Atheism is not a default position

[McBell]

before declaring there is no god....

If atheism was truly a default position.....belief in God would likely be the odd man out.

Only if you ignore the fact that atheism is also the lack of belief in a deity.

 

[ArtieE]

Again, I am only "excluding" to the same extent you are when you limit atheists to "people."

But, perhaps you can answer the riddle, what is gained by the inclusion of implicit atheism? If nothing is gained, why not limit the terms such that the terms are the most efficient?

Simply look at it this way. From the beginning all people sit on a fence and are implicit atheists whether they know they sit on a fence or not or are aware of the terms or not. If they become aware that they sit on a fence and can jump off to either the theist or the strong atheist side they may jump to any of the sides or remain on the fence.

 

[Bunyip]

Simply look at it this way. From the beginning all people sit on a fence and are implicit atheists whether they know they sit on a fence or not or are aware of the terms or not. If they become aware that they sit on a fence and can jump off to either the theist or the strong atheist side they may jump to any of the sides or remain on the fence.

What fence?

 

[McBell]

Time to lay this rhinoceros to rest. If you accept that atheism describes the person who has no interest in, no knowledge about, or no particular belief about god, then atheism cannot be described as a "default position" on a scale of beliefs.

Default: Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.

Thing about this: belief isn't an act. It's not something we do, and especially not something we choose to do. It's a description of the world, nothing more, nothing less.

Take the world.

The world is the case.

If we wish to examine truth or untruth, belief or doubt, certainty or uncertainty about the world, then we must hold the world distinct from those things we wish to examine. Hence, we will refer to it, and all its parts, as "the case."

The world is the case, and of the case things may be true or false, hence they may be believed or doubted, with degrees of certainty or uncertainty.

If I say, "I believe George went to the store," that lends it uncertainty. It says that because of insufficient knowledge there may some amount of doubt about George's activities, but still I have a degree of certainty about it. Similarly, to say, "I don't believe George went to the store," is to assert its uncertainty. Belief is the case described in such a way as to hold a degree of certainty.

If I say "George went to the store," then asserting the truth of that lends it a face that says there is no doubt, no uncertainty about George's journey. Truth is the case described as apart from me, apart from the certainty a consciousness might know.

That's because a consciousness is distinct from the world it knows.

The default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing. The world is the case.

Both asserting a degree of certainty to the world and describing it as apart from me, apart from any degrees of certainty, are things we do. They are dong something, not nothing. Where the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing, asserting belief and truth--and their counterparts disbelief and falsehood--about what is the case are doing something.

In discussion, we do not fail to do something about the world.

So what, in your opinion, is the "default" position?

 

[Curious George]

Simply look at it this way. From the beginning all people sit on a fence and are implicit atheists whether they know they sit on a fence or not or are aware of the terms or not. If they become aware that they sit on a fence and can jump off to either the theist or the strong atheist side they may jump to any of the sides or remain on the fence.

No, this is not true. The person incapable of belief is not sitting on any fence. They do not, cannot, have a position. They are by definition incapable of having a position on a fence or otherwise. A person on the fence either accepts or rejects both propositions.

 

[McBell]

No, this is not true. The person incapable of belief is not sitting on any fence. They do not, cannot, have a position. They are by definition incapable of having a position on a fence or otherwise. A person on the fence either accepts or rejects both propositions.

False dichotomy.
There are those of us who simply lack belief either way.

 

[Curious George]

False dichotomy.
There are those of us who simply lack belief either way.

Yes, you reject both propositions. That is what I said.

 

[ArtieE]

What fence?

So in your world fence-sitters don't exist. People who don't want to say they believe god exists and don't want to say they believe god doesn't exist because they don't think they have enough evidence to support either position don't exist.

 

[McBell]

Yes, you reject both propositions. That is what I said.

You really should look up the difference between lack and reject.

 

[McBell]

So in your world fence-sitters don't exist.

Interesting you make this assumption.

 

[Curious George]

You really should look up the difference between lack and reject.

To lack, is more inclusive than reject because it also includes those who cannot form a belief. If you have an awareness but you believe neither, you are said to reject both.

To illustrate this I would ask you if you accept the proposition God exists. You would say?

Next I will ask you if you accept the proposition God does not exist. You would say?

Rejecting both claims is lacking belief.

 

[Bunyip]

So in your world fence-sitters don't exist. People who don't want to say they believe god exists and don't want to say they believe god doesn't exist because they don't think they have enough evidence to support either position don't exist.

How on earth did you read that to mean I was saying that certain people don't exist?

 

[Bunyip]

To lack, is more inclusive than reject because it also includes those who cannot form a belief. If you have an awareness but you believe neither, you are said to reject both.

To illustrate this I would ask you if you accept the proposition God exists. You would say?

Next I will ask you if you accept the proposition God does not exist. You would say?

Rejecting both claims is lacking belief.

Yes of course, rejecting the claim 'God exists' is lacking belief.
Accepting that God does not exist is also lacking belief. The belief in question (surely this much is clear?) being the existence of god.

 

[ArtieE]

Interesting you make this assumption.

Bunyip thinks that not believing that God doesn't exist is the same as believing God exists. Hence in his world there are no fence-sitters who haven't made up their minds where to jump.

 

[Curious George]

Yes of course, rejecting the claim 'God exists' is lacking belief.
Accepting that God does not exist is also lacking belief. The belief in question (surely this much is clear?) being the existence of god.

If you accept only the claim "God does not exist" and reject the claim God exists, then you lack belief in God, but you do hold a belief. That belief is that God does not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

If you accept only the claim "God does not exist" and reject the claim God exists, then you lack belief in God, but you do hold a belief. That belief is that God does not exist.

That is the absence of the belief in question. (That there is a God).

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip thinks that not believing that God doesn't exist is the same as believing God exists. Hence in his world there are no fence-sitters who haven't made up their minds where to jump.

How do you figure that by my INCLUDING those people in atheism - that I am saying they don't exist?
So I INCLUDE them, and specifically recognise and categorise their position - but you read that as my saying that they don't exist?

Would it help if I state outright; NO I am NOT denying the existence of such people!
They exist Artie. I am NOT denying that.

 

[Curious George]

That is the absence of the belief in question. (That there is a God).

No, the absence comes not from acceptance of the proposition God doesn't exist. Absence of belief that "God exists" comes from either the rejection or inability to accept the claim that God exists.

 

[Bunyip]

No, the absence comes not from acceptance of the proposition God doesn't exist. Absence of belief that "God exists" comes from either the rejection or inability to accept the claim that God exists.

Yes, and that is atheism. The default. Catch you another time George.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, and that is atheism. The default. Catch you another time George.

Cheers