturing and pay attention to what I actually said rather than what you would like me to have said. I was not disputing with you over the meanings of "weak atheist" or "strong atheist", nor do I much care about those expressions. This thread has been about the meaning of "atheism" in general, not the meanings of "weak atheism" or "strong atheism".

Now, if you want to dispute what we mean by the terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", I've seen people propose various definitions, not all of which are in agreement. I've been an atheist for a very long time--I suspect much longer than you have--so I can tell you how I use them. (Well, I already have, but your reading skills are less than I had hoped for.) To me, "weak" and "strong" refer to the strength of conviction a person feels in rejecting belief in gods, and that is all. Your characterization of these terms in (2) and (3) strike me as really poor. Weak atheists do indeed lack belief in gods, but most people would still consider it absurd to characterize a baby as any kind of atheist. Nor does it make sense to call someone who feels completely on the fence about the existence of gods an "atheist". Nowadays, people tend to use the word "agnostic" as defining a belief that cannot be resolved, but all of the self-styled atheists I have interacted with are of the opinion that gods probably don't exist.

Now, if you find this conversation tedious and tiresome, I suggest that it is because you don't want to consider a point of view that differs from your own, but I'm sure you feel differently. My patience with you is not infinite either, but I have at least been willing to read what you've written and tried to respond to it seriously.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Why do you keep, applying philosophical views to rocks? That is not reducing anything to absurdity other than your response.

 

[Bunyip]

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.



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.

Reducing your rebuttal to absurdity by trying to bring up the philosophical positions of inanimate objects does not challenge the usage in question mate - it reflects on you.

 

[Copernicus]

Dictionary do record correct definitions and context of the definitions, it is the purposes of dictionaries.

No mate it isn't. Dictionaries record USAGES, they do not define terms. This is, an elementary understanding.

Bunyip, I fully agree with you that dictionaries base their definitions on usage, but you may be arguing at cross purposes with Shad. There is a sense in which dictionaries offer "correct" definitions, and that is in the sense that their definitions accurately reflect actual usage. Needless to say, dictionaries do define terms. Those definitions belong to the dictionary publisher and are copyright-protected. And it is fair to say that people use dictionaries as authoritative sources for word meanings, although most people lack the training to distinguish between good and bad definitions. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that word meanings are very complicated things. You go to a dictionary for a concise statement of a word sense, but definitions are never comprehensive descriptions of meanings. The intent of a dictionary entry is only to enumerate the most common word senses for a word in the most concise fashion possible. An encyclopedia actually delves into the question of what words really mean.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip, I fully agree with you that dictionaries base their definitions on usage, but you may be arguing at cross purposes with Shad. There is a sense in which dictionaries offer "correct" definitions, and that is in the sense that their definitions accurately reflect actual usage. Needless to say, dictionaries do define terms.

No. Dictionaries record usages - they do not define terms. As I said, this is a fundamental understanding of how English operates.

. Those definitions belong to the dictionary publisher and are copyright-protected. And it is fair to say that people use dictionaries as authoritative sources for word meanings, although most people lack the training to distinguish between good and bad definitions. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that word meanings are very complicated things. You go to a dictionary for a concise statement of a word sense, but definitions are never comprehensive descriptions of meanings. The intent of a dictionary entry is only to enumerate the most common word senses for a word in the most concise fashion possible. An encyclopedia actually delves into the question of what words really mean.

Usages change over time, this is driven by society - by the way local communities use these words. Dictionaries record these usages, they do not and can not dictate an official definition.

Let me explain how this works; People in Perth (for example) start saying 'cool' whenever they see something amazing. This gets popular, and lots of people pick up saying 'cool'.
Now at the time the dictionary definition of 'cool' was all about temperature. The dictionary does not have a police force to go in there and kick butt until Perth people start applying the 'correct' definition. Nope!
Instead, the dictionary boffins add another usage to the definitions of 'cool'.

As a second example, imagine you meet a man who claims to have a new religion and the God is called 'The Great Ono'. You ask him to explain the characteristics of his God and he does.
Now if those characteristics do not fit with the definition of God you have in your dictionary - you could either start arguing with his misuse of the word 'God' because it does not fit with your dictionaries definition (which can never achieve anything other than be an obstacle), OR you could just accept that he is applying the term 'God' to the being he has described and have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Copernicus]

No. Dictionaries record usages - they do not define terms. As I said, this is a fundamental understanding of how English operates.

Bunyip, let's not equivocate over the meaning of the verb "define". You are using it to mean something like "authorize usage", and that is one possible sense of the word. However, this is where people start talking past each other, because there is another sense--the one I was using. Lexicographers define words when they come up with a succinct expression that captures popular usage. That is actually what lexicographers do. They define words. But you are absolutely correct in pointing out that their definitions do not establish how people ought to use words.

Usages change over time, this is driven by society - by the way local communities use these words. Dictionaries record these usages, they do not and can not dictate an official definition.

That's correct. Do you think to instruct a professional linguist in such elementary facts? Please try to understand the point I was making and not assume that I disagree with everything you say. IIRC, Shad has had linguistic training and probably would not be ignorant of these facts either. It just seems to me that you two may be arguing at cross purposes.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip, let's not equivocate over the meaning of the verb "define". You are using it to mean something "authorize usage", and that is one possible sense of the word. However, this is where people start talking past each other, because there is another sense--the one I was using. Lexicographers define words when they come up with a succinct expression that captures popular usage. That is actually what lexicographers do. They define words. But you are absolutely correct in pointing out that their definitions do not establish how people ought to use words.


That's correct. Do you think to instruct a professional linguist in such elementary facts?

Apparently I am obliged to. You are making an elementary mistake I find impossible to connect to a person who is a professional linguist. Sorry, but that is the honest truth. Dictionaries simply record usages. They do not and can not dictate which definition is correct.

Please try to understand the point I was making and not assume that I disagree with everything you say. IIRC, Shad has had linguistic training and probably would not be ignorant of these facts either. It just seems to me that you two may be arguing at cross purposes.

Shad is applying a tactic of refuting usages, or trying to disprove a usage - which reflects a fundamental misconception.

 

[Copernicus]

Apparently I am obliged to. You are making an elementary mistake I find impossible to connect to a person who is a professional linguist. Sorry, but that is the honest truth. Dictionaries simply record usages. They do not and can not dictate which definition is correct.
Shad is applying a tactic of refuting usages, or trying to disprove a usage - which reflects a fundamental misconception.

Bunyip, are you unable to read? I did not disagree with you. Please reread what I wrote and try to comprehend it.