Atheism is not a default position

[Sees]

Parental love, I have always viewed the connection to theism.

The father concept, afterlife to see loved ones, mother earth ect ect ect

Yeah it always seem very related and interconnected. For people like me it goes hand in hand regardless as we tend to see Gods as actual family. It's an additional clue as to the why the senses, urges, inclinations, etc. are there. Of course not proof of anything and can likewise easily be used for secularist psychological analyzation of the "why"

 

[outhouse]

implicit atheism" has to now be supported with some research to respond

Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

NO WHERE in your article did they claim a child believes in a deity


The article also falsely claims this.

Evidence that prehistoric peoples buried flowers and other symbolic items alongside departed group members further testifies to the deep roots of belief in an afterlife


There is no way to substantiate that rhetoric. The quack is simply another theist quote mining for desired result.

It is unknown prehistoric man had a belief in the afterlife, because people had burial rituals.



This question of ultimate origins (e.g., whether religiosity evolved to address a specifi c adaptive problem or emerged as a side effect of other evolved human characteristics) is unlikely to be
resolved in the foreseeable future.


Here they admit to not proving anything.


Cognitive defaults evident in young children predispose children and adults alike to believe in supernatural agents.


Its called parental love


The term implicit generally refers to cognitions that are intuitive, spontaneous, effortless, unintentional, uncontrollable, and/or inaccessible to conscious awareness.

This is not the same implicit definition as atheism uses. It is self defined for their theist to produce desired result. By a known quack

 

[Ouroboros]

I did not say that, I showed an example where they imply a survival trait shows evidence towards implicit atheism.

I see.

I also showed an example of their assumptions a 4 year old fully understand death after watching cartoon characters all day.

Do 4 year olds fully understand death ?

I assume that's what that particular research suggests, but I could be wrong.

Please don't load words on me.

Sorry. I misunderstood you.

False. non sequitur.

You would first have to prove a child is born an implicit theist, it is not proven.

That's what that document suggests, based on research.

One has to first prove implicit theism is real, the article is not peer reviewed, and is only one study done. It holds no credibility as defining anything.

But it's based on peer reviewed research material. The source material is published in peer review journals. At least I think APA is.

LAST, their study was done for the majority on children not babies, the one study that used in infant, a theistic conclusion was reached because a child showed excitement with yellow and red dots

Well, that still doesn't prove the opposite that they're born implicit atheists.

 

[Pudding]

All four positions are valid.

Do understand that you responded to my post that was one in a long chain of posts (dialogue) between me and another member. I'm not sure what your position is. I only assumed that you picked up from where we (the other participants) ended.

Can you explain why/how all of that four positions being valid would prove implicit theism a valid position?
I cannot see the connection.

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

But that happens to also be a default position, however, it is the default theist position. Every baby is born not believing in, and not knowing if God does or does not exist. That makes them implicit theists as much as implicit atheists. In other words, implicit theist/atheist simultaneous. It's a superposition state.

X is 'God exists'.

Lack belief in No-God = (4) I don't believe proposition X is false.

With belief in Yes-God = (1) I believe proposition X is true.

(4) I don't believe proposition X is false =/= (1) I believe proposition X is true. (as explain in my post #2437)

Therefore: Lack belief in No-God =/= with belief in Yes-God.

[Baby born with lack belief in No-God and Yes-God, which is not believing in, and not knowing if God does or does not exist] =/= [baby born with belief in Yes-God which is believing in and know God exist.]

born with lack belief in No-God and Yes-God =/= born with belief in Yes-God

born with lack belief in No-God =/= born with belief in Yes-God

A person who lack belief in No-God and Yes-God = which is not believing in, and not knowing if God does or does not exist ------> don't know if God does or does not exist leads the person to not believe in Yes-God until he got any convincing evidence to support the validity of Yes-God.

--------------------------------------

How do [ (4) I don't believe proposition X is false =/= (1) I believe proposition X is true ] prove implicit theism a valid position?

4) I don't believe proposition X is false

Don't believe X is false =/= believe X is true.

Don't believe X is false can be because the person got no convincing evidence to prove X is false.
But for the person to believe X is true, for him it got to have convincing evidence to prove X is true first.

Without evidence to prove X is false =/= with evidence to prove X is true.

Without evidence to prove X is false =/= X have already been proven true.

Without evidence to prove X is false can be the possible situation that the evidence is pending to be found.

The evidence to prove X is false, is pending to be found =/= X have already been proven true.

In order to say X is true it got to have convincing evidence to prove it's actually true first.

Also i'm not sure if this question is related to the things i've been said above, this question ---> "can we prove the existence of negative/non-existence doesn't exist in all situation?" .

Without evidence to prove negative/non-existence doesn't exist =/= negative/non-existence have already been proven exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Can you explain why/how all of that four positions being valid would prove implicit theism a valid position?
I cannot see the connection.



X is 'God exists'.

Lack belief in No-God = (4) I don't believe proposition X is false.

With belief in Yes-God = (1) I believe proposition X is true.

(4) I don't believe proposition X is false =/= (1) I believe proposition X is true. (as explain in my post #2437)

Therefore: Lack belief in No-God =/= with belief in Yes-God.

[Baby born with lack belief in No-God and Yes-God, which is not believing in, and not knowing if God does or does not exist] =/= [baby born with belief in Yes-God which is believing in and know God exist.]

born with lack belief in No-God and Yes-God =/= born with belief in Yes-God

born with lack belief in No-God =/= born with belief in Yes-God

--------------------------------------

How do [ (4) I don't believe proposition X is false =/= (1) I believe proposition X is true ] prove implicit theism a valid position?

Exactly. Moreover, how could it prove it false? It is a dissection of the definition, which can achieve nothing. Implicit atheism is a valid position under some definitions and not in others - not sure what point there is in arguing about that.

 

[Ouroboros]

Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

NO WHERE in your article did they claim a child believes in a deity

No. It says they have an "implicit theism". It's like the "implicit atheism" but it's theism instead.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can you explain why/how all of that four positions being valid would prove implicit theism a valid position?
I cannot see the connection.

Just like there's an "implicit atheism", there's also an "implicit theism".

 

[Pudding]

Exactly. Moreover, how could it prove it false? It is a dissection of the definition, which can achieve nothing. Implicit atheism is a valid position under some definitions and not in others - not sure what point there is in arguing about that.

Maybe it's the wrong understand of the definition.

 

[Pudding]

Just like there's an "implicit atheism", there's also an "implicit theism".

Implicit Atheism's explanation in wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism#Implicit_atheism

Implicit Atheism
Smith defines "implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Children are also included, though, depending on the author, it may or may not also include newborn babies. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2] Smith is silent on newborn children, but clearly identifies as atheists some children who are unaware of any concept of any deity:

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.[1]

I can't see the connection that how "implicit atheism" proves the validity of "implicit theism".
Can you elaborate the connection?
What definition is for "implicit theism" ?

 

[Pudding]

Before any God(s) revealed himself to a prophet, does this prophet born with believe those God(s) do exists?

No, before any God(s) revealed himself to that prophet, that prophet very likely don't know whether those God(s) exist or not.

Don't know whether those God(s) exist or not leads a person to don't believe in those God(s)'s existence.

"I born with don't know if God A exist or not, but i still believe he exists because i born with believe he exists."
"I born with don't know if God A exist or not, so i don't believe his existence until i got convincing evidence to prove his existence."
Which one is the logical default position?

Can we prove we born with believe/know or don't believe/know if any God exist?
Maybe we can only say we do or don't, but seems like the reality validity of it can't be prove objectively because it's merely words, we need convincing evidence in order to make the words valid.

People born with don't believe/know if any God exist will just say they don't.
People born with believe/know any God exist will just say they do.
Which is the universal default position for everyone?

I guess the default position is what one naturally perceived to be in his situation. This default position is vary from people to people and maybe cannot be prove objectively.

If atheism is the default position to someone then it is what it is.
If theism is the default position to other someone then it is also what it is.

If anyone wish to convince other people that the universal default position is atheism/theism, then they give their reason/evidence that why they think so, if the other people disagree with them they may proceed to debate who is right, they can end up with cannot agree with each other, which there is no point to further any debate.

Note that what one naturally perceived to be his default position doesn't prove or automatically make it to be the universal default position for everyone. He can give many sound argument and evidence to support his claims, but it doesn't mean he's 100% universally correct because people's personal experience and standards of logic/reasoing/evidence is different.

 

[David M]

When you talk about theism/atheism I strongly advice that you only use definitions that include belief or the absence of it. The definition of theism is belief in the existence of god(s) and the definition of atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some people don't even understand this much and it's not advisable to complicate things by adding terms like anti-theism into the mix.

First you have to make people understand that theism is belief in the existence of god(s) and atheism an absence of this belief. Then if people get this you can further explain that atheism can be divided into people who just don't believe gods exist (weak atheists) and people who believe gods don't exist (strong atheists).

If they get this you can start elaborating more.

That is how i started

 

[David M]

Anti-against
A-opposite of what the root noun is implying.
(You have to quote me on saying A is against. I gave a link, and repeatdly said (think to someone?) A is opposite and anti is against.)

What you have been saying is that "a" means opposite, it doesn't. The root of the word means "without" which is not the same as opposite.

Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief. The former is a positive position whereas the latter is not.

 

[Shad]

There is no 'correct' definition. You still don't get that? Why? I can employ whatever usage I please, as can everyone. Nope, the argument is not even effected.
You attack a phantom, drawn from a misconception I am clearly unable to express to you.

Do you have reading issues? I said I was attacking a flawed definition via logic. Your subjective usage is your own thus no one is obligated to accept it. You just provided a defeater to your own view via claiming a right to your own subjective usage. It works both ways.

Under some definitions of atheism and God, and in some contexts the statement that Babies are atheists is true.
People call that 'implicit atheism'.
Under other definitions of atheism and God, and in some contexts the statement that Babies are atheists is meaningless, or even false.

Which is a flawed definition. Implicit atheism is pure nonsense as it infers a lack of a mental state while atheism is ontology as is theism. This would be agnostic as the person lacks knowledge of a concept thus ontology claims of both.

The same goes for pretty much all statements Shad.

There is no correct definition of atheism, just a variety of imperfect definitions picked up by lexicographers listening in on how people are using words. There is no authoritative definition for any common term in all contexts - people use terms to describe ideas, and dictionaries record the many ways in which they do so. This is an informal conversation, we are using informal language. Formal language is for law and math. Even in formal English by the way - there is still no 'correct' definition for these terms.

Again, I am attacking a flaw definition.

Formal language is used in academia thus philosophy. Even if you support contextualism you must first use it in it's philosophical context then apply it to the human subject context. Your view is not a context which is required or even involved. You are not the subject.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/word-meaning

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So one can be an atheist and believe in god, making the term essentially meaningless as well as inherently incoherent.

Huh?

Some one who is a diest is not an atheist since deist believe in God and atheist dont.

 

[Shad]

Attack away brother.

We could just say babies are not theist, theism is a learned trait. No baby believes in god and they hold no religious beliefs.


The name atheist just bothers people, hell I don't even like it, and that title doesn't change what a baby is or is not.

They would be contextual agnostics as they lack knowledge of our concept thus ontology but could have their own. We just do not know. However the flawed definition still stands as the core issue for such claims. Such flaws render the claim untenable. I likewise take issues with claiming babies are theist due to studies on 5 years old children. This only shows emergence from a contextual agnostics to a gnostic regarding our concepts in normal human languages. More so in order to correlate the study with what babies believe in or not one must removal many aspects of theism to basic components of pattern finding, agency and inference. This stripes theism down to normal agency assumptions placing it on par with a predator may or may not be in a bush which is basic 1 and 2 category errors.

 

[`mud]

Is anyone else lost amongst all this circular bullcrap ?
Babies are pretty much ignorant, except for where the nipple is.
And the parents are dependent on who their preachers are.
There is no default position, other than the ignorance mentioned.
Pass the breast please !
Who's your Mommy ?
~
'mud

 

[Augustus]

What definition is for "implicit theism" ?

Smith defines "implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"

So implicit theism would be "The presence of theistic belief without a conscious acknowledgement of it", I suppose.

Given the scientific uncertainty about the degree to which our brain 'instinctively' sees things from a 'theistic' perspective, it makes about as much sense as implicit atheism. Or perhaps babies are implicit atheists but latent theists, that would be fun.

Lesson: Describing babies as theists or atheists is pointless. Always.

The much more important question is whether or not rocks are atheists

 

[idav]

So implicit theism would be "The presence of theistic belief without a conscious acknowledgement of it", I suppose.

That is quite the interesting trick. Belief could be subconscious I suppose. That could be anyone.

 

[ArtieE]

Let me rephrase things then to see if I can make myself clearer.

Let's change "I believe God exists" to "I believe proposition X is true where X is 'God exists'".

By adding "not" and change true to false, we get four different scenarios:

1) I believe proposition X is true

Theist.

2) I believe proposition X is false

Strong atheist.

3) I don't believe proposition X is true

Weak atheist.

4) I don't believe proposition X is false

Weak atheist.

 

[Pudding]

Smith defines "implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"

So implicit theism would be "The presence of theistic belief without a conscious acknowledgement of it", I suppose.

Given the scientific uncertainty about the degree to which our brain 'instinctively' sees things from a 'theistic' perspective, it makes about as much sense as implicit atheism. Or perhaps babies are implicit atheists but latent theists, that would be fun.

Lesson: Describing babies as theists or atheists is pointless. Always.

The much more important question is whether or not rocks are atheists

In my opinion, because with our current technology or what ever method, it can't be prove whether atheism or theism is the universal default position, so it's pointless to debate who is right. I got it, though i've already contribute in this thread to debate who is right...

Who is the first person to propose the idea that atheism/theism is the universal default position?
Maybe it's not important about who is the first or later person to propose the idea, but the debate is still necessary, why it's necessary is depends on everyone's different reason and the results may vary. My opinion is only subjectively true to myself.