Atheism is not a default position

[Monk Of Reason]

Some people think that people who've never heard of god are automatically atheists. Obviously, any concept of god is an unknown to them.

Yet we know the concept exists. We are the ones discussing it. If we know the concept exists, even if they do not, then it exists. They still lack it. They just don't know that they lack it.

I lack things that I do not know of. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

The only time we ever get into conversations about people who have never heard of god is to give perspective to the issue of "lack of belief" vs "belief in the negative". Not that the concept is useful to rocks or babies. It is useful to us. It is useful to you. But it needs to be defined correctly in a comprehensive manor.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, to be clear, are there people here who think the term "atheist" meaningfully applies to rocks?

 

[Ouroboros]

So, to be clear, are there people here who think the term "atheist" meaningfully applies to rocks?

Nope. It doesn't. The term is only meaningful when it applies to a person who has spent at least a few minutes on thinking about the concept of God, and would be a person who is able to distinguish between what belief is and what it's not.

To apply the term "atheist" to a baby that has not formed the neural pathways to even yet comprehend language or abstract thoughts is as ludicrous as calling the universe atheistic. It's just wordplay.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nope. It doesn't. The term is only meaningful when it applies to a person who has spent at least a few minutes on thinking about the concept of God, and would be a person who is able to distinguish between what belief is and what it's not.

To apply the term "atheist" to a baby that has not formed the neural pathways to even yet comprehend language or abstract thoughts is as ludicrous as calling the universe atheistic. It's just wordplay.

Yes, I am aware of this. However, I'm just wondering whether there are people here who are of the opinion that calling a rock an "atheist" is somehow meaningfully descriptive.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In the OP I'm talking about any atheism. Since then, the discussion has shifted and I am once again defending atheism against those who would imply it on behalf of those who cannot be it.

I understand that conversations drift on this forum, but the default position and topic of this thread necessarily deals specifically with implicit atheism and any arguements for or against must remain in that realm.

I don't think anyone participating here is suggesting, or has suggested, that infants are explicitly atheist - having heard the name of Jehova at the moment of their birth and then deciding for or against their faith within a matter of their first few hours... That's not the argument at all.

Now if we want to expand the conversation to deal specifically with explicit atheism, I'm happy to do so. But so long as we all admit that implicit atheism is the default state of things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, to be clear, are there people here who think the term "atheist" meaningfully applies to rocks?

Accurate, yes. Meaningful, no. I personally accept that saying "A rock lacks a belief in a God" is an accurate statement - rocks do lack a belief in God. But the statement itself lacks meaning because it doesn't really add anything to any form of discussion because rocks don't have any input in the debate. The only time I would ever even address rocks being atheists is in attempting to illustrate the difference between a lack of belief and a belief to the contrary, but aside from that I find it meaningless to mention - which is why it's so frustrating to me that so many people who object to my definition of atheism bring it up CONSTANTLY.

If you have no problem with people saying "This rock does not own a house" or "This rock doesn't have a degree", I don't see how saying "This rock doesn't believe in God" should be any more troubling. Although I find it just a silly as stating the other two.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you have no problem with people saying "This rock does not own a house" or "This rock doesn't have a degree", I don't see how saying "This rock doesn't believe in God" should be any more troubling. Although I find it just a silly as stating the other two.

I have no problem with people saying any of those things as long as they don't mind sounding like morons.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not long ago I was accused of using "word games" when I equated the totality of things with God, i.e. pantheism. One time (not here), I was even accused of using the equivocation fallacy by doing it. Now, I believe this claim that a default position of tabular Rasa being equated with atheism should be flagged word games and false equivocation. Keep up the good fight.

There are two separate issues at play here that no one seems to care about; implicit atheism and explicit atheism. Everyone seems to only want to talk about the latter, even though it obviously cannot apply to infants or rocks. Things without contemplation cannot, by definition, be explicitly atheist. They simply remain in a state of implicit atheism - as with all things. It is a state of being. It is defined. And it is defensible. There is no weight or claim of weight behind implicit atheism other than what people are apparently making of it - just as there is no intended weight behind someone claiming that everything is god or simply saying that everything is everything... For example, if your definition of god is simply that god entails everything, then it would fit that definition, as I thought we had already discussed and moved on from.

Any emotional response to the state of implicit atheism is founded on either ignorance or misunderstanding. People don't like having the term "atheist" associated with babies but it's entirely accurate - just like the implicit atheism of a rock is entirely accurate. It doesn't suddenly become inaccurate just because some people don't like it or have associated weight with the word, right? Apples are still red, and implicitly atheist, regardless of whether or not we associate red with BLOOD & DEATH and whether or not we believe in god and like our apples to do the same...

So if we want to debate explicit atheism, let's do it! I'm happy to.
But if we're talking about implicit atheism, and the default position, we should stay on topic when arguing our points, since not doing so would make any conclusions non sequitur.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no problem with people saying any of those things as long as they don't mind sounding like morons.

Fair enough. I actually agree. The fact that I have keep repeatedly saying it because other people keep bringing it up makes me want to gouge out my frontal lobe.

 

[Willamena]

You must not understand the meaning of the word "true", as used in the english language. Here's the definition:

adjective

1. in accordance with fact or reality.
2. accurate or exact.

How can one claim that any statement can be both true or not true. Intent or knowledge of reality has nothing to do with it? That would deal with honesty. If one has no way of knowing whether the light is on or off, their stating it being "on" is either "in accordance with fact or reality" or not.

Atanu is using "true" just fine. Where reality is an unknown, or especially unknowable, any statement made about it would automatically neither conform to nor be accordance with reality. It would be neither true nor false (have no truth value), until the lights come on (until its truth can be assessed).

Knowledge has everything to do with.

 

[Willamena]

Yet we know the concept exists. We are the ones discussing it. If we know the concept exists, even if they do not, then it exists. They still lack it. They just don't know that they lack it.

I lack things that I do not know of. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

The only time we ever get into conversations about people who have never heard of god is to give perspective to the issue of "lack of belief" vs "belief in the negative". Not that the concept is useful to rocks or babies. It is useful to us. It is useful to you. But it needs to be defined correctly in a comprehensive manor.

If we're to take atheism objectively, as it is defined, we have to consider its truth relative to each person's perspective, not just us. Else we're making special exceptions.

 

[Aquitaine]

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

Again, I'm more of an Atheist than a Secularist. I only think Secularism should be followed in politics and education etc.
I was expressing my own Atheist view, not someone else's Secular perspective.

 

[Curious George]

There are two separate issues at play here that no one seems to care about; implicit atheism and explicit atheism. Everyone seems to only want to talk about the latter, even though it obviously cannot apply to infants or rocks. Things without contemplation cannot, by definition, be explicitly atheist. They simply remain in a state of implicit atheism - as with all things. It is a state of being. It is defined. And it is defensible. There is no weight or claim of weight behind implicit atheism other than what people are apparently making of it - just as there is no intended weight behind someone claiming that everything is god or simply saying that everything is everything... For example, if your definition of god is simply that god entails everything, then it would fit that definition, as I thought we had already discussed and moved on from.

Any emotional response to the state of implicit atheism is founded on either ignorance or misunderstanding. People don't like having the term "atheist" associated with babies but it's entirely accurate - just like the implicit atheism of a rock is entirely accurate. It doesn't suddenly become inaccurate just because some people don't like it or have associated weight with the word, right? Apples are still red, and implicitly atheist, regardless of whether or not we associate red with BLOOD & DEATH and whether or not we believe in god and like our apples to do the same...

So if we want to debate explicit atheism, let's do it! I'm happy to.
But if we're talking about implicit atheism, and the default position, we should stay on topic when arguing our points, since not doing so would make any conclusions non sequitur.

I think you misunderstand if you think no one cares. Also, if you think people do not understand, I again think you are wrong. People understand the definition you are using fine. It is the same as a doctor who has never had a patient claiming that they have never failed a patient. It is akin to saying that bad is atheist, or disease is atheist, the most unintelligent are atheists.

However, this is not the default position. The default position refers to one's position in a debate or when confronted with truth claims. This can take the form of acceptance or rejection. That this is misconstrued with the argument that "implicit atheism" is the default with which we are born is just a product of ignorance or trying to defend the default as rejection of opposing claims instead of the acceptance.

However, this argument fails because it conflates two different states of non acceptance, namely the lack of requisite ability to accept with the rejection of a claim. Thus, some may try to employ implicit atheism to defend a stance of weak atheism claiming "nothing changed" but indeed, something has changed as willa has clearly articulated. As the difference between the terms weak atheism and implicit atheism dictates we are dealing with two very, very distinct states. So distinct in fact that people bring it up only to serve one purpose-claiming default status. The default position in debate does not need any defense. One defends this with skepticism. It is okay to reject two claims until evidence is discovered to support one. Generally, this is accepted, and while someone like myself, might point out that we can maneuver the default position to one of belief in either stance the person is taking the same stance that the propositions are equally likely and should be pursuing evidence for or against BOTH propositions. But, this is often not the case. Further, I would greatly enjoy weak atheists to address why God does not exist is as believable as God does exist, perhaps some of them would come out of their shells then.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If we're to take atheism objectively, as it is defined, we have to consider its truth relative to each person's perspective, not just us. Else we're making special exceptions.

If we look at atheism objectively we don't look at it from anyone perspective but based on the objective merits of the arguments. The "concept of god" exists objectively. Atheism is all that do not accept this "concept of god". It doesn't remove any sort of meaning that wouldn't be lost from any other kind of broad stretch of words. The same can be said of theist, enthusiast, patriot, fan, ect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

However, this argument fails because it conflates two different states of non acceptance, namely the lack of requisite ability to accept with the rejection of a claim.

But nobody has conflated the two. We have differentiated between implicit and explicit atheism repeatedly throughout this thread.

Thus, some may try to employ implicit atheism to defend a stance of weak atheism claiming "nothing changed" but indeed, something has changed as willa has clearly articulated.

I've never seen this argument used in any thread in which theistic or atheistic positions have been up for discussion.

 

[Willamena]

If we look at atheism objectively we don't look at it from anyone perspective but based on the objective merits of the arguments. The "concept of god" exists objectively. Atheism is all that do not accept this "concept of god". It doesn't remove any sort of meaning that wouldn't be lost from any other kind of broad stretch of words. The same can be said of theist, enthusiast, patriot, fan, ect.

I wasn't asserting that we assess it from anyone's perspective, but for each perspective. Assessing the definition's truth for each person's perspective is looking at it from the objective perspective, because the definition is about belief. We all have 'em, so if it's to work at all, it will work for each of us.

 

[Ouroboros]

There are two separate issues at play here that no one seems to care about; implicit atheism and explicit atheism.

Both are positions of a cognitive mind. It's not the labels that represent or equate ignorance.

You're making the false equivocation that whatever-x-y-z atheism is somehow the same as ignorance.

Atheism is a label on a person's views and opinions that are not just based on ignorance but based on thoughts and insights. The baby hasn't formed the neural pathways to form opinions yet. That comes later. A rock doesn't have neural pathways either.

Everyone seems to only want to talk about the latter, even though it obviously cannot apply to infants or rocks.

No. I'm talking about both.

Atheism is a label that describes a person's views, opinions, ideas, thoughts, impressions, etc relating to a specific concept. It's not a default blank state, simply because the default blank state has its own term, "ignorance." It's just wordplay to use the term "atheism" to represent "ignorance."

Things without contemplation cannot, by definition, be explicitly atheist. They simply remain in a state of implicit atheism - as with all things. It is a state of being. It is defined. And it is defensible. There is no weight or claim of weight behind implicit atheism other than what people are apparently making of it - just as there is no intended weight behind someone claiming that everything is god or simply saying that everything is everything... For example, if your definition of god is simply that god entails everything, then it would fit that definition, as I thought we had already discussed and moved on from.

The implicit or weak atheist is still a person who has the cognitive abilities at hand to make a thought about what belief is and what it's not. A baby can't have belief or non-belief simply because they don't have the ability to think about it yet.

It's like saying that if a person doesn't have a car, then their car is going in 0 (zero) miles/hour currently.

Any emotional response to the state of implicit atheism is founded on either ignorance or misunderstanding. People don't like having the term "atheist" associated with babies but it's entirely accurate - just like the implicit atheism of a rock is entirely accurate. It doesn't suddenly become inaccurate just because some people don't like it or have associated weight with the word, right? Apples are still red, and implicitly atheist, regardless of whether or not we associate red with BLOOD & DEATH and whether or not we believe in god and like our apples to do the same...

No, the problem is not that at all. The problem is that the label, the term, represents at least, minimally a person and his/her views, which in turn requires at least a mind that has had a few thoughts about it.

So if we want to debate explicit atheism, let's do it! I'm happy to.
But if we're talking about implicit atheism, and the default position, we should stay on topic when arguing our points, since not doing so would make any conclusions non sequitur.

All babies are also implicit anarchists. They don't believe in governments.

They're also implicit deniers of atheism, because they don't believe in atheism.

Babies are implicit nihilist since they don't believe in life.

And on top of that, they think you're wrong, because implicitly they don't believe you're right.

But it doesn't stop there, babies also don't believe that there's not a God, which makes them... theists...

---edit

Oh, by the way, the transgalactic starship that I don't have is currently flying at 0 kph out in space (where it is not).

i.e... wordplay.

 

[Curious George]

But nobody has conflated the two. We have differentiated between implicit and explicit atheism repeatedly throughout this thread.


I've never seen this argument used in any thread in which theistic or atheistic positions have been up for discussion.

Great then we can agree that "implicit atheism" adds nothing and should be discarded. Glad we figured it out.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Great then we can agree that "implicit atheism" adds nothing and should be discarded. Glad we figured it out.

Actually, no. And I never said anything or implied anything of that sort. It is still meaningful to differentiate implicit disbelief from explicit disbelief for means of identifying and understanding the default position, and for creating greater understanding of atheism as a mental state.

 

[Curious George]

And how is it means of understanding the default position?