Atheism is not a default position

[Shad]

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.

Religious beliefs are still a claim of reality which is the same as your belief in ToE. One is more justified than the other but both are still views and claims of reality. Religion is not required at all, it is the result of accepting or believing in a claim. Just as evolutionary biology is a product of belief and acceptance of ToE as claim.

 

[Shad]

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?

Just a off topic problem with this. There are two forms of thought when it comes to knowledge. Rationalism and Empiricism. Only empiricists will agree with you as you are expressing just such a view of knowledge. I am no longer a strict empiricist so I will not agree with you on this point. Hence why I attack the lack of evidence for your views as these are expressed in a strict empiricism form of thought but lacks the evidence for such ideas to be convincing.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Lol you don't know that. It's subjective, you just don't realize that it is subjective, because it's your opinion, ie it's your perspective.

 

[Underhill]

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.

Ignorance is a lack of belief. How can one be ignorant of god and believe in it? But one does not need atheism to not believe. There are a great many things I know nothing about and thus do not believe in them. If someone were to describe some monstrous creature from mars to you, I do not believe in said monster since I never heard of it.

Atheism simply describes the lack of belief. If you walk through life never once thinking about god, then you obviously lack belief in him. Belief is an action, not a descriptor. Atheism is a state of being, not an action. Just as a coward could be a pacifist without ever knowing what pacifism is.

 

[Willamena]

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.

I disagree: only one is theism. The other is a claim about theism.

 

[Thief]

Ignorance is a lack of belief. How can one be ignorant of god and believe in it? But one does not need atheism to not believe. There are a great many things I know nothing about and thus do not believe in them. If someone were to describe some monstrous creature from mars to you, I do not believe in said monster since I never heard of it.

Atheism simply describes the lack of belief. If you walk through life never once thinking about god, then you obviously lack belief in him. Belief is an action, not a descriptor. Atheism is a state of being, not an action. Just as a coward could be a pacifist without ever knowing what pacifism is.

belief is an action....declaration.
atheism is specifically a declaration...no god.

A true pacifist btw, will turn the other cheek.
this is not a safe thing to do, and a true pacifist will know that.

I have done so.(practicing black belt from a bad neighborhood.)

cowardly people are ignorant of what they can do....so fear sets in....and they run.

 

[Underhill]

Lol you don't know that. It's subjective, you just don't realize that it is subjective, because it's your opinion, ie it's your perspective.

Of course it is. But opinions are not religious in nature. Religion takes dogma, a set of ritualized beliefs in a deity or higher power of some kind. Atheism simply says I don't buy into any of it. It isn't dogmatic in any way.

The difference is this. Religion says they have all the answers. I say we have no clue but we are working on it. Dogma requires a set of beliefs rooted in arcane knowledge of some kind that claims to know the answers. The bible, the koran, the book of mormon or the mahayana sutras... Science says the answers may never be found but we will keep looking. And not in some ancient book.

 

[Underhill]

belief is an action....declaration.
atheism is specifically a declaration...no god.

A true pacifist btw, will turn the other cheek.
this is not a safe thing to do, and a true pacifist will know that.

I have done so.(practicing black belt from a bad neighborhood.)

cowardly people are ignorant of what they can do....so fear sets in....and they run.

Every dictionary I know list atheism as a noun, not a verb. Meaning you are an atheist, it does not require you to acknowledge that you are. Just as someone can be an *** without acknowledging they are or even knowing they are.

But you are right, pacifist was probably not the best example.

 

[Underhill]

Religious beliefs are still a claim of reality which is the same as your belief in ToE. One is more justified than the other but both are still views and claims of reality. Religion is not required at all, it is the result of accepting or believing in a claim. Just as evolutionary biology is a product of belief and acceptance of ToE as claim.

One is a claim to knowledge. The other is a search for knowledge. A huge difference there.

 

[Thief]

Every dictionary I know list atheism as a noun, not a verb. Meaning you are an atheist, it does not require you to acknowledge that you are. Just as someone can be an *** without acknowledging they are or even knowing they are.

But you are right, pacifist was probably not the best example.

I heard on the radio, just last night (didn't catch her name) an author interviewed for a book she had written.
Seems she has been espousing a notion about the manner in which we label things.
She claims the label dealt influences our thinking from then on....for the rest of our lives.
She has been doing this study work for decades and science (by neurology) is just catching up.

She then explains, we often think of others inappropriately, just for cause of a poor label.

You might think of me as a stubborn ***.....when in reality I am just well disciplined.

atheist might be a noun....
but to say there is not god....is an action dealt.

 

[Underhill]

I heard on the radio, just last night (didn't catch her name) an author interviewed for a book she had written.
Seems she has been espousing a notion about the manner in which we label things.
She claims the label dealt influences our thinking from then on....for the rest of our lives.
She has been doing this study work for decades and science (by neurology) is just catching up.

She then explains, we often think of others inappropriately, just for cause of a poor label.

You might think of me as a stubborn ***.....when in reality I am just well disciplined.

atheist might be a noun....
but to say there is not god....is an action dealt.

I agree wholeheartedly. But in not knowing about a god at all, one is also an atheist. As they have no knowledge and therefor cannot claim belief in something they have never heard of. They couldn't claim disbelief either, but the fact that they have no belief in god makes them an atheist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think we need a label for the strong ideological desire for infants to be labeled as atheists. It seems to be some strange new flavor of semantical/logical gymnastics stemming from a particularly stubborn strain of "foolish consistency."

 

[McBell]

I think we need a label for the strong ideological desire for infants to be labeled as atheists. It seems to be some strange new flavor of semantical/logical gymnastics stemming from a particularly stubborn strain of "foolish consistency."

Infantheismists?

 

[Shad]

I disagree: only one is theism. The other is a claim about theism.

Both are the same. There is belief in God is still a view of reality. One you may or may not hold yourself but still theism

 

[Shad]

One is a claim to knowledge. The other is a search for knowledge. A huge difference there.

Nope. Both are claims of ontology, that X exists or happens in reality. One is a natural mechanic, another is an entity, both are within reality.

 

[Underhill]

I think we need a label for the strong ideological desire for infants to be labeled as atheists. It seems to be some strange new flavor of semantical/logical gymnastics stemming from a particularly stubborn strain of "foolish consistency."

Semantical/logical gymnastics could describe 95% of the threads on the forum...

 

[Underhill]

Nope. Both are claims of ontology, that X exists or happens in reality. One is a natural mechanic, another is an entity, both are within reality.

Even if I give you that... why does that similarity rule out the other massive differences in perspective?

But the two are not equally dependent on faith. Religion claims to know. Science does not. Science has hypothesis and theories on the subject. This makes it a search for truth and not a or the truth you should believe in. Religion by contrast claims to have the answers built into it's doctrine. You are trying to equate skepticism with faith and if anything the two are opposites.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Semantical/logical gymnastics could describe 95% of the threads on the forum...

Indeed. However, some types of it require more painful contortions than others.

 

[Willamena]

Both are the same.

I disagree, they are distinct claims. One is a claim about god, the other a claim about theism.

 

[Shad]

Even if I give you that... why does that similarity rule out the other massive differences in perspective?

You confuse the methods of justifying two ontological claims as grounding for these not being both claims of ontology. Both still claim each of it's subject exists in reality. IE Evolution is a fact, a mechanic of nature, etc. God exists, first cause, ontological argument, contingent argument, etc.

But the two are not equally dependent on faith. Religion claims to know. Science does not. Science has hypothesis and theories on the subject. This makes it a search for truth and not a or the truth you should believe in. Religion by contrast claims to have the answers built into it's doctrine. You are trying to equate skepticism with faith and if anything the two are opposites.

I never said these were equal nor used the same methods. I am just point out that both make a claim about reality. It is the methods, and products of, that people attack in order to undermine the ontological claim. Skepticism can be applied to either claim regardless of if it is faith or science. Again the claims are equal but the arguments for are not.