Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

I can't understand what you mean.
My theory of "Balderdash. It is a rejection of nothing." ?
Where have i say that i've this theory?
What is this theory means?
Where is and how is wiki denied this theory? Link?

I argued against a statement made in post 2065 on page 104 of the thread that proposed atheism rejects nothing. I'm sorry if I mistook you for supporting that post.

 

[columbus]

For those who support it, please explain how absence of belief is in any way compatible with denial of belief.

Denial is a subset absence of beliefs, at least in regards to religion. Perhaps just a more aware absence of belief, presumably one has investigated enough to satisfy oneself.
When humans are born they are no more theistic than earthworms or porpoises. But they have more intellectual capacity. They are nearly always born to religious parents in a religious community, so they are consistently taught some version of religion. Usually they never seriously question it, as the social costs are high. Sometimes they reject it. When they do they are reverting to the original, default, state. But from an informed position instead of the original uninformed.
Tom

 

[Pudding]

I argued against a statement made in post 2065 on page 104 of the thread that proposed atheism rejects nothing. I'm sorry if I mistook you for supporting that post.

Thanks for clarify.

Post 2065

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.

As i see, atheism can means the absence of belief that any deities exist, it's also compatible with the subcategory Implicit negative/weak/soft atheists.

How does wiki denies the theory that "atheism is a rejection of nothing" ?

I can say that Explicit positive/strong/hard atheists and Explicit negative/weak/soft atheists indeed may not consider to be rejection of nothing as they can be the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

But i cannot say that about Implicit negative/weak/soft atheists as the definition of this subcategory can means the absence of belief that any deities exist, and the definition in post 2065 : 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. Therefor they can be consider as rejection of nothing. They lack/absence of belief that any deities exist.

Implicit negative/weak/soft atheism is a subcategory of atheism, can it be say that Implicit negative/weak/soft atheism is "atheism" without the implication of "Implicit negative/weak/soft" ? I think it can be as it's not mutually exclusive. But if wants more clarity, the implication can be good to state.

Is Implicit negative/weak/soft atheism the default position?
If yes, why? If no, why? (This question is open to anyone to answer)

edit '

 

[Copernicus]

The charge in question here is already lead by all the irate people who have such trouble accepting that the definition of an atheist as a person who is "not a theist, a person who doesn't believe in gods" happens to implicitly cover infants as well. Surely if these people study dictionaries in detail they might come up with much worse to fuel their need to eradicate definitions that they don't feel comfortable with because they cover people they think shouldn't be covered.

All is clear then. You must lead a charge against those who defy the dictionaries. They will feel properly chastised, no doubt. Meanwhile, I suppose that I will need to find definitions that support my own, e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has one that I find satisfactory: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. Since it has been authorized by philosophers of impeccable credentials, I trust no one will find fault with it.

 

[Bunyip]

Your statement implied and argued for it.

No mate it did not. This attack you are prosecuting is just deranged mate - why not stop and think it through?

 

[Bunyip]

I meant, considering your response about my English, it sounded like you were putting it to the edge because of what I said that you could just think about it for some time. That's the post I though offended you.

When it comes to the negatives, no they're not double negatives. They carry different levels of certainty.


Can't, because it would change their meaning.

Then you are left with nothing - if you can not express what you mean without all the shenanigans, that should tell you something.

Doesn't carry the exact same meaning. And I don't think I wrote "doesn't not disbelieve in no-God". I wrote "Does not believe in no-God." Which isn't the same as "Does believe in God."

Great.

Or is that; No, not undisgreat? Or was it; Un not dis-agreat?

 

[Bunyip]

Well, there is truth to the point that people look up unfamiliar words in order to get a sense of how to use them. That is one of the purposes of a dictionary, and I can see where my statement could be construed in that way. What I meant to say was what I took to be agreement with Bunyip (although he prefers to construe everything I say as some kind of curmudgeonly disagreement, for some reason)

Well let me elucidate. What you took to be curmudgeonly disagreement was in fact a reaction to your grotesque pomposity. Appealing to your own authority and insulting somebodies intelligence rather than making an argument can bring out the curmudgeon in anyone.

, that dictionary entries are not intended to create or enforce prescriptions for usage. Their function is primarily descriptive--to inform people how words are commonly used. Naturally, people usually wish to use words in a way that others understand them, so that is why they think dictionaries tell them how words "ought to be used". The problem is that bad dictionary definitions can actually influence people to use words in new ways. It is fascinating to see how people take some of these definitions as doctrinaire assertions of how the words must be used rather than how native speakers intuitively know to use them.

Dictionary definitions have been called heuristic in the sense that they only give an indication of what the actual meaning of the word is. They help users to discover a word's meaning without actually exhaustively describing the properties of the word. So a lot of dictionaries will give definitions for the word "bachelor", one of which is simply "unmarried male". The online Merriam-Webster definition for bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". However, English speakers know that there is more to it than that. The definition doesn't tell you this, but eligibility for marriage is an essential component of the meaning. Hence, it would be strange to refer to a Catholic priest as a "bachelor", since Catholic priests can't marry. That won't stop some people from looking the word up in a dictionary and letting the definition drive them to claiming that the Pope is a "bachelor". And they will do so with the same dogmatic assurance that our internet friends have in touting the silly "babies are atheists" claim.

How is that silly? Let me guess - it's silly because you used to work for a publisher? Is that it? Or are there two reasons? You worked with a publisher, and I am ignorant? Is that it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

However a theist is defined, a-is the opposite of that. So, to know what definitions atheists have, go by the theist. They have the burden of defintion. Atheism is a default. Don't let the A confuse you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Unfortunately, that sentence is ambiguous between two senses:

1) An atheist is a person who believes that no gods exist.
2) An atheist is a person who lacks a belief that gods exist.

I've tried to make this point before, but I'll let one better than I at such a task do so and merely quote this to emphasize it (i.e., the dual interpretations thanks to the difference between formal negation vs. "actual speech").

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However a theist is defined, a-is the opposite of that. So, to know what definitions atheists have, go by the theist. They have the burden of defintion. Atheism is a default. Don't let the A confuse you.

Great. So deists are atheists because deism quite literally developed as a position in opposition to theism. And ditto for polytheists, as the same is true of polytheism. (i.e., it was defined in opposition to theism, albeit less specifically:

Spoiler: OED entries for polytheist and polytheism

Polytheist:
"A person who believes in or worships more than one god; an adherent of polytheism.

a1620 M. Fotherby Atheomastix (1622) i. vi. §3. 45 They were of all other the most palpable Polytheists.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe no one supreme designing Principle or Mind, but several, is to be a Polytheist.
1705 W. Wall Hist. Infant-baptism II. 104 They can be content to..have believ'd that the whole Body of the Profession were for several Ages Polytheists.
1776 Gibbon Decline & Fall I. viii. 205 In the true spirit of a polytheist, he accuses them of adoring Earth, Water, Fire, the Winds, and the Sun and Moon.
1830 I. D'Israeli Comm. Life Charles I III. xv. 330 Sabbatarians became a term of reproach for the Jews with the Polytheists.
1877 J. E. Carpenter tr. C. P. Tiele Outl. Hist. Relig. 109 The Aryans like the Indo-Germans, were polytheists.
1925 G. K. Chesterton Everlasting Man i. iv. 96 A missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of polytheists.
1992 J. Piscatori in J. Baylis & N. J. Rengger Dilemmas World Polit. xii. 316 This is one dimension of the idea of Jihād, which is particularly emphasized in the case of polytheists."

Polytheism:
"The doctrine or belief that there is more than one god; worship of several gods.

1613 S. Purchas Pilgrimage ix. 43 Theu built afterward..an exchanged Polytheisme in worshipping of Saints, Images, and the Host.
1638 T. Herbert Some Yeares Trav. (rev. ed.) 315 Some Temples..furnisht with wooden gods for politheisme.
1658 E. Reynolds Vanitie of Creature in Wks. (1679) 8 There is yet a bitter root of Atheisme, and of Polutheisme in the minds of Men by nature.
1709 Ld. Shaftesbury Moralists i. iii. 28 For Theism can only be oppos'd to Polytheism, or Atheism.
1782 J. Priestley Hist. Corruptions Christianity I. i. 101 Celsus..justifies the polytheism of the heathens.
1835 C. Thirlwall Hist. Greece I. vi. 183 It has sometimes been made a question whether polytheism or monotheism is the more ancient form of natural religion.
1893 in J. H. Barrows World's Parl. Relig. II. 1542 Hinduism is not the idolatry and unrooted polytheism of savages.
1925 G. K. Chesterton Everlasting Man i. vi. 129 In this very varied and often very vague polytheism there was a weakness of original sin.
1949 H. A. R. Gibb Mohammedanism viii. 138 Orthodox theology (which regarded the invocation of saints as trespassing into polytheism by derogating from the worship of God alone).
1988 P. Toynbee End of Journey 198 Pantheism—to my mind a far worse mistake than polytheism."

)

 

[Ouroboros]

Then you are left with nothing - if you can not express what you mean without all the shenanigans, that should tell you something. Great.

So I did offend you. Sorry. Didn't mean to.

Or is that; No, not undisgreat? Or was it; Un not dis-agreat?

??? Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Bunyip]

So I did offend you. Sorry. Didn't mean to.

I'm sorry you took it that way, I was never at all offended.

??? Not sure what you're getting at.

Exactly.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, there is truth to the point that people look up unfamiliar words in order to get a sense of how to use them. That is one of the purposes of a dictionary, and I can see where my statement could be construed in that way. What I meant to say was what I took to be agreement with Bunyip (although he prefers to construe everything I say as some kind of curmudgeonly disagreement, for some reason)

Well let me elucidate. What you took to be curmudgeonly disagreement was in fact a reaction to your grotesque pomposity. Appealing to your own authority and insulting somebodies intelligence rather than making an argument can bring out the curmudgeon in anyone.

So you were reacting to my pompous, authoritative, insulting demeanor? I had not thought to comment on your behavior or character, but I'll say this: I actually think that you make decent comments in your posts, and I have a high opinion of your intelligence. I'm sorry that you feel differently about me, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Not everyone likes me, and I've lived long enough not to expect that.

, that dictionary entries are not intended to create or enforce prescriptions for usage. Their function is primarily descriptive--to inform people how words are commonly used. Naturally, people usually wish to use words in a way that others understand them, so that is why they think dictionaries tell them how words "ought to be used". The problem is that bad dictionary definitions can actually influence people to use words in new ways. It is fascinating to see how people take some of these definitions as doctrinaire assertions of how the words must be used rather than how native speakers intuitively know to use them.

Dictionary definitions have been called heuristic in the sense that they only give an indication of what the actual meaning of the word is. They help users to discover a word's meaning without actually exhaustively describing the properties of the word. So a lot of dictionaries will give definitions for the word "bachelor", one of which is simply "unmarried male". The online Merriam-Webster definition for bachelor is "a man who is not married; especially : a man who has never been married". However, English speakers know that there is more to it than that. The definition doesn't tell you this, but eligibility for marriage is an essential component of the meaning. Hence, it would be strange to refer to a Catholic priest as a "bachelor", since Catholic priests can't marry. That won't stop some people from looking the word up in a dictionary and letting the definition drive them to claiming that the Pope is a "bachelor". And they will do so with the same dogmatic assurance that our internet friends have in touting the silly "babies are atheists" claim.

How is that silly? Let me guess - it's silly because you used to work for a publisher? Is that it? Or are there two reasons? You worked with a publisher, and I am ignorant? Is that it?

We are all more or less ignorant in all things, Bunyip. I do know some things about language that you might not, and I honestly have spent a lifetime specializing in the subject on a professional level, not just as a dabbler or dilettante. That doesn't mean that everything I say about language is true or that you have nothing to teach me. However, you clearly do say things that suggest you have much to learn, as well. As I've said earlier, I am not specialized in lexicography, although I am specialized in lexicology. The former is a discipline devoted to the crafting of definitions, and I have had a lot of practical experience in it. So I am actually qualified to talk about the merits of dictionary definitions, although there are many specialists out there who could probably show me to be more amateurish than I would hope to appear. TBH, I am more interested in the nature of word meanings than the art of creating dictionary definitions. I have much more to say about the meanings of words like "god" and "atheist" than on the best way to define them.

This dispute over what "atheism" actually means goes much deeper than how best to define the word, but it is quite natural for people to confuse the difference, because most people use "meaning" and "definition" interchangeably. I actually thought that you understood that point, because you were the one to constantly repeat that dictionaries don't "define words". I think that you got that right, but I objected to your use of the word "define" there, because, in my view, you were trying to say that usage isn't determined by dictionary definitions. It is dictionary definitions that are determined by usage. So I wasn't really trying to tell you that you were wrong, just that what you were trying to say could have been said better. Lexicographers do think of themselves as defining words, and they do think that dictionaries define words. What they do not think is that definitions should be taken as absolutely authoritative in instructing people on how to use the words. The intent of a definition is to help people discover their usage and their range of usage. Unfortunately, the general public tends to see dictionaries in a more prescriptive light.

 

[Bunyip]

So you were reacting to my pompous, authoritative, insulting demeanor? I had not thought to comment on your behavior or character, but I'll say this: I actually think that you make decent comments in your posts, and I have a high opinion of your intelligence. I'm sorry that you feel differently about me,

I don't. I'm sorry you have taken offence. You are agreeing with my argument - but very critical of my approach. Would you mind focussing on the argument?

but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Not everyone likes me, and I've lived long enough not to expect that.


We are all more or less ignorant in all things, Bunyip. I do know some things about language that you might not, but I honestly have spent a lifetime specializing in the subject. That doesn't mean that everything I say about language is true or that you have nothing to teach me. However, you clearly do say things that suggest you have much to learn, as well. As I've said earlier, I am not specialized in lexicography, although I am specialized in lexicology. The former is a discipline devoted to the crafting of definitions, and I have had a lot of practical experience in it. So I am actually qualified to talk about the merits of dictionary definitions, although there are many specialists out there who could probably show me to be more amateurish than I would hope to appear. TBH, I am more interested in the nature of word meanings than the art of creating dictionary definitions. I have much more to say about the meanings of words like "god" and "atheist" than on the best way to define them.

This dispute over what "atheism" actually means goes much deeper than how best to define the word, but it is quite natural for people to confuse the difference, because most people use the terms interchangeably. I actually thought that you understood that point, because you were the one to constantly repeat that dictionaries don't "define words". I think that you got that right, but I objected to your use of the word "define" there, because, in my view, you were trying to say that usage isn't determined by dictionary definitions. It is dictionary definitions that determine usage. So I wasn't really trying to tell you that you were wrong, just that what you were trying to say could have been said better. Lexicographers do think of themselves as defining words, and they do think that dictionaries define words. What they do not think is that definitions should be taken as absolutely authoritative in instructing people on how to use the words. Then intent of a definition is to help people discover their usage. Unfortunately, the general public tends to see dictionaries in a more prescriptive light.

Exactly what I have been arguing thanks. Great to have the agreement of you all.

My approach could always be better, the same goes for all us poor mortal souls. Wonderful to have you here to critique it for me. Forgive me if I resist returning the favour.

 

[ArtieE]

All is clear then. You must lead a charge against those who defy the dictionaries. They will feel properly chastised, no doubt. Meanwhile, I suppose that I will need to find definitions that support my own, e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has one that I find satisfactory: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. Since it has been authorized by philosophers of impeccable credentials, I trust no one will find fault with it.

Unfortunately that definition is wrong on several counts:

1. Atheism covers ALL gods not just "God" whichever god they refer to when they say "God".

2. If a person tells you "I am an atheist" it doesn't tell you if this person denies "the existence of God" at all. What you do know with 100% certainty is that he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of ALL GODS, not just the God in the definition. If you want to know if the person DENIES the existence of gods you must ask if he's a STRONG ATHEIST.

 

[Copernicus]

Unfortunately that definition is wrong on several counts:

1. Atheism covers ALL gods not just "God" whichever god they refer to when they say "God".

Agreed, and it would definitely improve the definition to make that minor change in the wording. This is a point that I am usually careful to emphasize, but the esteemed philosophers who judged the definition adequate were probably looking at it from a culturally biased perspective. They should have consulted a linguist or anthropologist for feedback.

2. If a person tells you "I am an atheist" it doesn't tell you if this person denies "the existence of God" at all. What you do know with 100% certainty is that he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of ALL GODS, not just the God in the definition. If you want to know if the person DENIES the existence of gods you must ask if he's a STRONG ATHEIST.

Well, we disagree on a few points here. If a person claims to be an atheist, then we can be fairly confident that that person has an idea of what gods are and rejects belief in them. Of course, it is always possible that the person doesn't really understand what the English word "atheist" means to most English speakers, but that possibility has low probability. So you can infer a denial of the existence of god(s). And you continue to assume that everyone knows what you are talking about when you use terms like "strong atheism" and "weak atheism". My opinion is that most people are unfamiliar with the usage you assume, but most atheists can talk about the level of confidence they have that gods don't exist. I call myself a "strong atheist", because I am familiar with the term and confident to a very high degree that they don't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, we disagree on a few points here. If a person claims to be an atheist, then we can be fairly confident that that person has an idea of what gods are and rejects belief in them.

Not at all. If a person claims to be an atheist, then we can be 100% confident that this is a person who has an idea of what gods are and is not a theist and doesn't believe gods exist. It doesn't tell us at all if he rejects belief in gods that would just be us guessing.

Of course, it is always possible that the person doesn't really understand what the English word "atheist" means to most English speakers, but that possibility has low probability. So you can infer a denial of the existence of god(s).

If a person says he's an atheist "most" English speakers then know that he is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods. He says nothing about whether he denies the existence of gods. If your "English speakers" infer that he denies the existence of gods they are simply wrong. If he had said "strong atheist" they could infer that he denies the existence of gods.

And you continue to assume that everyone knows what you are talking about when you use terms like "strong atheism" and "weak atheism". My opinion is that most people are unfamiliar with the usage you assume, but most atheists can talk about the level of confidence they have that gods don't exist. I call myself a "strong atheist", because I am familiar with the term and confident to a very high degree that they don't exist.

Then it is up to us to make people familiar with the correct terms. Explain to them that if a person says he's an atheist they can be sure that he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods but doesn't necessarily say that he denies the existence of gods. And if a person tells you he's an atheist but actually means "strong atheist" tell him to use the correct term.

If a person tells us he's an atheist we know 100% for sure that we are talking to a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods so this is obviously the primary definition of atheist which covers all atheists without exception. Then we have (weak) atheists and strong atheists where the definition of (weak) atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods, and the definition of a strong atheist is a person who is not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods and in addition actively believes gods don't exist. If we all used these definitions it would greatly simplify communication.

Just curious: If a person tells you he's an atheist what do you automatically know 100% sure about this person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods... and yet you say that isn't the definition of atheist? How is that logical?

 

[Augustus]

If a person tells you he's an atheist what do you automatically know 100% sure about this person? That he's not a theist and doesn't believe in the existence of gods...

As I have mentioned to you before, there are atheists (and arguably even theists) who consider the statement 'god exists' to be meaningless.

Whether or not you agree with them, your statement is demonstrably false as even a single example would show it to be wrong. You can't even 'takfir' these atheists and say they aren't 'real' atheists as your statement is about self-identification with the label.

 

[ArtieE]

As I have mentioned to you before, there are atheists (and arguably even theists) who consider the statement 'god exists' to be meaningless.

Are you now saying there are theists who believe god exists but consider the statement "god exists" to be meaningless!? You better stop now...

 

[Shad]

No mate it did not. This attack you are prosecuting is just deranged mate - why not stop and think it through?

Play the victim when you have not made statements that babies are atheists. It is not like anyone cant put your name in the search along with babies in order to find a number of your posts stating you made this claims in statements and arguments. You are in denial of your own statements, nothing more.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-48#post-4367150
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-69#post-4378119
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/i-see-no-value-in-atheism.176319/page-2#post-4262673
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/i-see-no-value-in-atheism.176319/page-2#post-4262671

And in case anyone else wants to find states made by you yet denied by you they can look here

http://www.religiousforums.com/search/6336245/?q=babies&o=relevance&c[user][0]=52605