Atheism is not a default position

[Blastcat]

Believers will stand on common 'ground' before God and heaven.

If you don't agree....you will stand somewhere else.....or lay in your grave.

I don't care if people who believe certain things tend to congregate.
I only REALLY care if what they say they believe in is TRUE or not.

We know people have strange beliefs of all kinds.
Your veiled threat is MEANINGLESS if it's not true.

 

[Blastcat]

I reason there is ONE Almighty.
there may be lesser gods.
It is written......ye ARE gods.

If you prefer a lesser reasoning....I then do not expect to see you....after you enter your grave.

Please DEMONSTRATE your reasoning.
THEN please, demonstrate that it's "better" than some other reasoning.

Your veiled threat doesn't help your case.

 

[Windwalker]

In fact, religion throughout most of human history was so fundamentally concerned with practice and beliefs so completely tied to all areas of life that the idea of "religion" didn't exist.

However, both scientists and historians are much more in agreement when it comes to the emergence of atheism, a relatively recent phenomenon. Thus the "default" position can be described as (to borrow from set theory) the complement of any set of religious beliefs or religious belief. This definition is not only consistent with the "default' according to scientific research, but also is consistent with studies of religion (historical, philosophical, sociological, etc.).

I enjoy the fine points you put on these things. I've been arguing against this "default position" of atheism from the point of view of beliefs not coming into play in humans until the stage of cognitive development where beliefs are then culturally instilled, that the "default position" is not possible in humans by birth, as a "lack of belief" does not qualify to be applied to the infant, anymore than it does to a rock or a tree. But in reality, as you point out, the "default" historically for humans has been religious in nature, in all that entails. In reality, atheism is in fact a subset of religion itself, as it has no meaning outside that context. So the default even for atheism is religion because it is born out from it. You cannot be an atheist in regard to nothing, and atheist societies have not been the default historically.

Atheism is then two mutually exclusive believes, and therefore meaningless (according to you).

This was a brilliant observation! I've allowed this claim that is made by modern atheists that, "Atheism is a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of Gods", to escape my attention. You are right. It is mutually exclusive, and therefore meaningless. A lack of belief, such as a rock or tree or a human baby is a contradiction to the meaning of disbelief. Unawareness, or incapability of belief cannot be compared with disbelief. They are mutually exclusive. Disbelief cannot exist in a context of simple ignorance.

So all considered, the default position for humans in the context of being capable of holding beliefs is in fact religious, not atheistic in nature, borne out by historical evidence. As far as the infant mind goes, that is excluded from this as they are no more capable of holding a position on anything than vegetables in my garden are (what a fool I would be to say to someone I hold the same point of view on God as a zucchini does - that wouldn't be saying anything favorable about my mind, to say the least). Atheism is defined within a religious context, so therefore religion comes before it, and is therefore the default position. It cannot be "a-theism" without theism coming first. Theism is not defined by contrast against something else which precedes it. But atheism is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This was a brilliant observation! I've allowed this claim that is made by modern atheists that, "Atheism is a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of Gods", to escape my attention. You are right. It is mutually exclusive, and therefore meaningless. A lack of belief, such as a rock or tree or a human baby is a contradiction to the meaning of disbelief. Unawareness, or incapability of belief cannot be compared with disbelief. They are mutually exclusive. Disbelief cannot exist in a context of simple ignorance.

Disbelief is defined as an inability to believe. So how is it contradictory? How is it even contradictory in the manner in which you are defining it? Lacking a belief and disbelief are not even mutually exclusive in the way in which you are defining them!

So all considered, the default position for humans in the context of being capable of holding beliefs is in fact religious, not atheistic in nature, borne out by historical evidence. As far as the infant mind goes, that is excluded from this as they are no more capable of holding a position on anything than vegetables in my garden are (what a fool I would be to say to someone I hold the same point of view on God as a zucchini does - that wouldn't be saying anything favorable about my mind, to say the least). Atheism is defined within a religious context, so therefore religion comes before it, and is therefore the default position. It cannot be "a-theism" without theism coming first. Theism is not defined by contrast against something else which precedes it. But atheism is.

Wow. I... I can't even begin to explain the multitude of ways in which you are just so wrong here. It's almost like a perfect storm of logical fallacies. Still, let's have a go:

The default position with ALL claims, religious or otherwise, is to disbelieve. You talk about the default position, but then you exclude the infant mind for no reason whatsoever, without acknowledging the simple fact that humans beings are not born holding any given proposition as true (as far as we are aware). Ignoring them as far as the default position goes is like saying "I assert the default position is X, but I will ignore all examples of people who start with a default position and simply assert that when they hold X they therefore hold the default position". That thinking is the wrong way around - the point is that we START without belief, and then OBTAIN beliefs over time; therefore being WITHOUT belief is the default state.

The zucchini comment is just an ad hominem which misses the entire point. By defining a default position as lack of belief, I am in no way asserting a zucchini can have meaningful input in the discussion, or that my opinion in equal to that of a zucchini. It is a simple statement of fact.

The fact that atheism addresses what is commonly held to be a religious subject - God - doesn't somehow magically make "religion" the default position. That's like saying that owning a bicycle is the default position, because it was only after the bicycle was invented that the concept of not owning one came to be, therefore owning a bicycle comes before it and owning a bicycle is the default position. That's ridiculous. Nobody owned a bicycle until bicycles were invented, and nobody is born with full ownership of a bicycle, so not owning a bicycle is the default position.

 

[Willamena]

I was trying to understand your view there, because it seems so foreign to me. My view is each defined god you don't know about, you also don't believe in. It's not about like or dislike.


Yes, before you are educated about a certain way you won't have belief about them. What is your view of Ilmatar now that you've heard the name, is it disbelief?

My view is... here's the world. It's everything I know, and everything I interpret about everything I know, and everything other people say to me that they know, and everything implied and assumed and presumed. What it isn't composed of, though, is things I don't know. I don't know... that thing that I don't know. So it's no part of the world.

God's I don't know are not part of the world, so I cannot have a proposition about them, so I cannot have a belief or a disbelief about them, because both belief and disbelief would require me to evaluate a proposition about them. If I learn about them, I can evaluate propositions about them. I can say, "yes, that's so,", or, "no, that doesn't fit at all." What I cannot do is say, "no, that doesn't fit" about things I don't know.

 

[Windwalker]

Disbelief is defined as an inability to believe.

Let's be careful here. It is only an inability when the point has been in fact considered, right? Simple ignorance is not the same thing as "unable to believe" something. If you are ignorant of something, you are neither capable nor incapable of any belief or disbelief. Disbelief cannot be equated with simple ignorance.

But then to take it a step further back where we are talking about an actual inability to cognize anything, such as an infant or a vegetable would be in order to "believe or disbelieve" anything whatsoever, would you using any reasonable use of language ever say a zucchini "disbelieves" in something? Of course not. A child cannot believe or disbelieve anything either until they are capable of it. And then what they believe is what they are programmed to think.

An "inability to believe" only applies to those who are capable of evaluation what they believe or do not believe, not what is incapable of reasoning the thing, which would include simple ignorance as well as basic cognitive abilities. They are only "incapable" of believing something that are able to evaluate. Correct?

So how is it contradictory? How is it even contradictory in the manner in which you are defining it? Lacking a belief and disbelief are not even mutually exclusive in the way in which you are defining them!

They are when you understand them in proper contexts, of course.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, disbelief is regularly defined as an "inability" to accept a given proposition as true, not a negation of a specific proposition. Not accepting a proposition doesn't necessitate a negation of the proposition, merely the not accepting of it.

But that doesn't take "disbelief" out of the context of being a mental state. If I am "unable to accept it," that emphasizes that there is no bloody way in h-e-double hockey sticks that I'm going to say "yes" to that because of the firmness (absoluteness) of my "no" to it.

 

[Willamena]

Oh.. OK.. Sorry, Willamena. You are defining words the way YOU use them. That's perfectly fine.
I can't agree with most of your definitions, and that makes it hard for me to use those words in a conversation with you about them.

IF I want to use the word "trust" or "faith" or "doubt" in a sentence, and we can't even agree what these MEAN.... that's where the conversation ends. Battling over personal definitions to common words.

It's like we aren't talking the same language.

Well, if your goal was to PROTECT your ideas, confusing definitions is one way to go about it.

That's where a skill called "coming to terms" comes in handy.

 

[Blastcat]

I enjoy the fine points you put on these things. I've been arguing against this "default position" of atheism from the point of view of beliefs not coming into play in humans until the stage of cognitive development where beliefs are then culturally instilled, that the "default position" is not possible in humans by birth, as a "lack of belief" does not qualify to be applied to the infant, anymore than it does to a rock or a tree. But in reality, as you point out, the "default" historically for humans has been religious in nature, in all that entails. In reality, atheism is in fact a subset of religion itself, as it has no meaning outside that context. So the default even for atheism is religion because it is born out from it. You cannot be an atheist in regard to nothing, and atheist societies have not been the default historically.

Interesting.. But then again, this is all mere speculation. We don't REALLY know the genesis of religions in humans historically. We can GUESS.. and you made a FINE guess. I truly APPLAUD your guess.

I even love part of your guess.
But it's still just a guess.

Who really KNOWS how people reacted to the very first "religion"? Maybe there WAS a bit of scepticism?

Not all prehistoric people were necessarily DEVOID of all skepticism.. even if NOT a sophisticated modern kind, there is a case to be made for the evolutionary benefits of NOT BELIEVING ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ....

This was a brilliant observation! I've allowed this claim that is made by modern atheists that, "Atheism is a lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of Gods", to escape my attention. You are right. It is mutually exclusive, and therefore meaningless.

That's because you are confused as to what "default position" means in the case of a truth claim.

A lack of belief, such as a rock or tree or a human baby is a contradiction to the meaning of disbelief.

DIS belief and a LACK of belief are... synonymous.

They are synonyms for when a person has NO belief.. just a different symbol for NOT in front of the belief.

So a rock has no belief because it CANNOT have any belief.
A person might not have a belief due to some other reason.

BUT the fact is.. the rock and the person BOTH SHARE NON BELIEF.

the person usually can think of reasons FOR the non belief, but the LACK OF SOMETHING ( in this case belief ) IS the same.

Lets say we are saying that a possible characteristic of a rock and a person is that they are GREEN in color.

THE ROCK IS BLACK.
THE PERSON IS SKIN TONED.
neither are in any way what we would call "Green".

They are both NON green...
They have been both SEEN as DIS-GREENED, or A-greened. ANTI GREEN.. when it comes to being green, both are NOT.

This has NOTHING to do with "why"... they just ARE LACKING IN GREENESS.

Same with cognition of a "belief".

The rock can't HAVE any cognition of a belief in a god, and SO, THEREFORE.. doesn't currently HAVE one of those.
The HUMAN can have a cognitive state called a "belief in a god" but ( in the case of the atheist nonbeliever disbeliever in god ) not currently HAVE ONE of those, either.

They BOTH don't currently HAVE one of those cognitive states called "belief in god".

IN THE TOTAL SET of things that do not currently HAVE a belief in god... we would put both rocks AND those heathen atheists.

Now, if we want to make a set of things that CAN have a belief in god.. we would have to exclude the rocks.

Unawareness, or incapability of belief cannot be compared with disbelief.

But I just did.
Take a HUGE circle.. put ALL the things that don't currently have a belief in any gods.

Dis belief, un belief, non belief, no belief, nothing like belief, no belief found, put these all in one huge circle.

NOW.. we can't compare things that have the possible cognitive state of belief with things that cannot.

SO, now OUT go the rocks.

People CAN have cognitive states we call belief.

What is belief?
How does that arrive in a human being?

Can I have a belief in something that I am completely unaware of?... how could I believe in something that I have no knowledge of?

Can I have a DISbelief in something that I am completely unaware of? Well, if I DON'T currently have a belief.. what do you want to CALL it if not a disbelief?

It's like you want to say that an empty bucket is "FULL" of emptiness.

But it's NOT full of "water" or .. "sand" or "bull****".

They are mutually exclusive. Disbelief cannot exist in a context of simple ignorance.
So all considered, the default position for humans in the context of being capable of holding beliefs is in fact religious, not atheistic in nature, borne out by historical evidence.

Oh, you HAVE historical "evidence". I wasn't aware of that.
Please demonstrate your evidence.

As far as the infant mind goes, that is excluded from this as they are no more capable of holding a position on anything than vegetables in my garden are (what a fool I would be to say to someone I hold the same point of view on God as a zucchini does - that wouldn't be saying anything favorable about my mind, to say the least).

I think even an INFANT has more cognitive abilities than a zucchini. Maybe you can give your evidence that it doesn't.

Atheism is defined within a religious, so therefore religion comes before it, and is therefore the default position.

So ANY idea is the default by this line of reasoning.
I am SKEPTICAL about Bigfoot, but since the idea of Bigfoot occurs before my skepticism, BIGFOOT is the default position.
What does it MEAN to say that Bigfoot is the default ?

Does it mean that we should believe in BIGFOOT ( or any and all truth claims ) ?

What do you MEAN that religion is the default position the way you describe default? ( should we believe ANY and ALL religious truth claims?)

It cannot be "a-theism" without theism coming first.

That's true. MAYBE. Atheism is a reaction to theism. But there had to be some state where theism was considered .. a pre cognitive state. THEN theism is presented as a truth claim.

Theism makes a truth claim that atheism doesn't accept.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Here I am unbelieving in X.
You come around saying that X is true.

I ask for evidence, I am not convinced by your evidence that X is true.
therefore, I don't believe that X is true.

Now, I have a REASON to believe that X isn't true, so far.
But I didn't have to have this reason before you presented your truth claim about X.

I had NO belief about X one way or the other.
NO belief.. notice that.. I had no belief about X.

NONE.. nada.. zip... didn't HAVE A CLUE about any belief in X.

And then, you came around with your X claim.

What came first?

Theism is not defined by contrast against something else which precedes it. But atheism is.

And when it comes to a DEFAULT position, in your view, what comes FIRST is the default position.

WELL... you'd have to prove that the INITIAL FIRST position WAS the theistic position BEFORE the atheist one.. that didn't HAVE a belief in god as a default.

You are confused as to what we MEAN by a default position when it comes to truth claims.

The default position as to any truth claim is NO.

I can explain if you want.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's be careful here. It is only an inability when the point has been in fact considered, right?

No.

An inability is an inability. My one year old cousin is unable to cook, therefore they are not a chef.

Simple ignorance is not the same thing as "unable to believe" something.

It isn't quite the same thing, but it is still one of the reasons a person may have for not believing something.

If you are ignorant of something, you are neither capable nor incapable of any belief or disbelief. Disbelief cannot be equated with simple ignorance.

I'm not equating the two. I have defined disbelief as the inability to believe. If you are completely ignorant of something, then you cannot believe it. Your incapable of belief, therefore you disbelieve it.

But then to take it a step further back where we are talking about an actual inability to cognize anything, such as an infant or a vegetable would be in order to "believe or disbelieve" anything whatsoever, would you using any reasonable use of language ever say a zucchini "disbelieves" in something? Of course not.

Why not? It is incapable of belief. I don't see why it's any more ridiculous than saying "A zucchini can't obtain a degree in forensic pathology". The statement may be largely pointless to make, but it is still accurate.

A child cannot believe or disbelieve anything either until they are capable of it.

Since you have already agreed that disbelief can be defined as an INABILITY to believe, you cannot now suddenly say that somebody can only disbelieve something once they are CAPABLE of it. That makes no sense. If they can't yet believe something, then they do not yet believe it.

An "inability to believe" only applies to those who are capable of evaluation what they believe or do not believe, not what is incapable of reasoning the thing, which would include simple ignorance as well as basic cognitive abilities.

Why? I can see why it is more practical and sensible to only address beings capable of making the distinction, but then I'm not the one who brought up zucchinis and entered them into the debate as if their input means anything. I'm simply sticking by what the definitions of the word means, and explaining why that definition is still meaningful.

They are only "incapable" of believing something that are able to evaluate. Correct?

Incorrect. That which is incapable of belief is that which is incapable of belief. Nothing more.

They are when you understand them in proper contexts, of course.

You have yet to explain that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But that doesn't take "disbelief" out of the context of being a mental state.

I never said it did.

If I am "unable to accept it," that emphasizes that there is no bloody way in h-e-double hockey sticks that I'm going to say "yes" to that because of the firmness (absoluteness) of my "no" to it.

No it doesn't. Being unable to accept something doesn't mean you cannot ever possibly accept it.

 

[Willamena]

If they don't have the capacity then they must lack the belief, correct? Why would ability prevent this?

No, it's not the case that because they lack the capacity to believe they lack belief, because those phrases have different connotations. They cannot lack something they have no capacity to acquire. Lack means "without," and "without" is a relation between two things. Two existent things.

 

[Willamena]

I never said it did.

Well, you did. You took it out of the context of being a mental state and put it in the world when you treated it as something that could be absent from the world.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it's not the case that because they lack the capacity to believe they lack belief, because those phrases have different connotations.

You don't need to believe you lack a belief in order to lack a belief. How many things do you BELIEVE you lack a belief in?

They cannot lack something they have no capacity to acquire. Lack means "without," and "without" is a relation between two things.

No it isn't. "Without" is the absence of a thing in relation to another thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, you did. You took it out of the context of being a mental state and put it in the world when you treated it as something that could be absent from the world.

I'm not sure I've ever treated anything as "something that could be absent from the world".

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that sentence is gobbledygook.

 

[leibowde84]

No, it's not the case that because they lack the capacity to believe they lack belief, because those phrases have different connotations. They cannot lack something they have no capacity to acquire. Lack means "without," and "without" is a relation between two things. Two existent things.

But, we are all "without" any belief we are unaware of, as all that is required is to not hold the belief. Where do you get the idea that knowledge of the belief is required to not hold that belief. That sounds ridiculous.

 

[McBell]

No, it's not the case that because they lack the capacity to believe they lack belief, because those phrases have different connotations. They cannot lack something they have no capacity to acquire. Lack means "without," and "without" is a relation between two things. Two existent things.

I lack a bank account with endless money in it.
However, according to your above quote, I cannot lack said bank account because I have no capacity to acquire it.

Sounds to me you are talking in circles.

Though I can accept the possibility you are merely having trouble adequately explaining it.

 

[Blastcat]

No, it's not the case that because they lack the capacity to believe they lack belief, because those phrases have different connotations. They cannot lack something they have no capacity to acquire. Lack means "without," and "without" is a relation between two things. Two existent things.

One connotation of lacking is not having.
You can not have something that isn't real.

I am without the warrior god ZUBANTIG.
But so is everyone. Zubantig was just made up. It doesn't exist.

I can't BE WITH Zubantig as hard as I try.
I HAVE no choice but to be WITHOUT Zubantig, even though it doesn't exist.

We MUST lack something that we cannot acquire.
Unless, of course, you have a unique and personal way to define the word LACK.

( MAYBE you might agree that a lack isn't like a having )

 

[jonathan180iq]

For example, let's just get a show of hands... who here believes in the fire god Abe-Mango; daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?

Is there no one here who believes in the great fire god, Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?

Do we all lack belief in these deities?

 

[atanu]

Interesting.. .....
They are synonyms for when a person has NO belief.. just a different symbol for NOT in front of the belief.
So a rock has no belief because it CANNOT have any belief.
A person might not have a belief due to some other reason.
BUT the fact is.. the rock and the person BOTH SHARE NON BELIEF.

So, the rock is an atheist.