Atheism is not a default position

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Default position is a stance of either accepting a proposition and its negation, or rejecting both a proposition and its negation.

How is this different from a position (or is it, in your opinion)? That is, I completely agree that "position is a stance of either accepting a proposition and its negation, or rejecting both a proposition and its negation." But what makes something a default position?

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems like an extremely difficult proposition to prove, since it would essentially require raising someone in isolation from virtually all human society, since the influences of religion, spirituality, and discourse about it (either positive or negative) pretty much permeates all our literature, cinema, TV, theater, history, etc....

Aye, I'm just hypothesizing. My basis is that I know so many people raised
in a religious environment who react so differently to it, that predisposition
(a tendency, as opposed to full blown determinism) looks inherent in the person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everybody is born without it. Not everybody is capable of developing it, it seems, or at least there are those we often call sociopaths who are thought to be generally incapable of at least anything like the normal capacities for empathy humans are.

The research and consensus position (by no means unchallenged) is that humans are predisposed towards religious beliefs, and moreover that nobody is born with a blank slate (well, the consensus position in certain fields other than the cognitive sciences, from evolutionary psychology to cognitive neuroscience, anyway; fields outside of the sciences or that are similarly minimally able to address this question empirically but are predisposed towards a position anyway do exist and for many the "blank slate" position is an ideological preference masquerading as something else).

But I'm not sure how much "blank slate", accurate or not, matters here. If we assume that people are predisposed to belief, disbelief, or that they lack a predisposition, they are still lack beliefs at birth and in ways that atheists can't be said to.

I smell opportunity for researching the issue.
Experiment design would be challenging.
And oh, the rich potential for atheists & believers to argue over the results & their implications!

 

[McBell]

Have you tried logic?

Yes, I have.
Been waiting years for you start using it though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Cut it. I dont like sarcasm.

A = opposite/not Theist = belief in god(s)

It is simple. It is an empty can.

Puting details:

"We believe in these Gods but not these"

Or

"I believe in deities but not as its commonly known of"

Is dressing the can up in colors. It does NOT affect whats not inside "until" someone puts something in it. Until then, it starts empty. Its a default position (nothing is there).

There is NOTHING WRONG with

Knowing atheism is a lack of belief in gods

That its natural for humans to add deminions to words to describe themselves

To know we start life knowing NOTHING at all.

What more do you want?

No sarcasim

Which? Cognitive grammar? Radical Construction Grammar? Construction Grammar? Word Grammar? Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar? Functional Grammar?
Grammar isn't simple. Neither are theories of lexical semantics.

Lexemes are polysemous.

Interesting how many dictionaries, even those intended for linguistics or other scientist, promote such personal beliefs.

The default position seems to be the predilection towards belief. In reality, though, "default position" is an oxymoron (at least in this context). Position requires taking a "place" on e.g., an epistemic continuum (hence the spatial metaphor underlying the term "position" in this context).

Which? Cognitive grammar? Radical Construction Grammar? Construction Grammar? Word Grammar? Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar? Functional Grammar?
Grammar isn't simple. Neither are theories of lexical semantics.

Stop with the sarcism. What are you really saying? Be blunt.

Lexemes are polysemous.

No sarcasim. I dont feel like lookkng this up.

Interesting how many dictionaries, even those intended for linguistics or other scientist, promote such personal beliefs.

No sarcasim. What are you trying to say?

Also there is NOTHING WRONG with having personal beliefs attached to a word with strict definition based on grammae (see above)

The default position seems to be the predilection towards belief. In reality, though, "default position" is an oxymoron (at least in this context). Position requires taking a "place" on e.g., an epistemic continuum (hence the spatial metaphor underlying the term "position" in this context).

Here we go again.

Default position the OP is refering to is that we are not born with knowledge of God. We are born with no knowledge (default) so there is NO position. That "no position" is a claimed position by those who believe we arent born with belief in God.

Stop with the semantics.

 

[leibowde84]

Every single thing that is exists as a proposition open to the human mind*, and so each one comes with its own negation--the "not" of it. Every single propositional thought in the world can be negated. Even the "lack of belief in god" is not exempt from having a negation (not lacking belief in god).

*This excludes thoughts that are false or not sharable.

And it is an eliminative negation where it is "non-existent belief" in god equated with "no belief in god."

So, why shouldn't those with "non existent belief" be included with those that hold "no belief in God". The negation of "the lack of belief in the existance of God" is "not lacking the belief in the existence of God", which is theism. If you do not "lack" something then, by definition, you hold it.

 

[leibowde84]

My argument in that regard is that you either gotta negate a belief (a proposition about a bit of the world) or the act or state of believing (what some have termed "active belief"), but either way they are not the same thing. They are unique negations resulting in two distinct kinds of atheism, and not exchangeable or suitably grouped under an umbrella of either.

In the past I've proposed that those who want to include ignorance of god as atheism find a new term for themselves, but that didn't go over well.

I don't think they should be forced to come up with a new term, as "atheism" should remain as the general, umbrella term for all those who are not theists. That being said, there are already plenty of more specific terms which actually do indicate what a specific atheist might actively believe. But, to your point, "atheism" and "atheism" are states of mind where a belief is either held or not held.

 

[Thief]

Yes, I have.
Been waiting years for you start using it though.

not a clever retort.....but I did use it on someone else.

so....logic...for years you claim....
and you still don't believe in God.....

seems odd to me.

with all that evidence over your head.

 

[Thief]

I don't think they should be forced to come up with a new term, as "atheism" should remain as the general, umbrella term for all those who are not theists. That being said, there are already plenty of more specific terms which actually do indicate what a specific atheist might actively believe. But, to your point, "atheism" and "atheism" are states of mind where a belief is either held or not held.

no umbrellas.....come in out of the rain....

Atheism is as much a claim as believing in God

 

[leibowde84]

no umbrellas.....come in out of the rain....

Atheism is as much a claim as believing in God

There is no claim made by implicit atheism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

,

Stop with the sarcism. What are you really saying? Be blunt.

I wasn't being sarcastic, you have clearly indicated you don't know anything remotely resembling a sufficient knowledge of grammar, logic, linguistics, or anything else to render an informed opinion, and have indicated you can't. Blunt enough?

 

[Thief]

There is no claim made by implicit atheism.

only that it is a default.

I say.....ignorance is a default.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheism is as much a claim as believing in God

How can there be atheists without there first being people who claim that there is a god? How is that possible?

There is no claim made by implicit atheism.

Exactly. It's not a claim at all. It's nothing more than an implicit state.

 

[leibowde84]

only that it is a default.

I say.....ignorance is a default.

Right. Ignorance is included in implicit atheism.

 

[Thief]

Right. Ignorance is included in implicit atheism.

Cannot agree.
Atheism requires consideration.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

,
I wasn't being sarcastic, you have clearly indicated you don't know anything remotely resembling a sufficient knowledge of grammar, logic linguistics, or anything else to render an informed opinion, and have indicated you can't. Blunt enough?

Im not in my ESL class right now (I teach ESL.)

Are you saying: a-theism is Not a lack of belief in deities?

I am not saying personal beliefs dont count. They are not part of the default position (the position or state in which we were born before we are taught anything). Read my full post. Its natural for humans go add deminions to already existing words. Atheist isnt the only. Christianity alone has hundredsnof definitions. That doesnt mean its wrong. The facts that one needs to believe Jesus is Lord and Savior is a must. To be an atheist, one AT LEAST must have a lacknof belief in deities. Everything else does not effect the detinition.

Understand?

 

[leibowde84]

Cannot agree.
Atheism requires consideration.

Why do you think that atheism requires consideration? All that is required is to be "without" or to "lack" belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Cannot agree.
Atheism requires consideration.

So, admittedly, you aren't talking about the same thing...

 

[Thief]

So, admittedly, you aren't talking about the same thing...

atheism.....there is no god

ignorance.....has no position

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Im not in my ESL class right now (I teach ESL.)

As much as I respect applied linguistics, it's as relevant here as is 19th century historical linguistics.

Are you saying: a-theism is Not a lack of belief in deities?

I'm saying that that we have scientifically determined it isn't thanks to neuroscience as I have over and over again and detailed how. Linguistics is and logic need not even be invoked.