Atheism is not a default position

[leibowde84]

Sure why not?

We have Win, Draw, and Loss. Clear three words corresponding to three clear cases.

OTOH, we have two words: Theism and Atheism ...... and some are trying to impress upon us that the "Atheism" stands for the middle position also.

"Atheism" applies to everyone that "theism" does not apply to. There is no third option, as terms like "agnosticism" deal with knowledge, not belief.

If you hold the belief that God exists, you are a "theist". If you don't hold the belief that God exists, you are an "atheist" or "one who is without theism". I agree that there is a vast difference between those that lack a belief in the existence of God and those that actively believe that God does not or cannot exist. But, that in no way means that they shouldn't be included in the general term "atheism", as they are, by definition, "without theism".

 

[ArtieE]

We have Win, Draw, and Loss. Clear three words corresponding to three clear cases.

We have team A wins, team B wins, and 0-0 no team wins.

OTOH, we have two words: Theism and Atheism ...... and some are trying to impress upon us that the "Atheism" stands for the middle position also.

We have believing team A wins (theism), believing team B wins (strong atheism), and absence of belief that A wins and absence of belief that B wins. 0-0. (Weak atheism). We call both weak and strong atheists atheists simply because they are both not theists.

 

[leibowde84]

Before the brain start. These articles suggest that belief comes naturally when the brain starts working. It's the default behavior of the brain.

Nope. You are reading into the article something that is clearly not there. A child doesn't have the ability to randomly come up with the concept of God on their own. The article doesn't even suggest this possibility. It suggests that, after being introduced to the idea of God, they are predisposed to belief. The "default position" would be that held before being introduced to the concept of God. Thus, the default position of the human brain is "without theism" or "atheism".

 

[Ouroboros]

"Atheism" applies to everyone that "theism" does not apply to. There is no third option, as terms like "agnosticism" deal with knowledge, not belief.

If you hold the belief that God exists, you are a "theist". If you don't hold the belief that God exists, you are an "atheist" or "one who is without theism". I agree that there is a vast difference between those that lack a belief in the existence of God and those that actively believe that God does not or cannot exist. But, that in no way means that they shouldn't be included in the general term "atheism", as they are, by definition, "without theism".

Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that even theists lack belief in some gods, and are therefore partially atheists. We're all atheists to some level. And even rocks and fetuses are implicit atheists. It's all over. Everyone and everything is at some level of atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

Before the brain start. These articles suggest that belief comes naturally when the brain starts working. It's the default behavior of the brain.

The brain before it starts, of course it doesn't believe. It can't. It's off.

The moment is starts, it starts believing things.

You are flat out wrong. The article indicates that only after being introduced to the concept of God, the child starts believing. I am not making any claims about the default being when the brain is "off". That would be absurd. But, you are suggesting that the default position is, for some reason, after the child has been introduced to the idea of God. That just isn't the case.

 

[atanu]

And also, cancelled play, and we also have forfeit (one team not playing giving the other team an automatic win).


The funny thing is, we begin first with: Theism and Atheism to be the exact, binary, polar opposites. There's no middle ground. It's either True or Not-True (which is False). Binary. Two values only.

Then... we start having the discussion about "implicit", "explicit", "weak", "strong", or perhaps half-*** version of atheism. It's half-atheism, barely-atheism, much-atheism, etc. In other words, now suddenly there's values between the state of T and F. It's not just 0 and 1, but 0.5, 0.25, 0.75, and so on. This means that a-theism isn't the opposite of theism, but just another type of descriptor that's kind'a opposite to theism. Oh, and then we also have anti-theism which is 1.5*atheism. It's even stronger than the strongest opposite. And theism are somewhat atheists, so we can never really reach zero, except for implicit atheism because that's what belongs to rocks.

All in all, it just means that the term "atheism" have no real function or value to describe anything. It's just a word to describe what's missing. Sometimes, somewhere, here and there, the "God belief" is missing. We call this property "atheism". So what? Everyone has it. It's everywhere. It's just to different degrees.

So in the end, it's more valuable for a person to identify him/herself with what he/she is rather than this identification of what he/she is not. We're all this *not* anyway. It doesn't tell me anything about a person if he/she is *not* believing in Santa or God or pixies or moon landing or global weather change or chocolate pudding. It doesn't mean anything.

Exactly. Many varieties of atheism that this thread has brought to the fore is already astounding.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope. You are reading into the article something that is clearly not there. A child doesn't have the ability to randomly come up with the concept of God on their own.

Uh. Yes, they do. That's what they're talking about.

The article doesn't even suggest this possibility. It suggests that, after being introduced to the idea of God, they are predisposed to belief.

If you really go through what some of these are saying, they sure do suggest that kids come up with the concept of God on their own. And if you find the post where I quoted one of the researchers from one of his books, his stories exemplify this.

 

[leibowde84]

Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that even theists lack belief in some gods, and are therefore partially atheists. We're all atheists to some level. And even rocks and fetuses are implicit atheists. It's all over. Everyone and everything is at some level of atheism.

This is not true, at least not in this context. "Atheism" is the "lack of belief in God or gods". Thus, in this context, if you believe in any supernatural deity, you are a theist.

 

[leibowde84]

Uh. Yes, they do. That's what they're talking about.


If you really go through what some of these are saying, they sure do suggest that kids come up with the concept of God on their own.

It says that outside stimuli introduce the concept of God to them. I'm not saying that someone has to explain the concept to them, but they can't come up with the idea on their own. And, even if they could, would it really be "God" that they are believing in? Which God? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is not true, at least not in this context. "Atheism" is the "lack of belief in God or gods". Thus, in this context, if you believe in any supernatural deity, you are a theist.

And if you don't, then you're an atheist. In other words, a fetus is an atheist. A cell is an atheist. Any chemical compound is an atheist. The physical world is an atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

And if you don't, then you're an atheist. In other words, a fetus is an atheist. A cell is an atheist. Any chemical compound is an atheist. The physical world is an atheist.

This is a straw man, as the definition of "atheist" is clearly limited to people.

 

[ArtieE]

This is a straw man, as the definition of "atheist" is clearly limited to people.

Can you believe that some people don't have the common sense to understand that we are talking about people when we discuss theism/atheism since people invented theism?

 

[Ouroboros]

It says that outside stimuli introduce the concept of God to them. I'm not saying that someone has to explain the concept to them, but they can't come up with the idea on their own. And, even if they could, would it really be "God" that they are believing in? Which God? It doesn't make any sense.

I read it differently. And I did skim through one of the books from one of the researchers as well. Oh, well.

I'll give you a quote from one of the books (by one of the researchers): "
An atheist mother from Oxford, England, was amazed to discover that her five-year-old son had a firm belief in God against her best efforts."

Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (p. 6). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is a straw man, as the definition of "atheist" is clearly limited to people.

At what point is a fetus a "person"? When does the person identity begin?

My point all along has been that "atheism" label only applies to people, with the ability to think and reason, having cognitive abilities. Before the cognitive abilities, there's no "belief machine" to be assessed. Hence, it only applies to kids that have gained the ability. And at that point, the research shows the default position is to believe.

What you fail to see here is that's my point exactly. We have to use the label "atheist" for people who has a cognitive ability to distinguish between belief and unbelief. And from the research, we are "wired" to have belief by default. So when the cognitive abilities kick in, we're more likely to believe by default than not.

 

[atanu]

We have team A wins, team B wins, and 0-0 no team wins.We have believing team A wins (theism), believing team B wins (strong atheism), and absence of belief that A wins and absence of belief that B wins. 0-0. (Weak atheism). We call both weak and strong atheists atheists simply because they are both not theists.

So, you would like us to believe the following:

Win: Draw:Loss::Theism: Weak Atheism: Atheism. So, "Weak Atheism" is equivalent of "Draw"?

Nice.

 

[Ouroboros]

Another quote from Barrett: "
Children are prone to believe in supernatural beings such as spirits, ghosts, angels, devils, and gods during the first four years of life due to ordinary cognitive development in ordinary human environments. Indeed, evidence exists that children might find especially natural the idea of a nonhuman creator of the natural world, possessing superpower, superknowledge, and superperception, and being immortal and morally good. I call this type of supercreator god God for short. That’s right: children’s minds are naturally tuned up to believe in gods generally, and perhaps God in particular."

Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (pp. 3-4). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[leibowde84]

I read it differently. And I did skim through one of the books from one of the researchers as well. Oh, well.

I'll give you a quote from one of the books (by one of the researchers): "
An atheist mother from Oxford, England, was amazed to discover that her five-year-old son had a firm belief in God against her best efforts."

Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (p. 6). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

Come on ... you know this doesn't even speak to your claim. Obviously the kid learned about God from someone. It just wasn't his mom.

 

[ArtieE]

So, you would like us to believe the following:

Win: Draw:Loss::Theism: Weak Atheism: Atheism. So, "Weak Atheism" is equivalent of "Draw"?

Nice.

1-0 Theism (belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist)
0-1 Strong atheism (no belief God exists, belief God doesn't exist)
0-0 Weak atheism (no belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist)

 

[leibowde84]

At what point is a fetus a "person"? When does the person identity begin?

My point all along has been that "atheism" label only applies to people, with the ability to think and reason, having cognitive abilities. Before the cognitive abilities, there's no "belief machine" to be assessed. Hence, it only applies to kids that have gained the ability. And at that point, the research shows the default position is to believe.

What you fail to see here is that's my point exactly. We have to use the label "atheist" for people who has a cognitive ability to distinguish between belief and unbelief. And from the research, we are "wired" to have belief by default. So when the cognitive abilities kick in, we're more likely to believe by default than not.

Personhood is achieved when the baby becomes physically autonomous.

 

[leibowde84]

So, you would like us to believe the following:

Win: Draw:Loss::Theism: Weak Atheism: Atheism. So, "Weak Atheism" is equivalent of "Draw"?

Nice.

Weak atheism includes implicit atheism.