Atheism is not a default position

[outhouse]

My child was not born a theist of any kind.

Gods do not exist scientifically so it is factually learned mythology scientifically speaking at this point in time that a child factually cannot possess.

 

[Ouroboros]

126 pages? Holy crap! Sounds like there is a great desire for Atheism to be the "default position". Finally, replacing religion as the rightful heir! Ridiculous. Same thing.

No, no. It was all done to make it easier and simpler to understand atheism. Now, there are no questions or confusion anymore. That's why we all are debating it so much(!)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Huh?

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

Yet, according to you:

Anyone who is not a deist (And any other god-faith) is an atheist (opposite of a theist)

The problem here is that deism is defined in opposition to theism. Thus the "opposite of a theist" is as much a deist as a theist (in fact more so, as historically atheism simply indicated a lack of relations with the gods and did not originate, the way deism did, as almost immediately an "opposite of" theism). More directly, as theists aren't deists, then the above asserts that theists are atheists. Theists clearly aren't atheists (also asserted in the above), so the assertion that deists aren't atheists because "[a]nyone who is not a deist...is an atheist" is simply wrong. It conflates deism "[a]nd any other god-faith" with theism (and polytheism, etc.). This is a clear misuse of the English language and finds parallel misuses in multiple other languages, as it asserts a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Deism isn't theism, and neither is atheism, so to assert that atheism is somehow the "opposite" of theism whilst asserting that deists are necessarily not atheists is to commit a clear logical fallacy.

Most theist I know believe in God no matter how he or she is defined and whether or not this god is involved with us or not. Anyone who had beliefs opposite (a) of those is a atheist.

Theism asserts that a particular type of singular deity exists, in contradiction to both polytheism and deism. Asserting that such contradicting beliefs are, by virtue of being "opposite" of these, beliefs of an "atheist" is to assert that polytheists and deists are atheists.

If you reject or against any belief with gods, you are an anti-theist. A (opposite) anti (against).

Anti-theists doesn't contain the prefix "a", and this prefix even in an elementary, simplistic analysis doesn't mean "opposite" (it is etymologically related to "lack" or "without" in IE).

Theist does not mean monotheist or polytheist it just means belief in deities

Do you have anything other than rhetoric and reliance on ad hoc definitions asserted to be true because you say so that indicate there is anything other than your baseless subjective interpretations at play here?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are making things complicated. Why do people do that?

Does a deist believe in a deity? If they do, they are a theist. Think of it as a hierarchy. You have many types of theists: monotheist, polytheist, diest, and so forth. That is, if diest believe in a deity.

Anti-theists doesn't contain the prefix "a", and this prefix even in an elementary, simplistic analysis doesn't mean "opposite" (it is etymologically related to "lack" or "without" in IE

I did not say a- is against. I said a -is opposite and anti- is against.

I use the word opposite because:

Without is the opposite of with
Lack of has an opposite
For or pro is the opposite of against or con

And so forth.

Just ignore the word opposite. Its confusing people. Just say th contrast of with and use without or lack of to refer to atheist. Probably easier that way

Conclusion

Ifba deist doest not believe in dieties, he is not a theist. If he does, its a atheist. If he is against theism, its antitheist. Please dont insult my intellegence. If i am wrong, then what do deist believe if not a diety that does not communicate with the world?

Deism is a belief system, if I am correct. Atheist is not. Any belief system to where its members dont believe in deities are atheists. Atheism is not a belief system. Its just a position that anyone who disbelieves in deities fall under regardless the faith or lack thereof.

If thiest means belief in deities, the opposite of that is a disbelief in deities. To summarise: thiest of the opposite of atheist. Why? Theist is the root word. Put an a- it makes it contrast, if you like, or opposite of that root word.

Remember, I never said a- is against. Please quote me.

Anyway,

I dont like to talk in circles. I also feel its easier to communicate if we are open to each others views. We can correct each other in a civilized way without needing to insult, put down, etc. Its a habit of people here and I dont care for it. If our discussions are not, rather, productive (we at least admit we understand each other), there is no use of discussing.

Nam.

 

[`mud]

Nam,
AMEN !

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What about 'I don't understand the meaning of "red shirt"'?

I liked what Yorutenchi had pointed out. That isn't a position. That is a fault in the level of communication. If I scream at you in a language you don't understand I haven't actually asked you a meaningful question and you cannot respond in a meaningful way. For us to have this conversation there must be a clear conversation. If it requires the explanation of what the subject is then so be it. It changes nothing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Ignorance is the lack of a specific declaration. Atheism is the lack of the declaration of theism. If there is no declaration of theism then it is atheism.

 

[Thief]

Ignorance is the lack of a specific declaration. Atheism is the lack of the declaration of theism. If there is no declaration of theism then it is atheism.

Oh no you don't....don't make a choice and pretend it's a 'default'.

Atheism IS declaration.....no god.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why don't you spell it out, then?


No, I questioned that, as it obviously makes no sense.

Intentional ignorance of the points given to you is no different than the points often made by YEC.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Oh no you don't....don't make a choice and pretend it's a 'default'.

Atheism IS declaration.....no god.

That is a specific type of atheism. I do not agree that to be the total definition. If you refuse to accept that then there is no further discussion to be had.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

This is going no where fast. Perhaps I can make things simpler for you.

I define atheism at broad as any lack of theistic belief. Any lack of acceptance of a theistic claim. IF you are ignorant of a theistic claim are you in a state of acceptance of that claim? Yes or no ?

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

They are not. You are confused.

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

I don't conflate either. As I have demonstrated. It is you who have decreased both the scope of atheism an agnosticism to suit your needs.

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.

I do not agree with that definition of agnosticism. It is a narrow and misguided view of the scope of the term. Your need to put agnosticism and atheism on the same line and then stake them out has caused you to misunderstand the fundamental properties of both in what they represent and how they are used functionally.

 

[Thief]

That is a specific type of atheism. I do not agree that to be the total definition. If you refuse to accept that then there is no further discussion to be had.

We could have your concession that such a form of atheism.....is a form of ignorance.

Lacking a belief as if you never made a choice?

Point your finger at the baby (again!).....and say atheist.....
I will retort.....ignorance!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We could have your concession that such a form of atheism.....is a form of ignorance.

Lacking a belief as if you never made a choice?

Point your finger at the baby (again!).....and say atheist.....
I will retort.....ignorance!

You misunderstand, as does many in this thread that are normally very informed and comprehending, that the broad definition of atheism is "not theism". It is to be "without theism". IF a baby is without theism due to ignorance then so be it. Ignorance is simply the vehicle in which atheism rides when talking about atheism. I could also point to a baby and say "undeveloped". IT makes no difference. Atheism is not ignorance. Ignorance is not atheism. But someone can be both.

This still takes us far and away from the point of the topic.

 

[Curious George]

You misunderstand, as does many in this thread that are normally very informed and comprehending, that the broad definition of atheism is "not theism". It is to be "without theism". IF a baby is without theism due to ignorance then so be it. Ignorance is simply the vehicle in which atheism rides when talking about atheism. I could also point to a baby and say "undeveloped". IT makes no difference. Atheism is not ignorance. Ignorance is not atheism. But someone can be both.

This still takes us far and away from the point of the topic.

I don't misunderstand, I just remain unconvinced that it is so. The burden of proof is on those claiming it is so. Thus far, those bearing such a burden have failed to meet it.

 

[Thief]

You misunderstand, as does many in this thread that are normally very informed and comprehending, that the broad definition of atheism is "not theism". It is to be "without theism". IF a baby is without theism due to ignorance then so be it. Ignorance is simply the vehicle in which atheism rides when talking about atheism. I could also point to a baby and say "undeveloped". IT makes no difference. Atheism is not ignorance. Ignorance is not atheism. But someone can be both.

This still takes us far and away from the point of the topic.

Write atheist on the forehead of the next baby you see......
and the irrate mother will kick your backside.

or maybe you will get lucky and the mother doesn't know the word.... athiest.
ignorance abounds.....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't misunderstand, I just remain unconvinced that it is so. The burden of proof is on those claiming it is so. Thus far, those bearing such a burden have failed to meet it.

That the definition is a lack of belief? I have met this. IF you disagree can you tell me what it is that would convince you it is so?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Write atheist on the forehead of the next baby you see......
and the irrate mother will kick your backside.

or maybe you will get lucky and the mother doesn't know the word.... athiest.
ignorance abounds.....

I think that if the mother was angry it would be about me writing on her baby. I don't think she really much cared what I wrote.

 

[Thief]

I think that if the mother was angry it would be about me writing on her baby. I don't think she really much cared what I wrote.

side stepping won't work.
why not just run for it.

 

[Willamena]

Hmm. So I expect that by the end of this post, you'll have successfully demonstrated that humans are born with an innate:

A.) Interest in a god (or gods).
B.) Knowledge of a god (or gods).
C.) Particular beliefs regarding a god (or gods).

Because if you cannot, how could anyone take your thesis statement (“Atheism is not a default position “) seriously? Shall we see if you can actually sustain such a seemingly indefensible position on the topic?

No, my argument against this would be that infancy is not the default position of a thinking, reasoning adult, like one capable of being an atheist. But that's another topic.

Does nothing? You mean like “be born a blank slate to be filled up with learned behavior?” Isn't that what human development is all about? Unless you can somehow demonstrate that humans are born believing in X, then won't you have to concede that your argument is a flawed one?

Being born, and the growth and experience that a human acquires in a life-time, cannot accurately be described as "doing nothing." As for beliefs, they are the sum of information that we hold true at any stage of development. They are constantly changing as information changes, and developing as we build upon them. Barring information, we have nothing in which to invest or not invest belief.

Whoa there! Wait. Isn't “believe” a verb? Don't verbs typically involve actions? Aren't actions typically something that we do?

Of course, one can choose to ignore the evidence or work backwards from a given conclusion while trying to shoehorn the evidence to fit your presuppositions … but I digress.

Believing is a verb, as is Donald Trumping. That doesn't make it something we do. Just as Donald Trumping is an incidental emulation of a personality, belief is, regardless of us, the truth of the world that our consciousness has assigned to the information available to us.

I'd like to casually go on the record and say that this next bit just loses me altogether. I have no idea what you're talking about or why it's even necessary to your argument.

Okay.

Why?

We cannot examine truth as long as truth is one of the instruments we use to examine. Apart from their essential capacity to be true in form, concepts like belief, doubt, and certainty are all informed in definition by truth-value (to hold a proposition to truth, to hold a proposition to falsehood, and to hold the case to truth). But we do examine them, and to do so we bring them into the world as if the word could conjure them in being. We talk about beliefs, but as is the case, they do not differ from us as conscious beings participating in the world.

Why not refer to it as “the world?” Why the additional verbiage?

The world can mean a lot of different things to a lot of people. The case carries less baggage, and generally presents a more complete picture. For instance, some would deny that ideas are part of the world.

So what you're saying is that things may be true or false and they can be believed or not believed to varying degrees?

If so, this seems fairly reasonable to me.


Does it? Or does it merely reflect the almost certain fact that omnipotence is not a quality that you possess?

It does. If I say "George went to the store," I express a belief, but uncertainty is minimal at best. If, on the other hand, I take the effort to explicitly state "I believe George went to the store," I express a great degree of uncertainty. I have added uncertainty. The reason for adding "I believe" to the statement is to introduce that uncertainty, and is reflected in the purpose that the word serves and in how we understand our relation to the world. It reflects that metaphysical picture that you stated, that contrasts with omnipotence (knowing all properties and characteristics of all things in the world).

Really? Would you care to substantiate that? Isn't the brain that houses the consciousness a part of the world? Or did George's consciousness saunter off to the store while his brain stayed at home listening to raga and huffing incense?

My argument not a case for whether consciousness is distinct from the world. The very use of "belief" to contrast with omnipotence indicates it. It's how we use the word, we use the world to hold our meager consciousness states of insufficient knowledge distinct from a world of full and complete property and characteristic.

You seem to be getting it just fine.

In the case of humans, isn't the blank slate the default?


Wow. You lost me. I really tried to stay with you on this ride, but you lost me.

My argument continues that, rather than belief being a thing we do in terms of theism and atheism, and especially the discussions and arguments about theism and atheism, what we do is state beliefs. We put the propositions out there to be examined, and when we fling them at each other, that's when theism and atheism enter the picture as entities in their own right.

Just simply believing in god, there is no need for theism. Not knowing what a god is, there is no need for atheism. Investing in those words as if our words were the world, we participate in being the theist and the atheist.

Intentional ignorance of the points given to you is no different than the points often made by YEC.

I assure you, my ignorance is not by my intent.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

side stepping won't work.
why not just run for it.

I'll let you have another go at this post to post something relevant.