Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

It does make it the logically default position on the subject matter of a specific belief.

I don't believe you.

I would assert that there is no default, and, in fact, can be no possible default. There is no circumstance in which we do not interfere in regards to belief

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't believe you.

I would assert that there is no default, and, in fact, can be no possible default. There is no circumstance in which we do not interfere in regards to belief

I have debated with you this in the past. But lets take for example that we have someone who has somehow never had the thought of "god" occur to them. Do they have the quality named "Belief in god"? If they do not have that specific quality of "belief in god" then they are an atheist.

One dose not have this quality "X" innately. It has to be proposed. Therefore if we do not have X then we are without X. We lack "X". I contest that this is useless information until X is proposed. But for it to be proposed one must already be in the state of "not having X".

 

[jojom]

Belief is, indeed, used as a verb, but when it describes a state or relation it's used a noun (he had a belief).

"Belief" is NOT a verb. It's a noun. Please look it up.

The world is all that is the case, so belief is also used as an adjective when it qualifies any particular noun as having the appearance of being the case (it is believed).

Please use "belief" in a sentence as an adjective modifying a noun. ("Believed" is a verb.)

I covered that with the bits of the world that may be false or uncertain. We tend not to believe that the Eiffel Tower is in England if we know it to be in France, although it’s possible someone could have moved it.

No you didn't. Falsity and uncertainty are not instances of unbelief.

If I am the one identifying uncertainty, then it's the case that I have identified uncertainty. I've no argument with that. But that's apart from the argument that I made, which was, as any good argument should be, objective. Making it personal adds nothing to the argument, and as you demonstrate, even weakens it if it leaves room for doubt about my honesty or genuineness. So the objective argument is the more useful.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not singling you out personally at all. What I'm doing is simply using you as the "actor you."

The world is the case because the world is irrefutable.

I have no idea what this means or what "world is the case" means. What case are you referring to?

We hold consciousness to be distinct from the world in order to discuss epistemic topics.

But this is only an operational position, not a philosophical distinction, which is what you seem to imply.

I am making the case for that belief is not an actual act we do in the world, but is supplied at the stage where we describe the world.

Boy, you've got me really confused here.

Belief is the descriptor that lends certainty/uncertainty about what we are describing (regardless of which individual describes it). Similarly, knowledge is the descriptor that lends truth/falsehood.

I would disagree that belief is any kind of descriptor that lends certainty/uncertainty about anything. If anything, I would say that belief only indicates a confidence in the truth of something.

I do apologize if my spelling broke down at the end—it was late when I wrote, and I was tired. By the way, my post is not many arguments, but just one argument. I’ll try again.

We assign bits and pieces of the world—that is the fundamental of language. We give them a sign, a shape, a meaning, a word. The world, as it is understood, is understood like that, in language. There is no part of the world that we describe that is not understood in this way, including relations and abstracts like truth/falsehood, certainty, uncertainty, belief, and doubt. Belief describes a state of investment in the truth or certainty of things. “Belief” isn’t something being done in this case, description is (verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc).

Okay, I think I'm following you here.

“Default” means “the option that obtains if we do nothing,” which of course necessitates that there be options. The options in this case are descriptive: god is real, god may be real, god is not real, god may not be real, god is a misfired neuron mistaken for someone’s best friend, whatever. These are the options about god as it may be, as a part of the world.

As would be the descriptors of peanut butter.

But for some people it opens the door for the question of whether “doing nothing” in regards to belief is one of those options. I don’t think it is, I don’t think that’s a valid interpretation of the meaning of “default.” Refraining from having an option is not one of the options, and it certainly is nothing that can “attain” (“not an option” is just that, not an option). Each moment of our conscious lives is participation in the world, the constant assigning and describing of what’s going on around us.

I might have agreed with you had I not read the definition of atheism as enunciated on the American Atheist web site; "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." whose link can be found in post 56.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Willamena]

I have debated with you this in the past. But lets take for example that we have someone who has somehow never had the thought of "god" occur to them. Do they have the quality named "Belief in god"? If they do not have that specific quality of "belief in god" then they are an atheist.

Quality *snort*.

There is no god for such a person to be atheist about. Atheism isn't about belief in non-existent things, it's about belief in god.

One dose not have this quality "X" innately. It has to be proposed. Therefore if we do not have X then we are without X. We lack "X". I contest that this is useless information until X is proposed. But for it to be proposed one must already be in the state of "not having X".

If one doesn't have this quality X without it being proposed, who has proposed to us that we are without it? Mr. Nonexistence.

 

[Curious George]

are the pronouns correct?

and I believe you can't prove George went to the store.
You didn't see it......
and He's not talking.....

Pronouns are correct, verb is wrong in the last bit. Should be "I am doing" not "I did."

Doesn't matter whether George is talking or not. My statement was valid. Lack of understanding can be resolved, but I think most get it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Quality *snort*.

Care to expound this brilliant rebuttal?

There is no god for such a person to be atheist about. Atheism isn't about belief in non-existent things, it's about belief in god.

Atheism is being without "X". Where X is a "belief in god". A "belief in god" is a quality of an individual. There can be all shapes and sizes but they ether have the quality or they don't.

If one doesn't have this quality X without it being proposed, who has proposed to us that we are without it? Mr. Nonexistence.

The quality in question is of an objective existence. Even if all sentient life was blown off the face of the universe and none left to have the capability to have this quality it still exists as a quality. When the starts stop burning and light goes out it doesn't mean that light doesn't exist anymore or the concept of light never existed. Similarly we have the quality "X".

 

[Willamena]

"Belief" is NOT a verb. It's a noun. Please look it up.

Please use "belief" in a sentence as an adjective modifying a noun. ("Believed" is a verb.)

This is unnecessary pedantry (take it from an expert).

No you didn't. Falsity and uncertainty are not instances of unbelief.

You are welcome to believe in false and uncertain things if you like, but I won't be convinced that you are actually believing in them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not singling you out personally at all. What I'm doing is simply using you as the "actor you."

I have no idea what this means or what "world is the case" means. What case are you referring to?

I am referring to the world, which is the case.

But this is only an operational position, not a philosophical distinction, which is what you seem to imply.

An "operational position" necessary to engage in this philosophical discussion.

Boy, you've got me really confused here.

I would disagree that belief is any kind of descriptor that lends certainty/uncertainty about anything. If anything, I would say that belief only indicates a confidence in the truth of something.

Lends, indicates... certainty, confidence... same difference.

As would be the descriptors of peanut butter.

The difference, though, is that peanut butter attains in the world. Belief does not.

I might have agreed with you had I not read the definition of atheism as enunciated on the American Atheist web site; "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." whose link can be found in post 56.

Regardless, that definition means, according to my argument, that it cannot be a default. It's not dependent upon the definition of atheism, but of default.[/QUOTE]

 

[Willamena]

Care to expound this brilliant rebuttal?

Belief is not a quality, not a characteristic, property or attribute. Those things reside in the object. Belief is an attitude of the subject in its relation to the object.

Atheism is being without "X". Where X is a "belief in god". A "belief in god" is a quality of an individual. There can be all shapes and sizes but they ether have the quality or they don't.

Where a person is ignorant of god, there is nothing for them to be without. No object for the subject to be in relation with (the relation of "without").

The quality in question is of an objective existence. Even if all sentient life was blown off the face of the universe and none left to have the capability to have this quality it still exists as a quality. When the starts stop burning and light goes out it doesn't mean that light doesn't exist anymore or the concept of light never existed. Similarly we have the quality "X".

A magical quality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Belief is not a quality, not a characteristic, property or attribute. Those things reside in the object. Belief is an attitude of the subject in its relation to the object.

A belief in something can be an attribute or quality.

Where a person is ignorant of god, there is nothing for them to be without. No object for the subject to be in relation with (the relation of "without").

They are still without it. That is the part you don't understand. They are "without" the belief. Their knowledge of the thing is irrelevant.

A magical quality.

No. Simply a purely logically deducted quality. You are the one trying to add magic. Concepts can poof out of existence if the person doesn't know that it exists. Even if other people know that it exists.

 

[Willamena]

They are still without it. That is the part you don't understand. They are "without" the belief. Their knowledge of the thing is irrelevant.

You are correct that I don't understand this firm belief in non-existent things.

No. Simply a purely logically deducted quality. You are the one trying to add magic. Concepts can poof out of existence if the person doesn't know that it exists. Even if other people know that it exists.

Logic doesn't allow for non-existent things.

 

[Curious George]

Again you have not addressed a person believing both propositions or rejecting both propositions.

The default position is that which we begin our exploration. Such that nothing has changed with our resolution to the truth. While this is certainly true as you have pointed out, if one did nothing. However, one can do something and still arrive at this same position. So, please elaborate or account for these instances. If one is confronted with two propositions and in that instant of confrontation before they did anything they would have done nothing. So with degrees of certainty or uncertainty we could not ascribe any value. Now when someone rejects both propositions, we are still put back in the situation where we can ascribe no real value. This is also true when someone accepts both propositions. Thus, either of these propositions can represent the initial state just as well as if someone did nothing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And in that sense it is not a default of belief.

Is your argument, then, simply that atheism is not a belief?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think I agree with that rationale- what is the 'default' result of a coin toss? claiming lack of belief in heads doesn't make tails default or vice versa.
no more than my skepticism of atheism makes theism the default..

"Default" result is the toss.

 

[Windwalker]

It seems to me that in defining "default" both starting points and the observations which they lead to are worthwhile and not even really in conflict:

From a purely logical, a priori perspective, atheism appears as a "logical default".
In context with anthropology and human evolution, religiosity is a "human default".

It seems like normally the question arises in the context of arguing about burdens of proof, in which case it would seem that as long as proof is taken to mean a demonstration of rational evidence, then the logical default is the more important, but in some ways I think an awareness of the anthropological basis of religiosity still says something interesting about our tendency to categorize humanity as a "rational animal", but it's a very different point of view than the one which begins with a question about burdens of proof. The question about which point of view is more "important" is not really a question of logic exactly. It's philosophical

I think you key in on something important here. What has struck me about the popular claim that "atheism is the default position", or that theism is, is a vying for a position of preeminence. That if one can claim the title, that that makes them the more essential, more basic, and subsequently more true position. The entire approach is flawed on both sides.

I have argued elsewhere in the related thread that the "default position" is whichever one is the dominantly taught one culturally. It doesn't make one right over the other. But this whole claim about "atheism is the default" by trying to shoehorn an infant who has no beliefs in anything into the atheist camp, is fatally flawed. It has itself as the "true", supposedly "natural" position. Neither position is natural. No infant has beliefs of any kind. The curiosity of such threads is this whole, how shall I call it.... pissing contest. It's absurd. It's all relative.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think you key in on something important here. What has struck me about the popular claim that "atheism is the default position", or that theism is, is a vying for a position of preeminence. That if one can claim the title, that that makes them the more essential, more basic, and subsequently more true position. The entire approach is flawed on both sides.

I have argued elsewhere in the related thread that the "default position" is whichever one is the dominantly taught one culturally. It doesn't make one right over the other. But this whole claim about "atheism is the default" by trying to shoehorn an infant who has no beliefs in anything into the atheist camp, is fatally flawed. It has itself as the "true", supposedly "natural" position. Neither position is natural. No infant has beliefs of any kind. The curiosity of such threads is this whole, how shall I call it.... pissing contest. It's absurd. It's all relative.

Quoted you for 2 reasons, hopefully I can make them clear.

1) In all practical senses, I agree with you. The whole argument of 'default position' to me does seem to be conflating 'default' with 'right'. I basically nodded along with your post.

2) Despite that, there was one point I wanted to raise for consideration. One thing that frankly pisses me off as an atheist is when people try to turn atheism into more than it is (both theists and atheists do this at times). Let me talk personally, for a second, since I think that will enable me to most clearly make my point, but I think this applies commonly;
I am an atheist because there is no form of theism I have even been made aware of that has convinced me it was true. There are obviously forms of theism I am unaware of, and others I probably have a mistaken belief on. But in terms of my atheism, nothing I am aware of has led me to believe in any form of theism.

I cannot reject all theisms, since I am unaware of them all. No-one is aware of them all.
But I'm an atheist because none of the ones I am aware of have convinced me. Not a theist, therefore an atheist.

So, in a sense, atheism IS my default position. Does that convey it with more surety? Well, no...I could be ignorant of most theistic viewpoints, arguments could have been put to me poorly, I could just be stubborn, whatever. These is no judgement on the quality of my decision (and in my case, it is a decision). But it's my lack of theism which makes me an atheist, not an ability to declare theism unilaterally wrong.

Is it useful to declare a baby an atheist? No. Indeed, I've argued that point at times. It appears to me that this argument is commonly used in the way you describe (ie. to confer superiority, or as part of a pissing contest). Nevertheless, I thought it worth extrapolating a little on my thoughts in this area.

 

[Thief]

It seems to me that in defining "default" both starting points and the observations which they lead to are worthwhile and not even really in conflict:

From a purely logical, a priori perspective, atheism appears as a "logical default".
In context with anthropology and human evolution, religiosity is a "human default".

It seems like normally the question arises in the context of arguing about burdens of proof, in which case it would seem that as long as proof is taken to mean a demonstration of rational evidence, then the logical default is the more important, but in some ways I think an awareness of the anthropological basis of religiosity still says something interesting about our tendency to categorize humanity as a "rational animal", but it's a very different point of view than the one which begins with a question about burdens of proof. The question about which point of view is more "important" is not really a question of logic exactly. It's philosophical

Saw a science documentary about belief.
several notations were made...

animals don't appear to have 'anything to look up to'.

We humans do so.....all over the world.

 

[Aquitaine]

Secularism is the default option.

 

[Thief]

Secularism is the default option.

such as?....being part of the pack
granted.

used to walk the streets by myself
but could not help noticing, the pack animals.....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Secularism is the default option.

God I wish that were true...

 

[Aquitaine]

such as?....being part of the pack
granted.

used to walk the streets by myself
but could not help noticing, the pack animals.....

I'm afraid I simply do not understand this reply, would you mind rewriting it with greater clarity please?

God I wish that were true...

Providing they aren't indoctrinated at birth or in childhood, then Secularism is the neutral, default choice.
Babies and children are secular in my opinion, at least until some adult tells them about a God.