Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

The default with regards to the belief of the existence of anything is to lack a belief in its existence.

As I said, I disagree.

We are born without a belief in the existence of Giraffes, pyramids, stars, supermarkets, chutney, Ipswich and God, amongst many other things. That means that the default position with regards to God is to not believe in their existence, ergo atheism is the default position.

I really don't get why this is so difficult for so many people to understand...

We are born with no data, that's a different thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I said, I disagree.

So what is the default position with regards to belief in giraffes? Are we born believing in giraffes, or are we born not believing in giraffes?

We are born with no data, that's a different thing.

Having no data leads to a lack of belief. Until you have sufficient data, you are unaware of the existence of giraffes, and hence do not believe in their existence.

 

[Willamena]

So what is the default position with regards to belief in giraffes? Are we born believing in giraffes, or are we born not believing in giraffes?

Belief has no defaults.

Having no data leads to a lack of belief. Until you have sufficient data, you are unaware of the existence of giraffes, and hence do not believe in their existence.

I think it equates to a lack of belief... but it also equates to a lack of knowledge, and equally to a lack of tea pots orbiting Mars. Ambiguity makes it a poor interpretation of definition.

Ignorance is not what is meant by "lack of belief." Lack of belief simply refers to having no particular belief about a thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Belief has no defaults.

I'll repeat the question: So what is the default position with regards to belief in giraffes? Are we born believing in giraffes, or are we born not believing in giraffes?

I think it equates to a lack of belief.

BOOM! Done. You just admitted that lack of belief is the default position.

.. but it also equates to a lack of knowledge, and equally to a lack of tea pots orbiting Mars. Ambiguity makes it a poor interpretation of definition.

That's completely irrelevant. The point is that having no data, in YOUR words, "equates to a lack of belief". Therefore, the default position when there is no information present is the lack of belief.

Ignorance is not what is meant by "lack of belief." Lack of belief simply refers to having no particular belief about a thing.

And ignorance is one of the main reasons we lack a belief in something.

 

[leibowde84]

As I said, I disagree.


We are born with no data, that's a different thing.

You've stated this before. Without data, one is not going to believe ... agreed. But, how is that individual not "without" a belief? Not having data necessarily means that you don't believe. It's not like one has to be given the opportunity to believe before that person can be considered to "lack" a belief. All that is required is to not believe. Insufficient or absent data is a great reason for this lack of belief.

 

[Diderot]

Belief is not something we do because it takes no effort to accomplish. Not one neuron has to fire for it to be. It's just the data that already exists in memory that has been confirmed, that's all the stuff we believe.

I have to disagree here: Memory does take a lot of neurons, as well as beliefs, actually what we call "memories" are construction of synaptic links between neurons, when you think of god, beliefs or anything in your memory. You fire thousands of neurons. The network of neurons is of course constantly moving and has been fabricated by your education. It does take some neuron firing to "believe". As for any memory.

This is the crux of the topic: if believing is a state and that state is being negated (essentially eliminated) in order to arrive at a picture of what "atheism" is, then it's not a default of "state of belief." Eliminating the state is not one of the options of being in the state.


Eliminating, through negation, the object, deity, is different from eliminating the state of relation to the object. Do you see?

Well I never said atheism was the default state, but the reasonnable one. For me ignorance/Absolute agnosticism is the default state.
And finally you cant have a relation to a non existence object, or you're lying to yourself. Therefore if you eliminate the object/The deity, you eliminate the relation to the deity.

 

[Willamena]

And ignorance is one of the main reasons we lack a belief in something.

In your view. In mine, it's not a reason at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In your view. In mine, it's not a reason at all.

You've already stated that lacking knowledge about something equates to a lack of belief. You have already admitted that ignorance is a reason for lacking belief.

And you have also evaded my other points and questions. I will ask one last time before I give up and assume you're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong to answer it:

So what is the default position with regards to belief in giraffes? Are we born believing in giraffes, or are we born not believing in giraffes?

 

[leibowde84]

In your view. In mine, it's not a reason at all.

I'm confused. How can ignorance not be a reason for an absence of belief? Isn't it the overwhelming cause of the non-beliefs of everyone. I'm sure there are plenty of ancient/pagan gods that I don't believe in, not because I think that they are impossible, but, instead, simply because I have no knowledge of them whatsoever. You cannot argue with the fact that I "without" a belief in these gods, can you?

 

[Willamena]

I have to disagree here: Memory does take a lot of neurons, as well as beliefs, actually what we call "memories" are construction of synaptic links between neurons, when you think of god, beliefs or anything in your memory. You fire thousands of neurons. The network of neurons is of course constantly moving and has been fabricated by your education. It does take some neuron firing to "believe". As for any memory.

What I said was figurative, but okay.

The point is that it takes no effort to believe a world of propositions that are already sitting pretty.

Well I never said atheism was the default state, but the reasonnable one. For me ignorance/Absolute agnosticism is the default state.

I understand--just explaining my argument.

And finally you cant have a relation to a non existence object, or you're lying to yourself. Therefore if you eliminate the object/The deity, you eliminate the relation to the deity.

No argument there. However, the negated deity isn't really the eliminated deity, that's just how many people seem to use negation. Sadly.

Aristotle was very careful in his wording about negations: an existent is true, or its negation is true. We can form a relation with any true thing. The negation that is true is what we can form a relation with.

The elimination happens when we address non-existent things as if they were true, such as addressing a possible relation with something whose existence we can know nothing about.

 

[Quintessence]

So what is the default position with regards to belief in giraffes? Are we born believing in giraffes, or are we born not believing in giraffes?

I'm sorry, but wouldn't it be neither?

 

[Willamena]

You've already stated that lacking knowledge about something equates to a lack of belief. You have already admitted that ignorance is a reason for lacking belief.

And I already explained how ignorance is not atheism.

And you have also evaded my other points and questions. I will ask one last time before I give up and assume you're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong to answer it:

So what is the default position with regards to belief in giraffes? Are we born believing in giraffes, or are we born not believing in giraffes?

There is no default position in regards to beliefs.

 

[Windwalker]

The default position I described NEVER occurs. It is an hypothetical position for argument's sake. Debating on it is sterile.
What I mean is that the default position would be absoulte agnosticism (Allias: Ignorance of the existence of the concept of a god, and lack of any reflection about our origines.)

Fair enough, I agree it never occurs. I still don't think that lack of conceptualizing and reflection on questions of origin would be considered agnosticism though. I think there is the variable of 'beingness' experience that leads the cognitive mind to reflect upon itself. This is where the birth of symbols and models come into being, in the spiritual or religious sense. What my argument would be is that "something" is experienced that leads to questions and models. It doesn't begin with an idea, but a sense of being. I want to touch a little more clearly on this in a second...

The "reality" is what lies around us without being perceived, once it goes through our sense it is no more the objective reality but subjective analysis of reality.
But if we cant perceive reality (as the reality that IS) we can try to sharpen our analysis of reality through objective modeling.

But this is exactly the problem of this "myth of the given". The myth is that you think you can overcome the subjective through objectivity. You cannot. So-called "objective modeling", is firstly completely saturated with linguistic structures which shape and limit the conceptual mind itself. I assume you are familiar with the field of semiotics? But what is more than simply this is my point that the subjective self cannot be disregarded, or itself be objectified. Reality at its heart is an experienced reality of which you are that reality itself experiencing itself. It cannot ever stand outside itself and begin to hope to see reality as it is! At best, you end up with a two-dimensional stick-figure reality that does not include the individual looking and experiencing itself. That is not reality, that is a caricature of reality.

To not explore the subjective "as it is", is to look at best at only 1/2 of the world. It requires a thorough understanding of how the subject sees and interprets the world - not merely just getting better data, but a deep understanding of the interpretive mind itself, and secondly, it requires expanding ones very own consciousness through the exploration of the subjective self, interiorly. That action, that self-development through subjective exploration, in fact changes how what it perceives "objectively" is filtered into itself and thus altering its own reality, and by effect, the objective world itself through interaction. In short, to say the least, the myth of the given is aptly named: Myth. It is in its own right equal to any other origin myth in the world, defining the world through an idea from itself. But because it is the set of eyes looking at the world, it never sees itself. It assumes it can find it "out there". It's like trying to find your eyes outside yourself while you are looking right through them the whole damned time.

Therefore analysing the hypothesis presented by religion through logic leading to the reasonable position of atheism, can sharpen ones view of reality, getting closer to it, by abandonning, what has been proven to be unreal.

Bah... All atheism is doing is changing the stick figures from a magical god to a mythological view of reality as solely a rationalistic matter. It's in essence just simply a more sophisticated myth. That's all. There is no "it" to get closer to. There is only an unfolding and expanding point of view. The only way to escape the illusion is to transcend any and all conceptions of it into subjective being itself. If you want to talk about the true "default position" it would be nonduality, Enlightenment, which transcends subject/object dualities. It is "being" that is the default, not ideas about what that is.

We might perceive things differently, but the maths and logic of the world stay the same.
That's why we have to rely on science and not personnal feeling to understand what IS the world.

Math and logic exist as mental ideas. Show me the square root of a negative one laying around in nature. The point is, it is the subjective itself that that mathematical reality resides in. It seems rather self-contradictory to then say we can ignore it.

 

[Nakosis]

I quoted the above in full because it is worth reading twice (and thrice), even though all I would add is that for those who to disregard philosophical arguments (I include the use of logic here) but who tend to accept scientific consensus as being (at least likely) true, then I could add that research in evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and elsewhere indicates that "religion is natural, atheism is not" (I put that in quotes because it is the title of one of many peer-reviewed articles in science journals/volumes to demonstrate that this is so).

Religion is natural or a belief in God is natural? Religion doesn't necessarily require a God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I already explained how ignorance is not atheism.

And I already explained that atheism is lacking a belief, and you already agreed that lacking data equates to lacking belief. Ergo: lacking data makes you an atheist. Ergo: atheism is the default.

There is no default position in regards to beliefs.

You have now admitted to knowing that you are wrong and being too stubborn to admit it. Thank you.

I'm sorry, but wouldn't it be neither?

How can you neither believe nor not believe something?

 

[Jumi]

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.

Then what is the default given a particular god? Is not having belief in a god atheism?

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

The default would then depend on whether someone was taught to believe in a god or not. I was taught to believe in the Christian God, but I never believed. For me the default position was non-belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The default would then depend on whether someone was taught to believe in a god or not. I was taught to believe in the Christian God, but I never believed. For me the default position was non-belief.

This is what I don't get. Willamena gives a very clear definition of the default as "Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.", and yet says that there is "no default position with regards to belief". As if it's impossible for a person to choose nothing with regards to belief?

 

[Quintessence]

How can you neither believe nor not believe something?

When the term "belief" simply does not apply. That can happen in many cases. It can happen when something is not a matter of belief (i.e., when something is a matter of knowledge and experience), and it can happen when something lacks the cognitive faculties to believe or not believe (i.e. the sun).

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm...

We are initially driven by our feelings. Subconsciously our mind provides dreams/visions/ideas. This processing occurs in the background unaware to our consciousness. Consciously it seems apparent that someone else is in control of our experience. Psychologically, perhaps belief in a supernatural is the default because of the makeup of our brain. The default for humans.

It's a default because of a lack of information or understanding. The default is where nothing is done. No education, no understanding is provided. Experientially, we are born with a lack of education and understanding. Experientially, dualism is apparent because of how our brain operates. Education leads to a higher percentage of atheism.

However, when we are born, there's no experience, no rationalization, no experience of dualism. A lack of belief in anything. To say a child is born atheist is not unreasonable. They lack a belief in anything, beliefs have not yet developed. However the default position of a human after a certain number of years without sufficient education maybe some form of dualism.

 

[Diderot]

Fair enough, I agree it never occurs. I still don't think that lack of conceptualizing and reflection on questions of origin would be considered agnosticism though. I think there is the variable of 'beingness' experience that leads the cognitive mind to reflect upon itself. This is where the birth of symbols and models come into being, in the spiritual or religious sense. What my argument would be is that "something" is experienced that leads to questions and models. It doesn't begin with an idea, but a sense of being. I want to touch a little more clearly on this in a second...


But this is exactly the problem of this "myth of the given". The myth is that you think you can overcome the subjective through objectivity. You cannot. So-called "objective modeling", is firstly completely saturated with linguistic structures which shape and limit the conceptual mind itself. I assume you are familiar with the field of semiotics? But what is more than simply this is my point that the subjective self cannot be disregarded, or itself be objectified. Reality at its heart is an experienced reality of which you are that reality itself experiencing itself. It cannot ever stand outside itself and begin to hope to see reality as it is! At best, you end up with a two-dimensional stick-figure reality that does not include the individual looking and experiencing itself. That is not reality, that is a caricature of reality.

To not explore the subjective "as it is", is to look at best at only 1/2 of the world. It requires a thorough understanding of how the subject sees and interprets the world - not merely just getting better data, but a deep understanding of the interpretive mind itself, and secondly, it requires expanding ones very own consciousness through the exploration of the subjective self, interiorly. That action, that self-development through subjective exploration, in fact changes how what it perceives "objectively" is filtered into itself and thus altering its own reality, and by effect, the objective world itself through interaction. In short, to say the least, the myth of the given is aptly named: Myth. It is in its own right equal to any other origin myth in the world, defining the world through an idea from itself. But because it is the set of eyes looking at the world, it never sees itself. It assumes it can find it "out there". It's like trying to find your eyes outside yourself while you are looking right through them the whole damned time.


Bah... All atheism is doing is changing the stick figures from a magical god to a mythological view of reality as solely a rationalistic matter. It's in essence just simply a more sophisticated myth. That's all. There is no "it" to get closer to. There is only an unfolding and expanding point of view. The only way to escape the illusion is to transcend any and all conceptions of it into subjective being itself. If you want to talk about the true "default position" it would be nonduality, Enlightenment, which transcends subject/object dualities. It is "being" that is the default, not ideas about what that is.


Math and logic exist as mental ideas. Show me the square root of a negative one laying around in nature. The point is, it is the subjective itself that that mathematical reality resides in. It seems rather self-contradictory to then say we can ignore it.

If I understand well you think that any given reality is entirely subjective therefore studying it is an entire waste of time ?
Im no philosopher, Im a freethinker and a reasonist, if you contest reality itself we have no point to start. If you consider it entirely subjective and that it cannot lie outside of our perception. Then we cannot even discuss it as we differ in perception.

I think I better stop there. But I admit you might be right
I could not agree less about the fact that all reality is subjective. For me, that tree that falls in the forest falls either you witness it or not. For you it doesnt.

By your reasonning you contest the basis of science and logic, how can you discuss with someone that contests the basis of logic without getting crazy, unreliable answers.

Sorry, there are things i cant understand i guess. But Im happy you made me discover this "myth of the given" hypothesis.