Atheism is not a default position

[outhouse]

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

Anyone can do research under their definition of implicit and get any results they want.

Ken Ham does research and they even suggested their research showed creationism as well, did you read that at all?

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

FALSE.

Did you read the definition of implicit they used?

I already posted that they define it very differently from implicit atheism.


Its imaginative theism they way they defined it.


And the doc is a known quack

 

[outhouse]

Because with our current technology or what ever method, it can't be prove whether atheism or theism is the universal default position

False.

NO baby is born a theist, and no testing needs to be done to prove it.

Science does not prove anything by the way.


To date gods do not exist scientifically outside mythology, and it will remain that way until there is evidence outside mythology.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe it's not important about who is the first or later person to propose the idea, but the debate is still necessary for some people so that they can learn in the debate and know it's pointless.

False. You would have to actually read these threads in full to understand what is and is not pointless.

I already provided a credible example where the use is not pointless.


Now to theist who follow mythology it may be pointless, by we think following something that does not exist can be pointless as well. But we don't push the point like you are now protecting faith.

 

[Augustus]

Who is the first person to propose the idea that atheism/theism is the universal default position?

The idea that babies are theists (well members of a specific religion) would have been present in many religions I imagine. It certainly is in Islam. Probably some others too but I really don't know.

The earliest reference to babies being atheists that I know about is 18th C. That's the earliest I know anyway, the idea might well predate that.

I'm more interested in who was the first person to say rocks were atheists Anyone know?

 

[Pudding]

False.

NO baby is born a theist, and no testing needs to be done to prove it.

Science does not prove anything by the way.


To date gods do not exist scientifically outside mythology, and it will remain that way until there is evidence outside mythology.

In my opinion i agree that it's very likely that no baby is born a theist, though i can't say that is 100% true, because my conclusion of this is base on my common sense/logic.

False. You would have to actually read these threads in full to understand what is and is not pointless.

I already provided a credible example where the use is not pointless.


Now to theist who follow mythology it may be pointless, by we think following something that does not exist can be pointless as well. But we don't push the point like you are now protecting faith.

As i've not read all of the post in this thread, I've revise my previous post to state that what i say is only my opinion. I'm in no way protecting faith, it's just that for me i think it's not possible to 100% prove which position is the default position. As i've come to this conclusion, i see no need for me to debate and defend my previous views that atheism is the default position, and the debate became pointless (refer to no need or ending) for me.
If others have convincing evidence to support their views on which position is the default position, i stand corrected that they're right about themselves. Not to say that i'm already on a firm ground of opinion, if i've seen convincing evidence/argument made by others which happens to convince me, then my opinion can be change, though it depends on my self reasoning just like everyone else.

 

[Pudding]

The idea that babies are theists (well members of a specific religion) would have been present in many religions I imagine. It certainly is in Islam. Probably some others too but I really don't know.

The earliest reference to babies being atheists that I know about is 18th C. That's the earliest I know anyway, the idea might well predate that.

I'm more interested in who was the first person to say rocks were atheists Anyone know?

Thanks for explaining. I don't know who is the person.

 

[Ouroboros]

lets look at your boy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bargh

controversy has emerged because several recent studies failed to replicate the finding.

Starting in 2013 and 2014, many additional reports began to emerge of failures to replicate findings from Bargh's lab.

In March 2015 yet another paper from Bargh lab was reported to be unreproducible:

Ok. Cool. I can accept that as valid criticism. It would most definitely put doubts on his research.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

I know what implicit atheism is. What I provided was an article where implicit theism was argued. It's not my invention. Just as there can be implicit a-santa-clausism, and implicit a-flying-spaghetti-monster-ism, there are also implicit non-belief in false statements. The default position is non-belief because of lack of any kind of belief in anything. That's my point. A baby is really not more or less implicit x-ist as he/she is implicit non-x-ist.

I can't see the connection that how "implicit atheism" proves the validity of "implicit theism".

Because i) ≠ ii)

Can you elaborate the connection?
What definition is for "implicit theism" ?

It doesn't matter what definition is has. The same was implicit a-theism exist, there must exist implicit a-non-theism. You said it yourself 1)≠4) and 2)≠3).

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Also, it might have evolutionary benefits. We evolved to have these underlying beliefs, because that's part of how and why we can predict predators and prey while hunting. That's how we can foresee weather, harvest, etc because we think there's some kind of "agency" controlling it. All this before we had science.

That we are born with a preset "implicit theism" doesn't mean that theism therefore must be true, of course. It's just might have been an advantage to survival.

 

[Ouroboros]

Theist.Strong atheist.Weak atheist.Weak atheist.

One of those atheists are actually a theist.

 

[Ouroboros]

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...

Agree. That's where I'm going with all this. Really. I'm not trying to convince anyone that babies are born implicit theists, but I'm just trying to show that it's not a settled issue.

Who is the first person to propose the idea that atheism/theism is the universal default position?

It's become more popular in atheist circles that atheism is the default position. People of many other categories (other atheists included) don't think this is accurate.

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.

True. But as long as we see it as a dialogue (like over a beer and BBQ) rather than a debate that has to be won, then we all might learn something.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm more interested in who was the first person to say rocks were atheists Anyone know?

The rocks did. (Shaking my finger to the closest rock with a blaming look)

They implicitly said it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Anyone can do research under their definition of implicit and get any results they want.

Ken Ham does research and they even suggested their research showed creationism as well, did you read that at all?

True.

Now, is there research that shows that babies are born implicit atheists? If not, then it's not a fact, but just an assumption.

FALSE.

Did you read the definition of implicit they used?

I already posted that they define it very differently from implicit atheism.

Of course it's different. If it was defined as "implicit atheism" then it wouldn't be "implicit theism."

Its imaginative theism they way they defined it.

Well, then let's call imaginative theism for implicit theism, doesn't mean that it's not there.

And the doc is a known quack

Ok. Now, show some research proving that babies are born implicit atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

False.

NO baby is born a theist, and no testing needs to be done to prove it.

Then it's an assumption, not a scientific fact.

Science does not prove anything by the way.

Ok. Can you show any research that can suggest that babies are born implicit atheists then?

To date gods do not exist scientifically outside mythology, and it will remain that way until there is evidence outside mythology.

The existence of gods is immaterial to the discussion if babies' default position is implicit atheist or theist. It could very well be that the babies are born with a belief that just happens to be wrong, even though it might be beneficial in evolutionary sense. There are lot of vestiges in evolution. They don't have any bearing on the validity of why they have to stick around.

 

[Pudding]

I know what implicit atheism is. What I provided was an article where implicit theism was argued. It's not my invention. Just as there can be implicit a-santa-clausism, and implicit a-flying-spaghetti-monster-ism, there are also implicit non-belief in false statements. The default position is non-belief because of lack of any kind of belief in anything. That's my point. A baby is really not more or less implicit x-ist as he/she is implicit non-x-ist.

Not sure what to response.

Because i) ≠ ii)


It doesn't matter what definition is has. The same was implicit a-theism exist, there must exist implicit a-non-theism. You said it yourself 1)≠4) and 2)≠3).

I cannot understand your meaning.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not sure what to response.
I cannot understand your meaning.

Well, I can't help you more than that. I think this discussion between you and me was a bit accidental and on the side of the one I have with Outhouse et. al, and perhaps we can continue this one later on? (Besides, reading some of your later posts, I suspect we're on the same side of the issue discussed in this thread. We're just saying things differently.)

 

[Augustus]

The rocks did. (Shaking my finger to the closest rock with a blaming look)

They implicitly said it.

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 277:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating."

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/005-sbt.php

Do you reckon this rock was an implicit theist?

 

[ArtieE]

One of those atheists are actually a theist.

What was the point of writing that when you don't specify which and why?

 

[Pudding]

Well, I can't help you more than that. I think this discussion between you and me was a bit accidental and on the side of the one I have with Outhouse et. al, and perhaps we can continue this one later on? (Besides, reading some of your later posts, I suspect we're on the same side of the issue discussed in this thread. We're just saying things differently.)

No problem.

 

[outhouse]

Now, is there research that shows that babies are born implicit atheists?

Not required

Its a matter of being a theist because if one is not a theist, one is by default an atheist.


So until someone proves a baby is a theist, I don't have to prove anything.

Now just so you know, this was brought up her 4 years ago, and this is not this papers first rodeo here. Someone gad actually found a paper showing these were theist scientist who did this research, to combat the definition of implicit atheism and a babies default state. It was like a joke to these researchers who quote mined and put this study together using mr quacks a lot.