Atheism is not a default position

[jonathan180iq]

However, I also agree that atheism is not a "default" state whatsoever. To say babies are born "atheist" is ridiculous. They don't have all the information to make any sort of choice at all - including whether or not to "believe" in something they cannot possibly know anything about. Think of it like this - how many of you would say that babies aren't of a purer mind-set on matters of "belief" than any of us? Of course they are. They have literally nothing to compare/contrast in that realm. They are blissfully ignorant of even the concept of "belief". Therefore they are not "atheist", which is a hodge-podge and bemuddlement of non-belief (and many times belief) about certain things. Their slate is cleaner than any atheist's could ever hope to be.

Does anyone on this board believe in the gods that they've never heard of?
Could they possibly?

Unless you or I are taught to believe something, (either by another person or based on our conclusions and experiences) we won't believe it. Therefore, in regards to the gods we've never heard of, we are all atheists, as we lack a belief in those gods.

Even the pious among us, who have a pet deity of choice, reject the deity or existence of some god somewhere, making them atheists as well.
How would this be possible, unless our default position was, in fact, atheism?

Notice I did not say that our default position was Atheism, capital A.
Capital A atheism has a whole set of assumptions made about it. Implicit atheism is just a default setting that we all have in regards to all kinds of things, and we have it from birth.

Until someone can show me a baby who is born praising the name of Allah, the fact will remain that atheism is the default position.

 

[leibowde84]

I get this from the dictionary:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

"Belief" and "disbelief" require thought and/or comprehension. "Lack of belief" I would give you, but that's not what we're discussing here, and everyone knows it.

Look up disbelief.
Disbelief is "lack of faith".

 

[Quintessence]

But belief is simply the state of accepting a given proposition as true.

If that is the case, it is not unreasonable to suggest that if something is incapable of the "state of accepting," it can neither believe nor not believe. Additionally, considering there are additional states beyond the "state of accepting," such as the "state of experiencing" and the "state of knowing," that "belief" and "not belief" are not necessarily the best terms to apply.

FYI, I really don't give two $#@% about the implications this has for defining theism and atheism. I think both terms are total rubbish, as they both fail to get at what the actual worldview is.

Therefore, you cannot neither hold a belief nor lack a belief. You either accept a given proposition as true or you do not, you cannot do both or neither. If you lack the faculties to have a belief, then by default you lack that particular belief.

If that's the story you wish to tell, so be it. I've never been a fan of black-and-white, this-or-that thinking. In addition to finding it incredibly boring, I also don't find it to be reflective of how humans account their experience reality.

 

[atanu]

But belief is simply the state of accepting a given proposition as true. If you do not hold a proposition to be true, then you do not hold that belief. If you have yet to learn or hear anything about the sun, or have never seen the sun, or lack the ability to even comprehend the idea of the sun, you can be said to not currently hold the position that the sun exists to be true - therefore, you do not believe in the sun. You lack a belief in the sun.

Therefore, you cannot neither hold a belief nor lack a belief. You either accept a given proposition as true or you do not, you cannot do both or neither. If you lack the faculties to have a belief, then by default you lack that particular belief.

Suppose a man sees sun and asserts its truth. A blind man does not see the sun and hence says "i neither disbelieve nor believe in existence of sun".

There is another man who apparently claims as the latter, saying "i have no belief regarding the sun", but he continually contests the former non blind person, saying "your belief is false. You could not have seen the sun". This man actually holds a belief that there is no sun but in order to avoid proving his position he takes a position of 'no belief'.

 

[atanu]

You either accept a given proposition as true or you do not. You cannot do both or neither."

You can. You can say "i neither believe nor disbelieve".

If you lack the faculties to have a belief, then by default you lack that particular belief.

If you lack faculties to either accept or reject a proposition on a belief as true or false, you say "i neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of a deity". Atheist's position is not that

 

[atanu]

Until someone can show me a baby who is born praising the name of Allah, the fact will remain that atheism is the default position.

And show us a baby who says "I am an atheist. I lack a belief on deity."

 

[atanu]

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.

I am wondering whether this will some 100 years hence be known as Willamena's proof?

 

[Willamena]

Does anyone on this board believe in the gods that they've never heard of?
Could they possibly?

Unless you or I are taught to believe something, (either by another person or based on our conclusions and experiences) we won't believe it. Therefore, in regards to the gods we've never heard of, we are all atheists, as we lack a belief in those gods.

Even the pious among us, who have a pet deity of choice, reject the deity or existence of some god somewhere, making them atheists as well.
How would this be possible, unless our default position was, in fact, atheism?

Is atheism rejection? I'd not argue that, but if you are not aware of the existence of something, you have no opportunity to reject it.

Notice I did not say that our default position was Atheism, capital A.
Capital A atheism has a whole set of assumptions made about it. Implicit atheism is just a default setting that we all have in regards to all kinds of things, and we have it from birth.

Until someone can show me a baby who is born praising the name of Allah, the fact will remain that atheism is the default position.

 

[leibowde84]

I get this from the dictionary:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

"Belief" and "disbelief" require thought and/or comprehension. "Lack of belief" I would give you, but that's not what we're discussing here, and everyone knows it.

Definition of atheism in English:
noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheism: definition of atheism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

 

[jonathan180iq]

And show us a baby who says "I am an atheist. I lack a belief on deity."

They simply lack belief. It is a fact that they do. You lack belief in everything that you don't know about.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is atheism rejection? I'd not argue that, but if you are not aware of the existence of something, you have no opportunity to reject it.

It doesn't have to be a direct conscious rejection - but it's still rejection - granted in context of the theist in question.

Even theists are atheists to the "gods" they either don't agree with or are oblivious of.

Pick any theist and I'll show you a deity he lacks belief in.

 

[Aquitaine]

There is nothing neutral about being a part of this world.
When you walk the street you are part of this world.
Other parts will target your passing.

Assuming there is no god....is not neutral.
You have made a choice.
You did so for reason.

That you reason doesn't mean you got it right.

Atheism is the denial of God, a Secular approach is basically "non-religious" and doesn't' deny a deity, nor posit one.

Babies don't make choices......a poor support for discussion.
Let's find our support from those who can speak.

Children are vulnerable to input.
I would like to think most are taught cause and effect....FIRST.

Then as they move through this 'secular' world...they might wonder the Cause

Yet they won't find any actual answer for "the Cause" in religion, only comforting lies.....

 

[Willamena]

While I applaud the distinction for the use that atheism is not the default position. I still have a problem with you method.

You say that the default requires doing nothing. And a belief is not an act. (Just degrees of certainty, nothing more nothing less) But then you further define belief as holding a degree of certainty ( or uncertainty). Assuming you mean having a belief is to hold a degree of certainty then I guess this still makes sense. But what I cannot reconcile is when someone both both propositions they are certainly doing something, and when a person excerpts both positions they are doing something. Yet this still is the default. Which you indicated must not include doing something. This seems contradictory.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

The default is what attains if we do nothing--it's not about us doing nothing, but about what attains. We do do something when we "believe": we capture a description of the world.

Apart from thinking in terms of believing and knowing, the world just is. It's what's all around us, despite us. "Believing" is a language device we use to present a picture of that world (proposition) so as to present it as true but with an inherent uncertainty (just as "knowing" is used to present the same picture without uncertainty). If we talk about believing, we are talking about the truth value seen in that picture--believing is having seen "true" (accepting), disbelieving is having seen "not true" (rejecting). As far as framing in language bits of that picture as belief, we do not fail to "do something." But as far as belief is a real-world action that we do, even brain activity, it's a fail--it is nothing we "do" apart from just being sentient.

Every bit of the picture of the world that we invest in as "true" is believed. The bits we disbelieve we tend not to hold onto very long. We let them drop and they fade away. Eventually, we are content that the whole picture is true.

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.

We have the capacity to frame any propositions as accepted or rejected, or degrees of either. That's entirely apart from engaging in the world, because it comes up only after we've asked ourselves (or are asked by someone else) the question, "Is that something I believe?"

Whatever a person's beliefs or disbelief, be it either or both or neither, the default can only be what attains of the options available, which depends on the information available. My argument was to oppose those who would frame that in such a way that having "no options" was one of the options.

 

[Jumi]

Theism and atheism are not defined in terms of whether a person is taught to believe, but in terms of belief. The default for them should be on the same terms.

I don't follow your reasoning here. If someone has never heard of a god, do you assume they could believe in it before having been taught the belief?

EDIT: It seems @jonathan180iq got to this point before I did. o well.

 

[Diderot]

I'm not sure how you leapt to the extreme, "If it's not this, than it that", black and white, binary variable? Nothing could be further from my actual thoughts. Of course studying the objective world is important. So is exploring the subjective one we inhabit. Not one and not the other, but both are equally vital. If I'm not mistaken, you are the one saying ignore and discount/discredit the subjective. I'm saying it's all perspective, and the subjective and objective are really real, but understood as evolving modes of understanding that includes both the subject and the object.


I don't claim that, nor did I in anything I said. That is pure assumption on your part. The rock is really real, but how it is perceived, how it is understood by the mind is not absolute, nor ever can be using any sort of mental models. To say you are closer to reality in say the position of atheism, presumes the reality from the subjective mind at the outset. If one is to see beyond thought, one must not use thought to see with.


No, it really falls. But we understand as "tree" and "falling" is a matter of perception. So if we aren't there, what really is the nature of it? What we assume? It will continue to do what we call falling, but even when we are there, is that the true "objective reality" of it?


I certainly think there is commonalities that can be held and agreed upon, but my complaint is that to say those understand the actual nature of the thing, is a flawed understanding of one's own mind, individually and collectively. It's an illusion that that constitutes the absolute reality of a thing.


It's actually not a hypothesis. It's a conclusion based upon the relative nature of thought and symbolic representation. But it's good you are now aware that rationality is not the end all be all of finding the nature of truth and reality. If you leave the subjective out of it, it's pure illusion of mind.

Oh, BTW, this statement, "Im no philosopher, Im a freethinker and a reasonist", is contradictory. A Freethinker is in fact exploring philosophical thought. That's why they are called "freethinkers". They are unbounded by religious dogma dictating the exploration of thought. I think the term freethinker is badly coopted to mean something more along the lines of religious "skepticism" or just plain religious cynicism by another name.

Freethought (also spelled free thought[1]) is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic,reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas
​

[From Wikipedia]

By "Im not a philosopher" I was saying that I am not savant enough about philosophical basis to consider myself a philosopher. Im just a random person trying to think about stuff.

Anyway.
I lept to the extreme, for the simple reason that i wanted to understand your point of view. For me the subjective perception has really little to bring to a conversation, and I cant understand your argument of subjectivity being equally important and especially atheism being "just another myth" my problem with that is. Yes, it is another "myth" if you wish. But it seems through logic that it stands closer to objective reality. Because that is what we are trying to study as men of science, the reality that is around us. Trying to bring our subjective common modals (maths, evolutionary logic, genetics) closer and close to an objective depiction of reality. It would then be a less false myth, which is what we want. Having less and less false myths, we do not persue the goal of being entirely objective. But to be so close to it that the perception of each individual could not be closer to objectivity as well. For this we need to establish more and more precise modals(aka: Less and lass false myths).

Tbh. Speaking to you I feel like a 3 year old kid trying to comprehend the world through the mouth of a grown 65 year old man.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's very intelligent and interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

For me, atheism was the default.
I was born not believing in gods.
When I learned of various religions, I learned of some specific gods I still didn't believe in.
The only thing that changed was discovering the vast diversity & complexity of supernatural beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

The default is what attains if we do nothing--it's not about us doing nothing, but about what attains. We do do something when we "believe": we capture a description of the world.

Apart from thinking in terms of believing and knowing, the world just is. It's what's all around us, despite us. "Believing" is a language device we use to present a picture of that world (proposition) so as to present it as true but with an inherent uncertainty (just as "knowing" is used to present the same picture without uncertainty). If we talk about believing, we are talking about the truth value seen in that picture--believing is having seen "true" (accepting), disbelieving is having seen "not true" (rejecting). As far as framing in language bits of that picture as belief, we do not fail to "do something." But as far as belief is a real-world action that we do, even brain activity, it's a fail--it is nothing we "do" apart from just being sentient.

Every bit of the picture of the world that we invest in as "true" is believed. The bits we disbelieve we tend not to hold onto very long. We let them drop and they fade away. Eventually, we are content that the whole picture is true.


We have the capacity to frame any propositions as accepted or rejected, or degrees of either. That's entirely apart from engaging in the world, because it comes up only after we've asked ourselves (or are asked by someone else) the question, "Is that something I believe?"

Whatever a person's beliefs or disbelief, be it either or both or neither, the default can only be what attains of the options available, which depends on the information available. My argument was to oppose those who would frame that in such a way that having "no options" was one of the options.

No, the default position is what we have without doing anything. When you are a "blank slate" so to speak.

 

[Willamena]

I don't follow your reasoning here. If someone has never heard of a god, do you assume they could believe in it before having been taught the belief?

EDIT: It seems @jonathan180iq got to this point before I did. o well.

I assume they can neither believe nor disbelieve in it, as there is nothing for them to believe or disbelieve, i.e. no proposition.

 

[leibowde84]

I assume they can neither believe nor disbelieve in it, as there is nothing for them to believe or disbelieve, i.e. no proposition.

But, you would agree that they "lack" or are "without" the belief, correct?

 

[Curious George]

The default is what attains if we do nothing--it's not about us doing nothing, but about what attains. We do do something when we "believe": we capture a description of the world.

Apart from thinking in terms of believing and knowing, the world just is. It's what's all around us, despite us. "Believing" is a language device we use to present a picture of that world (proposition) so as to present it as true but with an inherent uncertainty (just as "knowing" is used to present the same picture without uncertainty). If we talk about believing, we are talking about the truth value seen in that picture--believing is having seen "true" (accepting), disbelieving is having seen "not true" (rejecting). As far as framing in language bits of that picture as belief, we do not fail to "do something." But as far as belief is a real-world action that we do, even brain activity, it's a fail--it is nothing we "do" apart from just being sentient.

Every bit of the picture of the world that we invest in as "true" is believed. The bits we disbelieve we tend not to hold onto very long. We let them drop and they fade away. Eventually, we are content that the whole picture is true.


We have the capacity to frame any propositions as accepted or rejected, or degrees of either. That's entirely apart from engaging in the world, because it comes up only after we've asked ourselves (or are asked by someone else) the question, "Is that something I believe?"

Whatever a person's beliefs or disbelief, be it either or both or neither, the default can only be what attains of the options available, which depends on the information available. My argument was to oppose those who would frame that in such a way that having "no options" was one of the options.

Ok, this makes sense. But my point was when confronted two propositions, we will still have a default. Apparently, we are talking about different defaults. For you are talking about a non position before confrontation and I am talking about a position once confronted.

Thank you for explaining.