Atheism is not a default position

[Curious George]

Animistic, pantheistic, agnostic, wondrous atheism is the default/natural/starting position, of course.

Case closed.

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray. Of course. Case closed.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Excepting the case where a negative claim is true because of an entity's inability to make a positive claim. Hence the discussion of babies rocks etc.

Well, it is important to draw a distinction between a psychological and logical default. These examples might be (with the accent on the modal) be examples of a psychological default for humans, but they are not necessarily an argument for atheism being a logical default.

Of course, one might be able to use an alleged psychological default as part of an argument for a logical default, but it will have to be a complex and properly argued argument, not just lazy claims and equivocations.

 

[Sees]

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray. Of course. Case closed.

In truth, the default is label-less, because labels describe but do not encapsulate reality - let alone one measly label. We amuse ourselves with labels for the sake of conversation and communication, but shouldn't let it get too far. The theistic, spiritualistic, and materialistic views of my baby self were as unique as they are now for my adult self. The "bigger picture" can't fit in a box.

Pass the beverages.

 

[McBell]

The "bigger picture" can't fit in a box.

Then why are you trying?

 

[Sees]

Then why are you trying?

For the experience...experience is everything.

If only theism meant "experience of one or more Gods" and atheism was "lack of experience of one or more Gods" - things would be much simpler.

 

[Copernicus]

How about drange's definition:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html

I think that Drange's essay is well worth reading, and I agree with much of what he says. However, I reject logical positivism, which is an old philosophical school from the early 20th century that had a very flawed approach to the nature of meaning. So I would never subscribe to the noncognitivist position that Drange does.

Noncognitivists typically argue that the concept of "God" is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless. Therefore, a sentence such as "God exists" is inherently meaningless. There are many problems with that position from the perspective of philosophers and linguists. Modern philosophers generally reject logical positivist or empirical positivist approaches to meaning for a variety of reasons (See, e.g., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/), but I'll try to keep this as short and succinct as possible. The concept of a "god" or "deity" exists in every language in the world (with the possible exception of one or two aboriginal languages in South America), and people tend to have a fairly clear idea of what they mean when they talk about gods. The Christian concept of "God" is even more specific and meaningful, although I would argue that it becomes incoherent when one tries to resolve its internal contradictions. Contradictions are not meaningless, just inherently false.

But there is one position taken by logical positivists that is simply wrong--the idea that a proposition must have a truth value in order to be meaningful. There are lots of propositions that are neither true nor false, the most notable kind being those that give rise to paradoxes, e.g. "The present king of France is bald." Since there is no present King of France, the sentence can be neither true nor false. That is because the sentence presupposes the truth of a false proposition: There exists a present king of France. Linguists call this phenomenon "presupposition failure", not lack of meaning. In fact, you could not possibly even know that the sentence was neither true nor false, unless you could analyze its meaning. So, the concept of "God" and the sentence "God exists" have meaning. They might ultimately lead to confusion or inherent contradiction, but you could only know that if you had an idea of their meaning.

 

[Thief]

They might ultimately lead to confusion or inherent contradiction, but you could only know that if you had an idea of their meaning.

So a child hearing the word ...god....would need explanation...
and until he gets it has only confusion to consider...

Shall we include confused people as part of the group?.....atheist...

I won't.
It would then encircle even people that believe in God.

For the experience...experience is everything.

If only theism meant "experience of one or more Gods" and atheism was "lack of experience of one or more Gods" - things would be much simpler.

not if that God expects you to sort through the dogma....and render your faith as you see fit.

 

[Curious George]

I think that Drange's essay is well worth reading, and I agree with much of what he says. However, I reject logical positivism, which is an old philosophical school from the early 20th century that had a very flawed approach to the nature of meaning. So I would never subscribe to the noncognitivist position that Drange does.

Noncognitivists typically argue that the concept of "God" is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless. Therefore, a sentence such as "God exists" is inherently meaningless. There are many problems with that position from the perspective of philosophers and linguists. Modern philosophers generally reject logical positivist or empirical positivist approaches to meaning for a variety of reasons (See, e.g., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/), but I'll try to keep this as short and succinct as possible. The concept of a "god" or "deity" exists in every language in the world (with the possible exception of one or two aboriginal languages in South America), and people tend to have a fairly clear idea of what they mean when they talk about gods. The Christian concept of "God" is even more specific and meaningful, although I would argue that it becomes incoherent when one tries to resolve its internal contradictions. Contradictions are not meaningless, just inherently false.

But there is one position taken by logical positivists that is simply wrong--the idea that a proposition must have a truth value in order to be meaningful. There are lots of propositions that are neither true nor false, the most notable kind being those that give rise to paradoxes, e.g. "The present king of France is bald." Since there is no present King of France, the sentence can be neither true nor false. That is because the sentence presupposes the truth of a false proposition: There exists a present king of France. Linguists call this phenomenon "presupposition failure", not lack of meaning. In fact, you could not possibly even know that the sentence was neither true nor false, unless you could analyze its meaning. So, the concept of "God" and the sentence "God exists" have meaning. They might ultimately lead to confusion or inherent contradiction, but you could only know that if you had an idea of their meaning.

That was a not so subtle shift...

Noncognitivists are all logical positivists?

capable of being analyzed is always meaningful?

Drange is a logical positivist?

Are you sure. Perhaps you aretrying to say much, and in haste, sacrificed substance for brevity. I am not sure I follow all of this. But it is interesting, perhaps you could say more.

 

[McBell]

If only theism meant "experience of one or more Gods" and atheism was "lack of experience of one or more Gods" - things would be much simpler.

I seriously doubt it.
Far to many people on all sides go to great lengths to protect their box.

 

[McBell]

So a child hearing the word ...god....would need explanation...
and until he gets it has only confusion to consider...

Sad you have to spin what is said to the point of blatant dishonesty.

Shall we include confused people as part of the group?.....atheist...

I won't.
It would then encircle even people that believe in God.

Ah, now I understand.
You are merely setting up a strawman.

 

[Bunyip]

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

I am just applying a usage, there is no fault in doing so.

You are attacking a label, not a position. I do not think whether babies or rocks are atheists or not even matters.

I am sorry that you are upset about this, but am struggling to explain it to better. Yes, I understand that you are disproving a usage I have applied - the problem is that there is no point in disproving a usage, you need to disprove/defend/argue for ideas, and positions.

Attacking somebody over the misuse of a term is like trying to fight off an assailant by re-spelling his name.

Dictionaries do not dictate definitions, it is not like a law or a regulation enforced by the police.
No....instead dictionaries listen to the hum of society and try as best they can to catch and describe word usages like a schoolboy catching butterflies.

 

[Bunyip]

The point still being largely missed is fundamental. Arguing about correct definitions of atheism/theism/God is futile, it is the IDEAS being described that need to be discussed not the labels.
There is no such thing an a correct definition of atheism, language has no enforcement office - dictionaries record the way people use words and their definitions are the best descriptions of how those words are being used that they can design. They are not authoritative, they are not prescriptive - they describe language, they do not dictate it.

Arguing about which is the correct definition is like arguing about what to call a fishing rod and thinking you are fishing.

 

[Bunyip]

Good.

My point in regard to the double negatives and so on is sincere. I do understand that you are applying it in order to describe different degrees of certainty - but I don't think it does that very well.

All that happens in practice when we add to many 'don't disbelieve in no-God' kind of redundancies is not a clear idea of different levels of certainty - just an increasingly difficult to read sentence.

 

[Curious George]

The point still being largely missed is fundamental. Arguing about correct definitions of atheism/theism/God is futile, it is the IDEAS being described that need to be discussed not the labels.
There is no such thing an a correct definition of atheism, language has no enforcement office - dictionaries record the way people use words and their definitions are the best descriptions of how those words are being used that they can design. They are not authoritative, they are not prescriptive - they describe language, they do not dictate it.

Arguing about which is the correct definition is like arguing about what to call a fishing rod and thinking you are fishing.

What exactly do you see as the real argument?

 

[Bunyip]

What exactly do you see as the real argument?

In relation to the topic here that arguing about which is the correct definition is like trying to catch a rabbit by re-spelling 'rabbit'.

There is no 'correct' definition of 'atheism'. It is a phantom.

People are attacking descriptions not ideas. The idea that would make most sense to address in my mind is; Is there a God?

 

[Curious George]

In relation to the topic here that arguing about which is the correct definition is like trying to catch a rabbit by re-spelling 'rabbit'.

There is no 'correct' definition of 'atheism'. It is a phantom.

People are attacking descriptions not ideas. The idea that would make most sense to address in my mind is; Is there a God?

Ok go for it. Is there a god?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok go for it. Is there a god?

Well that depends what you mean by God. If you mean Yahweh, no I don't think so. There are many pantheist, deist, panentheist, hindu, Shinto and so on (I have listed these a couple of times for you, but you ignore it) conceptions of God that I don't think conflict with atheism in any meaningful way. Many I am not even aware of, so I can't make a blanket declaration about how I feel in regard to Gods I have never even heard of.

 

[Curious George]

Well that depends what you mean by God. If you mean Yahweh, no I don't think so. There are many pantheist, deist, panentheist, hindu, Shinto and so on (I have listed these a couple of times for you, but you ignore it) conceptions of God that I don't think conflict with atheism in any meaningful way. Many I am not even aware of, so I can't make a blanket declaration about how I feel in regard to Gods I have never even heard of.

Tsk, tsk. I have not ignored anything you posted.

You listed religions not gods from religionsand when I asked about how those religions. When I asked how the gods of those religions were not part of my suggested definition of god, you asked me to ask someone else. This is not me ignoring you.

Why don't you think Yahweh exists?

 

[Bunyip]

Tsk, tsk. I have not ignored anything you posted.

You listed religions not gods from religion and when I asked about how those religions. When I asked how the gods of those religions were not part of my suggested definition of god

Actually, I went into that at least twice. And have been taking a great deal of trouble to explain that definitions are not what is critical.

, you asked me to ask someone else. This is not me ignoring you.

Why don't you think Yahweh exists?

Because the traits ascribed to him are contradictory.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, I went into that at least twice. And have been taking a great deal of trouble to explain that definitions are not what is critical.
Because the traits ascribed to him are contradictory.

If you feel I have ignored you check again.

On your second note, what traits are contradictory?