Atheism is not a default position

[jonathan180iq]

Everyone calm down - and answer this simple question.

Without theistic claims, what would you call an atheist?

 

[atanu]

It does not matter if I ever questioned you about Abe-Mango or not. By telling you of their existence and then questioning you, I have shown your default position of having a lack of belief in Abe-Mango.
But that's a..

Ha ha. What a conclusion. You have not shown my default position. You cannot conclude/assume that without proving.

My rejection will be equal to the position "I do not believe in existence of Abe Mango". Or, if I were not able to prove the non existence, I will take an agnostic position and will not argue with believers trying to prove their beliefs to be false or mythical.

Every atheist actively asserts that beliefs of theists are myths (and many atheists imply that theists are of inferior intelligence). Such positive assertion of atheists stem from an aggressive and active belief in non existence of a deity.

However just to avoid onus of proving their belief, they resort to "lack of belief" stance. And this is even more humorous, since by this logic, even a chair or a stone is an atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

Everyone calm down - and answer this simple question.

Without theistic claims, what would you call an atheist?

Nothing.

 

[`mud]

Goditit,
Amen
now go to sleep !
~
'mud

 

[jonathan180iq]

Nothing.

Exactly.
There would be no need to have this conversation because his default status regarding deities would not exist. There can be no discussion of implicit atheism without there first being a theistic claim.

This means - drum roll please - that the default position for every single thing that has ever lived is.... ?
A lack of belief in deities.
It can only become an active disbelief when there is claimed to be something to believe in.

 

[atanu]

IF you do not KNOW anything about X, please tell us how you could form a BELIEF about X.

Ha ha. Ask that question to an atheist who says that he holds no belief.

Ask that question to atheists who assert to have mere 'lack' or 'disbelief' which as per them are devoid of all mental contents and especially beliefs.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You have not shown my default position.

So what was your level of belief in the existence of Abe-Mango before I brought her up? Was it there at all, or did you lack belief entirely?

My rejection will be equal to the position "I do not believe in existence of Abe Mango".

You now actively disbelieve in Abe-Mango - which is entirely different than your implicit atheism; ie, your default position regarding her.

Or, if I were not able to prove the non existence, I will take an agnostic position and will not argue with believers trying to prove their beliefs to be false or mythical.

Regardless of how you choose to address those who believe in Abe-Mango, you're still an Abe-Mango atheist, are you not? You either believe in the deity or you lack belief in it.
Which is it?

Every atheist actively asserts that beliefs of theists are myths (and many atheists imply that theists are of inferior intelligence). Such positive assertion of atheists stem from an aggressive and active belief in non existence of a deity.

Are theistic claims anything more than mythology? Has anyone ever proven the existence of their gods outside of subjective postulating?

How can I actively and aggressively disbelieve in a deity unless someone asserts that they exist?
Could you have actively disbelieved in Abe-Mango before I told you about her?

However just to avoid onus of proving their belief, they resort to "lack of belief" stance. And this is even more humorous, since by this logic, even a chair or a stone is an atheist.

Except that they don't have the ability to believe anything.

 

[Willamena]

And NOT having is a result of NON Ownership.
What is your point?

But owning a statement doesn't mean that it's TRUE by default.
What is your point?

Just because we can make a statement that it becomes TRUE?
What ARE you trying to say?

No, not having is a result of ownership, too. And, of course owning a statement doesn't make it true--why should it?

My point, at this stage of the post, was just to define "having" as a relation, as you'd (implicitly) asked.

I'm sorry, I'm not at all following your logic.
I can't possibly believe something that I don't know is TRUE.

I don't go around believing in FALSE things.. do you?

No argument, there.

But do you mean that you are WITH every possible truth statement?
You believe every possible truth statement , by default?

Being "with" it would be believing in it? I don't see why. We are with the false statements, too, as well as the ones that have no truth value.

 

[atanu]

You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of.

Suppose, leibowde84 is a stone, unaware of things, can we say that "leibowde84 lacks belief"?

Please pause and try to be honest.

 

[atanu]

So what was your level of belief in the existence of Abe-Mango before I brought her up? Was it there at all, or did you lack belief entirely?
.

I have earlier said it, I had neither a belief nor a dis belief.

Please note that this is a double negative category. The question of belief or disbelief (regarding a thing) simply did not exist.

The question of existence or non existence of a deity does not exist for a baby or a stone. We would then say "... Baby neither dis believes nor believes ...".

 

[Willamena]

Doesn't fit WHAT?

I meant that it doesn't fit with what I know, of course.

You say your default position on other gods is that you DON'T believe, because as you say you don't have a reason to.

No, I was saying I don't believe in Abe-Mango, and stating the reason. I wasn't stating a default position.

That's what it means to have a default of NO when it comes to truth claims.
UNTIL we are give a good reason to believe in the truth of the proposition, we have NO reason to do so.

But I don't have a default of "no" in regards to Abe-Mango. I have a reason to disbelieve.

 

[leibowde84]

Exactly.
There would be no need to have this conversation because his default status regarding deities would not exist. There can be no discussion of implicit atheism without there first being a theistic claim.

This means - drum roll please - that the default position for every single thing that has ever lived is.... ?
A lack of belief in deities.
It can only become an active disbelief when there is claimed to be something to believe in.

Exactly. But, "atheism" doesn't require an active belief. So, the default position is to be "without theism" or an "atheist".

 

[Willamena]

You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of.

Actually, in everything that you are unaware of. And here's the crux: everything I am unaware of is indivisible.

 

[leibowde84]

Suppose, leibowde84 is a stone, unaware of things, can we say that "leibowde84 lacks belief"?

Please pause and try to be honest.

I would assume we are talking about conscious beings, as I am not sure why the term "atheist" would be useful in any way in describing a stone. But, I guess technically you might be able to. Why would that bother you?

 

[leibowde84]

Actually, in everything that you are unaware of. And here's the crux: everything I am unaware of is indivisible.

Exactly. You lack beief in everything you are unaware of. What's the problem?

 

[leibowde84]

I have earlier said it, I had neither a belief nor a dis belief.

Please note that this is a double negative category. The question of belief or disbelief (regarding a thing) simply did not exist.

The question of existence or non existence of a deity does not exist for a baby or a stone. We would then say "... Baby neither dis believes nor believes ...".

"Disbelief" includes both the belief that something does not exist AND the mere lack of a belief. They are not the same thing, and we are discussing the later here.

 

[leibowde84]

I have earlier said it, I had neither a belief nor a dis belief.

Please note that this is a double negative category. The question of belief or disbelief (regarding a thing) simply did not exist.

The question of existence or non existence of a deity does not exist for a baby or a stone. We would then say "... Baby neither dis believes nor believes ...".

"Disbelief" includes both the belief that something does not exist AND the mere lack of a belief. They are not the same thing, and we are discussing the later here.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. You lack beief in everything you are unaware of. What's the problem?

It's indivisible. It can't be "about god," which atheism is supposed to be.

 

[leibowde84]

It's indivisible. It can't be "about god," which atheism is supposed to be.

That makes no sense. Atheism isn't about anything. It is the absence of a specific belief. Absence doesn't require anything.

 

[Jumi]

The declaration..... there is no God.....is a belief.

Yes it is. Luckily you don't need to declare such to be an atheist.