Atheism is not a default position

[atanu]

That's because I'm expressing my own views, which are pretty atheist in nature. I'm not describing the neutral baby's position.

But you did not describe a baby's position. Please be reminded. You said "Atheism is the denial of God, a Secular approach is basically "non-religious" and doesn't' deny a deity, nor posit one....." and then like a true atheist went on to lablel belief of a theist as a myth.

I asked whether the active labeling of a theis's belief as myth is consistent with your stated position of "does not deny ... Nor posit one".

Please refresh your memory. See below.

Atheism is not a default position | Page 9 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Thief]

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

not making the declaration would be a closet atheist.

 

[Thief]

No declaration is every made by the mere "lack of a belief" in anything. No knowledge of the subject is required to lack anything. I "lack" many things that I am not aware of existing.

but if you are aware there is no god.....that would be your belief.
shallow as that might be....

 

[Thief]

Everyone calm down - and answer this simple question.

Without theistic claims, what would you call an atheist?

comatose

 

[Willamena]

Yes.. that's what you often offer as an argument.

I think it was more commentary than argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would argue that you certainly can do neither, and that we do it all the time. You meet someone, and they tell you they are an astronaut. You have no way of verifying or disproving, and so you maybe make a mental note to look into it, or check with someone else who knows them. It's not that you don't believe them, necessarily

Actually, you do. If you do not accept their claim at face value, then you do not accept their claim. You may not necessarily believe they are lying, or that there may not be ANY truth in what they have told you, but the fact that you need verification before you accept their claim means that you have not yet accepted their claim. You disbelieve the claim that they are an astronaut.

- skepticism is not as hard-line as disbelief, but you don't out-right believe them either. So you await further confirmation to jump to either extreme. The state of being uninformed is valid, and real.

But being uninformed is a separate issue from believing or disbelieving. It is not an alternative position. You can believe something despite being uninformed, and you can disbelieve something because you are uninformed. Being uninformed is not a position "between" belief and disbelief, it is a state of knowledge (or how much you think you know); not a state of belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. Babies have neither belief nor disbelief on these points. They have not considered these prpositions at all.

Those who have considered a proposition can have only three position:

"I do believe".
"I do not believe".
"I am undecided".

Being undecided means you don't believe. If you have not yet decided to believe, then you do not yet believe. It's like saying there are three states of having a sandwich:

"I have a sandwich".
"I do not have a sandwich".
"I am thinking about making a sandwich".

Option 3 comes under option 2 - it is a sub-section of not having a sandwich, as obviously you need to not possess a sandwich yet in order to consider making a sandwich. Thinking about making a sandwich, or being undecided, is still a position of not having a sandwich.

 

[Jumi]

not making the declaration would be a closet atheist.

I think you're wrong. I'm openly atheistic, but I don't say there is no gods, just that I don't see them or believe in them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If 'mere lack of belief' meant absence of any mental content then a stone would be an atheist.

I don't see why that would be an issue. If you want to call a stone an atheist, that's fine. I don't see it as any different to saying "this stone is not married" or "this stone does not own a stable" or "this stone is not a poet laureate". It's kind of a meaningless thing to say, but it is still at least just as technically accurate to state "this stone does not possess belief in a God".

Or, if a 'mere lack of belief' meant a lack of knowledge of the proposition wrt to deity, then a baby would be an atheist.

Correction: lacking of belief doesn't MEAN "lack of knowledge" - one can still possess knowledge and lack a belief. But total absence of knowledge of a claim necessitates disbelief in the claim by default. So, yes, a baby would be an atheist. Again, I don't see why this should be any more significant than saying "this baby is not married" or "this baby does not own a stable" or "this baby is not a poet laureate".

If both of these are true then atheists are foolish indeed .. Vacuum minds.

Again, no it doesn't. All it means that saying "I am an atheist" or being identified as an atheist doesn't tell you anything other than that the individual lacks a belief in a God. An atheist can be an atheist for a variety of reasons, it just so happens that one of those reasons is that it is the default position with regards to all claims to not believe them. That doesn't mean ALL atheists are morons who disbelieve because they are ignorant, it just means atheism is a broad term that can be defined as a state of disbelief and the default position with regards to the belief in God.

We are discussing the term 'lack of belief of deity'. In the context of an atheist it can only mean that an atheist has considered the question of existence of deity and has come to a conclusion that the deity in question does not exist.

How does it mean that? A lack of belief is a lack of belief, nothing more. It doesn't mean "lack of belief after considering the claim", it means "a LACK OF BELIEF". I doubt you would contest that someone who has never seen or heard of a boat could be said to not own a boat, so why is it so difficult to concede that a person who may never have been presented with or have the capacity to believe a claim doesn't possess a belief in that claim?

 

[`mud]

I can envision the possibility of one believing.
I don't understand the practice, since I don't believe.
I'll be looking out in the sky till I die, to see a god.
Never going to happen, they're all hiding.
~
'mud

 

[jonathan180iq]

If his default status doesn't exist, how can he have a default status?

It would obviously be the same thing, it just wouldn't have a name.
That was my whole point. We know to call it atheism because the term exists. And the term exists because of theistic claims.
Recall that I earlier asked what you call an atheist if there had never been a claim made about the existence of a deity?

 

[leibowde84]

If 'mere lack of belief' meant absence of any mental content then a stone would be an atheist. Or, if a 'mere lack of belief' meant a lack of knowledge of the proposition wrt to deity, then a baby would be an atheist. If both of these are true then atheists are foolish indeed .. Vacuum minds.

We are discussing the term 'lack of belief of deity'. In the context of an atheist it can only mean that an atheist has considered the question of existence of deity and has come to a conclusion that the deity in question does not exist.

I understand that this is your claim. But, why do you think this is the case? Why would "lack of belief" require consideration? That makes no sense. I lack belief in everything that I am completely ignorant of.

 

[leibowde84]

If 'mere lack of belief' meant absence of any mental content then a stone would be an atheist. Or, if a 'mere lack of belief' meant a lack of knowledge of the proposition wrt to deity, then a baby would be an atheist. If both of these are true then atheists are foolish indeed .. Vacuum minds.

We are discussing the term 'lack of belief of deity'. In the context of an atheist it can only mean that an atheist has considered the question of existence of deity and has come to a conclusion that the deity in question does not exist.

Also, your first point is pretty "foolish", as "atheism" doesn't define a person in any way. It merely represents a lack of belief.

 

[leibowde84]

Why would you assume things when pinned down?

You claimed "You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of". I asked you whether a stone, which is truly unaware can be said to be lacking a belief? Now, you wish to restrict this only to conscious things. As if conscious things can have an empty mind. Ha.

Conscious things can only have the following positions wrt to a prposition: "I believe", " I do not believe", or "I am undecided".

For a mind which is empty in respect of a proposition (as in a baby) or in case of absence of a mind (as in case of a stone) the correct statement is: "neither disbelief nor belief". A stone or a baby is unaware of the proposition.

Yet again, we are discussing a lack of a belief, which merely means to be "without a belief". You keep on making the same claim without supporting it at all. Both the "undecided" and the "disbeliever" "lack a belief" in the existence of God.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Nevertheless, an absence is something, not nothing.

Well of course. Everything is something.
But there is a huge difference between active atheism, or strong atheism, and implicit atheism, which we all share - as expressed by the Abe-Mango explanation.

Not a single person in this thread knew who Abe-Mango was...
Every single person in this thread lacked belief in Abe-Mango.
Every single person in this thread has to admit their implicit atheism, at least in regards to Abe-Mango.
Whether or not the people of this thread choose to now become strong atheists towards Abe-Mango is entirely independent of their implicit atheism towards her.

 

[leibowde84]

but if you are aware there is no god.....that would be your belief.
shallow as that might be....

We aren't discussing the claim that "God does not exist". We are discussing a mere "lack of belief in the existence of God". To "lack" is to "be without". There aren't any other requirements.

 

[Thief]

I can envision the possibility of one believing.
I don't understand the practice, since I don't believe.
I'll be looking out in the sky till I die, to see a god.
Never going to happen, they're all hiding.
~
'mud

from you?.....

 

[Thief]

We aren't discussing the claim that "God does not exist". We are discussing a mere "lack of belief in the existence of God". To "lack" is to "be without". There aren't any other requirements.

word salad.....step forward and define yourself.

lacking....is not a good character trait.

I actually heard it used in a movie.......as an insult.

 

[Thief]

I think you're wrong. I'm openly atheistic, but I don't say there is no gods, just that I don't see them or believe in them.

having not seen and not believing......you have just declared your belief.

You are an atheist.

You said so....that is a declaration.

line drawn

 

[leibowde84]

word salad.....step forward and define yourself.

lacking....is not a good character trait.

I actually heard it used in a movie.......as an insult.

"Lack", in this context, does not mean what you think it does. I'm not sure how many times I have to show you this, but this time I will provide the definitions so it is more clear.

To be "lacking" or "a lack of" means that you have an insufficient amount of something. This form of the word can be derrogatory. However, to "lack" something simply means to be without and signifies absence. Here is the definition of the word:

"I lack a drivers license" = "I am without a drivers license" (not derogatory, as it merely means to be absent of)

"My driving skills are lacking" = "I am a crappy driver" (is derogatory)

lack
lak/
verb

1. be without (how it is used in this context) OR deficient in.