Atheism is not a default position

[Thief]

Thief, you prefer faith in god over the alternative, don't you? How is that different than preferring vanilla over chocolate, or over someone who despises sweets?
It is absolutely a matter of taste. It's a personal preference and nothing more.

I also prefer the logic of cause and effect....
(here we go again)

 

[jonathan180iq]

I also prefer the logic of cause and effect....
(here we go again)

Yes you do - and you also prefer to apply it solely to your faith system and you also prefer to absolve your creator entity from the requirement of cause...

How does any of that prove that you haven't simply settled and chosen one flavor over another?

 

[Thief]

Yes you do - and you also prefer to apply it solely to your faith system and you also prefer to absolve your creator entity from the requirement of cause...

How does any of that prove that you haven't simply settled and chosen one flavor over another?

some things are bitter.....are they not?

 

[jonathan180iq]

some things are bitter.....are they not?

Certainly - and what one person finds bitter another person finds appealing and so on...

 

[Shad]

Of course it's absurd - but it's still factually accurate.

If it is absurd then you admit the definition is illogical thus not factual.

Those things aren't atheists because the issue of belief only applies to things which can believe.

Yes. You seem to forget claims of ontoly also requires a level of understanding thus babies are not atheists since they lack knowledge of ontology and a claim to reject.

The point of their example is that newborns are a relatively blank slate, devoid of decisions or even of the knowledge that there are decisions to be made. They cannot, necessarily, believe in god - and as such would be considered atheists, at least implicitly.

Nope, you already accepted the definition is absurd. Lack of belief fails and is illogical thus this part of the comment is also absurd, see above as well

And yes - calling a baby an atheist is somewhat absurd. But it is still factually accurate, to the point that we can then discuss the nature and evolution of faith in a person's life.

Nope, see above.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If it is absurd then you admit the definition is illogical thus not factual.

It is factually accurate that rocks, sperm, zygotes, and babies do not believe in god. How is it not?
Absurdity doesn't answer the question.

Yes. You seem to forget claims of ontoly also requires a level of understanding thus babies are not atheists since they lack knowledge of ontology and a claim to reject.

No, I do understand that - which is why I admit the absurdity. We aren't talking about the active philosophy of Atheism. We are talking about the starting point for knowledge and belief or disbelief in anything, including god, obviously.

Since babies factually do not believe in god, they can be called atheists, regardless of how absurd it is.

Nope, you already accepted the definition is absurd. Lack of belief fails and is illogical thus this part of the comment is also absurd, see above as well

How has the lack of belief failed?
Do babies actively believe in god? No - they do not.
Since they do not, for WHATEVER REASON, it can be correctly stated that they, at their present state of being and time, lack belief. They also lack knowledge of most things... They lack pretty much everything that we can think of - but no one is arguing against that fact - they're just arguing about the use of a word in an absurd setting.

Nope, see above.

I figured you would have agreed with this, actually, since I see the "babies are atheists" argument spawning from the desire to have a conversation about the origin of belief.
If we can all agree on a starting point for faith, (or knowledge or anything else for that matter) then we can have much more meaningful discussions about the nature of reality, and we can avoid so many endless conversations about completely made-up horse****, like which philosophy babies adhere to... Do you follow?

 

[Shad]

the items you listed are ignorant and incapable.
such is atheism?

No I am arguing against the "lack of belief" definition since theism is an ontological claim thus atheism is a response to this claim and of ontology.

 

[Thief]

No I am arguing against the "lack of belief" definition since theism is an ontological claim thus atheism is a response to this claim and of ontology.

as a response....atheism is not a default.
it had to be thought about and decided upon.

Atheism is a declaration.

 

[Shad]

It is factually accurate that rocks, sperm, zygotes, and babies do not believe in god. How is it not?
Absurdity doesn't answer the question.

It shows that a lack of belief is illogical, nothing more.

No, I do understand that - which is why I admit the absurdity. We aren't talking about the active philosophy of Atheism. We are talking about the starting point for knowledge and belief or disbelief in anything, including god, obviously.

Which is still based on a ontological claim thus is based first on the response, not lack of response, to a claim.

Since babies factually do not believe in god, they can be called atheists, regardless of how absurd it is.

This conclusion is based on an illogical definition and inference thus is illogical. You have no evidence supporting your view either.

How has the lack of belief failed?
Do babies actively believe in god? No - they do not.
Since they do not, for WHATEVER REASON, it can be correctly stated that they, at their present state of being and time, lack belief. They also lack knowledge of most things... They lack pretty much everything that we can think of - but no one is arguing against that fact - they're just arguing about the use of a word in an absurd setting.

Theism is an ontological claim. Atheism is a response to that claim, not a lack of response. If babies lack knowledge then they are agnostic not atheists.

I figured you would have agreed with this, actually, since I see the "babies are atheists" argument spawning from the desire to have a conversation about the origin of belief.
If we can all agree on a starting point for faith, (or knowledge or anything else for that matter) then we can have much more meaningful discussions about the nature of reality, and we can avoid so many endless conversations about completely made-up horse****, like which philosophy babies adhere to... Do you follow?

Ah so lets ignore the foundation of the terms we are using and dismiss these as horse**** then proceed to make horse**** up as we go to justify a silly definition which is based on the horse**** we just dismissed even if flawed. Hilarious.

 

[Shad]

as a response....atheism is not a default.
it had to be thought about and decided upon.

Atheism is a declaration.

Exactly, if is rejection of an ontological claim as not proven/evidence or outright false.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It shows that a lack of belief is illogical, nothing more.

It's quite logical, actually, as it is a factual state.

If we are going to admit that holding belief is possible, (which we obviously are) then we must logically assume that there exists a point before a belief is held, right? (If not - why not?)
That point in time before belief is made active must be considered a period of lacking the current belief. Before belief there is a null state, if nothing else, which does not implement belief. (ie, lack of belief)

Before anyone believed anything, what did they believe?
That's an illogical question, since before belief there could only be a lack of belief.

Which is still based on a ontological claim thus is based first on the response, not lack of response, to a claim.

Atheism with a capital "A" is absolutely a response to the ontological claim of theism. I've been championing that since much earlier in this thread.
And I don't think anyone here has ever made the argument that Atheism with a capital "A" is a philosophy that babies adhere to...

But since there must exist a period before belief, and since part of the implicit nature of that period would naturally include an absence of belief in God (among many many other things) then the phrase is factually applicable.

This conclusion is based on an illogical definition and inference thus is illogical. You have no evidence supporting your view either.

Unless you're going to make the argument that things which have not yet attained belief can somehow believe in god, then there is no other evidence needed. It's simply a logical argument.

How can things which cannot believe actively believe? It just doesn't work.
Things which cannot believe, do not believe - That one works.

Theism is an ontological claim. Atheism is a response to that claim, not a lack of response. If babies lack knowledge then they are agnostic not atheists.

Atheism as a philosophy, absolutely is a response to a claim.
Atheism in general also merely means, etymologically at least, to be "without" or "not" theism.

That period that exists before belief, before the theistic claim, can't it be described as being "without" theism? Why not?

Before your knowledge in math, weren't you "without" math?
https://msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx_tab1.htm

By your own argument, babies can't be agnostics because that would be illogical... You would be ascribing a period before knowledge, which as you claim, at least for belief, does not exist.
If claiming that there exists a period before belief is illogical then why isn't claiming that there exists a period before knowledge illogical?

Ah so lets ignore the foundation of the terms we are using and dismiss these as horse**** then proceed to make horse**** up as we go to justify a silly definition which is based on the horse**** we just dismissed even if flawed. Hilarious.

Yes - hence the admitted absurdity.

 

[Shad]

It's quite logical, actually, as it is a factual state.

Nope as a lack of stance is a guise for shifting the burden of proof which fails.

If we are going to admit that holding belief is possible, (which we obviously are) then we must logically assume that there exists a point before a belief is held, right? (If not - why not?)
That point in time before belief is made active must be considered a period of lacking the current belief. Before belief there is a null state, if nothing else, which does not implement belief. (ie, lack of belief)

Atheism is the rejection of not lack of. Can we assume a belief stance held by a person with no information from said person? Your argument is based on projection of your current ideas on to others. Also based on a flawed inference.

Before anyone believed anything, what did they believe?

That's an illogical question, since before belief there could only be a lack of belief.

They could be agnostic is which the very concept is not known or the form of it we use is unknown. You are assuming a level of knowledge which you have no evidence for a subject.

Atheism with a capital "A" is absolutely a response to the ontological claim of theism. I've been championing that since much earlier in this thread.
And I don't think anyone here has ever made the argument that Atheism with a capital "A" is a philosophy that babies adhere to...

Atheism only has a capital when it is the first word in a sentence. You flaws in grammar are not an argument.

But since there must exist a period before belief, and since part of the implicit nature of that period would naturally include an absence of belief in God (among many many other things) then the phrase is factually applicable.

Which is still based on a flawed definition. You are assuming there is a period of nature without justification based solely on inference of a definition. You actually do not know if it is true or not. You are begging the question.

Unless you're going to make the argument that things which have not yet attained belief can somehow believe in god, then there is no other evidence needed. It's simply a logical argument.

My argument is you have no idea if a babies identifies a bunch of gibberish it speaks or ideas within it's mind are synonymous with your adult language burdened term. They could be ignorant of the similarity, as you could be.

How can things which cannot believe actively believe?

It just doesn't work.
Things which cannot believe, do not believe - That one works.

Thus atheism becomes a point of ontology again in which is accepted or rejected not a lack of.

Atheism as a philosophy, absolutely is a response to a claim.
Atheism in general also merely means, etymologically at least, to be "without" or "not" theism.

In general is irrelevant as common use does not mean correct or logical. It is to ignore the very foundation which the common term is based upon then to put forward the common term as correct.

That period that exists before belief, before the theistic claim, can't it be described as being "without" theism? Why not?

Since the specific term, atheism, is not a lack of theism but rejection of theism.

Before your knowledge in math, weren't you "without" math?
https://msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx_tab1.htm

No as the law of identity in which I am different from my mother, my own person, control my own body, etc. Once I acknowledge that my mother is not me, I am not my mother, I need no formal education in math to figure out that there are two separate individuals in this scenario. I do not need to know the symbols of 1 or 2 to understand this. Most people figure this out before they can read thus understand math.

By your own argument, babies can't be agnostics because that would be illogical... You would be ascribing a period before knowledge, which as you claim, at least for belief, does not exist.
If claiming that there exists a period before belief is illogical then why isn't claiming that there exists a period before knowledge illogical?

Knowledge of does not entail belief in nor requires it. I could believe in aliens but have no knowledge of it/them. My point about knowledge was that a baby could have knowledge which could be synonymous with our terms but we do not attempt to understand if they do or not. We assume babies follow our adult and education based way of thinking while ignoring the possibility of innate knowledge. They would be agnostic to our terminology but have their own thoughts. Again you are using the lack of definition as the sole point of your argument which is a flawed and nonsense within the history, thoughts and development of ideas regarding theism and atheism.

Yes - hence the admitted absurdity.

Thus the lack of definition fails as it requires the ability to understand and hold a belief. Which places atheism and theism right back to ontological claims about reality.

Can cats being atheists? Cats have beliefs. What about dogs, apes, whales, etc.[/quote][/quote]

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'll respond in a bit, Shad. I'm headed to lunch.

EDIT: Before the lunch hour, I was without lunch... I was an Alunchist.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism with a capital "A" is absolutely a response to the ontological claim of theism. I've been championing that since much earlier in this thread.
And I don't think anyone here has ever made the argument that Atheism with a capital "A" is a philosophy that babies adhere to...

I think the disagreement is about which claim, though: "there is a god," or, "there is belief in god."

Theism is the former.

 

[Willamena]

This is a good example, but not because of how you're using it.

The default position for flavors cannot be a preference for vanilla, as that would be a positive. The default could only ever be a lack of preferences, because there have been no other flavor experiences to compare. The newborn has never experienced any flavor other than amniotic fluid and is entirely unaware of any of flavor's existence. So there could only be a lack of favorite flavor, if for nothing else than because the newborn has tasted nothing else in their life. The default favorite flavor would be....nothing.

As with God, until someone is exposed to a flavor, they cannot make a decision based on their favorite flavor. This means that the default flavor of choice is.... nothing.
When someone has no faith in a deity, we call them an atheist.

Flavour occurs upon tasting something. There can be no default position for flavours that does not include flavours.

 

[Underhill]

as a response....atheism is not a default.
it had to be thought about and decided upon.

Atheism is a declaration.

It can be. But first and foremost atheism is a descriptor. One doesn't have to know the word atheist in order to be one. If someone never heard of god or the concept of god he would be an atheist as he couldn't believe (unless he made one up himself, in which case I find belief hard to imagine.)

This is why I think all founders of all religions are charlatans. How does one write about events that could not have happened unless they are either insane or lying?

 

[Willamena]

Atheism as a philosophy, absolutely is a response to a claim.
Atheism in general also merely means, etymologically at least, to be "without" or "not" theism.

That period that exists before belief, before the theistic claim, can't it be described as being "without" theism? Why not?

Before your knowledge in math, weren't you "without" math?
https://msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx_tab1.htm

By your own argument, babies can't be agnostics because that would be illogical... You would be ascribing a period before knowledge, which as you claim, at least for belief, does not exist.
If claiming that there exists a period before belief is illogical then why isn't claiming that there exists a period before knowledge illogical?


Yes - hence the admitted absurdity.

Consider the contradiction that "an atheist is a person who believes in no god" is true and "an atheist is a person who fails to believe in a god or no god" is true, which allows for the principle of explosion.

 

[Underhill]

Consider the contradiction that "an atheist is a person who believes in no god" is true and "an atheist is a person who fails to believe in a god or no god" is true, which allows for the principle of explosion.

Belief is not a religious thing. I believe in a great many things that have nothing to do with god, the mythic or even the unlikely. I believe the foundation on my house to be solid. 130 years of history tells me I am right. That is not a religious belief and requires no religious faith. But it is a form of belief. A fair number of people believe in aliens and alien abduction. It has a great deal in common with religion, but has nothing to do with religion itself.

I can believe I am right about evolution and our origins. It does not make me akin to a religious believer. The two have a whole lot less in common that the religious and those who believe in ET.

 

[Thief]

It can be. But first and foremost atheism is a descriptor. One doesn't have to know the word atheist in order to be one. If someone never heard of god or the concept of god he would be an atheist as he couldn't believe (unless he made one up himself, in which case I find belief hard to imagine.)

This is why I think all founders of all religions are charlatans. How does one write about events that could not have happened unless they are either insane or lying?

oh no you don't.....
an atheist would say......no god.
you need the vocabulary to do so.
you have to think about it.

having thought about it.....the next pronunciation is a declaration.

without the vocabulary the default position is .....ignorance.

 

[Shad]

I think the disagreement is about which claim, though: "there is a god," or, "there is belief in god."

Theism is the former.

Both are theism. A belief in a God is to make a claim that God exists in reality which is the same as there is a god. These are not separate but saying the same thing using different words.