Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

Which God are you referring to? And what about implicit atheists? They have not even heard of God.

All gods of course. Implicit atheists are per definition atheists because they don't believe in gods which is the only requirement to be an atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

All gods of course. Implicit atheists are per definition atheists because they don't believe in gods which is the only requirement to be an atheist.

You have changed your claim - first you said an atheist was somebody who said that they don't believe in God, now you have changed that to just not believing in God.
We are just going to have to leave it there. I don't agree that there is any universally accepted 'correct' definition of atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

You have changed your claim - first you said an atheist was somebody who said that they don't believe in God, now you have changed that to just not believing in God.
We are just going to have to leave it there. I don't agree that there is any universally accepted 'correct' definition of atheism.

I have changed nothing. Of course a person who says he doesn't believe in the existence of gods is not a theist (atheist) along with all the others who for various reasons are also not theists. All theists believe one or more gods exists, all atheists don't believe gods exist. You can't get more "universal" than that.

 

[Thief]

The default position has always been atheism, and no child is a theist when born.

And no conscious rejection is required to be an atheist. In this context it means the kid is not a theist.

oh boy...we get to toss that baby back and forth.......again....

Atheism is a choice.....a declaration.
It is not a condition.
Children not having the word....god....in their vocabulary cannot declare their disbelief.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Children not having the word....god....in their vocabulary cannot declare their disbelief.

One does not have to declare a staunch position of disbelief in order to be labeled an atheist - the ONLY thing required is a lack of active belief in a given deity.

As Artie mentions here...

All gods of course. Implicit atheists are per definition atheists because they don't believe in gods which is the only requirement to be an atheist.

Unless you actively believe in a given god then you are, for all intents and purposes, an atheist, implicitly at the very least.

Active Atheism, big "A", is whole other thing entirely.

 

[Thief]

One does not have to declare a staunch position of disbelief in order to be labeled an atheist - the ONLY thing required is a lack of active belief in a given deity.

As Artie mentions here...


Unless you actively believe in a given god then you are, for all intents and purposes, an atheist, implicitly at the very least.

Active Atheism, big "A", is whole other thing entirely.

You fumbled.
active belief includes your declaration.

Children cannot actively participate in disbelief.
They would need the word .....god....in their vocabulary......AND
the decision to say 'nay'.

 

[Thief]

Now if you approach the lack of belief as a form of ignorance.......

 

[jonathan180iq]

You fumbled.
active belief includes your declaration.

Children cannot actively participate in disbelief.
They would need the word .....god....in their vocabulary......AND
the decision to say 'nay'.

No declaration has to be made at all - that is the whole point.
Read it again.

0 is the null state (People who make no declarations)
1 is a positive state. (Theists)
-1 is an inverse response to 1. (Active "declaring" atheists)

In order to be considered an active theist, there must be a positive state (a declaration of 1).
Anything that is not a positive state (the null state or the negative state) can be considered atheistic, as they are not positive declarations. So all people who are not 1s are atheists to one degree or another.

There is a big difference between 0 and -1, certainly. But neither 0 nor -1 are the same thing as 1...
Therefore, all people who are not actively proclaiming 1 are, mathematically, not 1. They are either null or negative 1.
There should be no arguing here. It's so incredibly simple.

This works out the same way in other scenarios:
People either have milk in their glass or they do not. (Theists)
Someone with milk in their glass can be said to be drinking milk.
Someone with coke instead of milk cannot be said to be drinking milk and, quite obviously, is drinking something opposite of milk. (Active "declaring" atheists)
Both the coke drinker and the milk drinker are in a different state than the person with an empty glass - but in no way shape or form can the person with the empty glass be said to be drinking milk...
Therefore, since the person with the empty glass cannot be said to be drinking milk (thus disqualifying them from being labeled as a theist) their default label is that of "atheist", meaning WITHOUT THEISM.

 

[Thief]

No declaration has to be made at all - that is the whole point.
Read it again.

0 is the null state (People who make no declarations)
1 is a positive state. (Theists)
-1 is an inverse response to 1. (Active "declaring" atheists)

In order to be considered an active theist, there must be a positive state (a declaration of 1).
Anything that is not a positive state (the null state or the negative state) can be considered atheistic, as they are not positive declarations. So all people who are not 1s are atheists to one degree or another.

There is a big difference between 0 and -1, certainly. But neither 0 nor -1 are the same thing as 1...
Therefore, all people who are not actively proclaiming 1 are, mathematically, not 1. They are either null or negative 1.
There should be no arguing here. It's so incredibly simple.

This works out the same way in other scenarios:
People either have milk in their glass or they do not. (Theists)
Someone with milk in their glass can be said to be drinking milk.
Someone with coke instead of milk cannot be said to be drinking milk and, quite obviously, is drinking something opposite of milk. (Active "declaring" atheists)
Both the coke drinker and the milk drinker are in a different state than the person with an empty glass - but in no way shape or form can the person with the empty glass be said to be drinking milk...
Therefore, since the person with the empty glass cannot be said to be drinking milk (thus disqualifying them from being labeled as a theist) their default label is that of "atheist", meaning WITHOUT THEISM.

There's no point to your discussion.
You deny the ACTIVE discussion of declaration.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There's no point to your discussion.
You deny the ACTIVE discussion of declaration.

???

Do you actually read things before you respond to them or do you just click respond as quickly as possible?

I mean, I directly addressed the active declaration of both sides in relation to the null state. So how do you reckon that I'm "denying the active discussion of declaration"?
How does your statement make any sense at all, given that I included active declarations in my analogy?

 

[Thief]

???

Do you actually read things before you respond to them or do you just click respond as quickly as possible?

I mean, I directly addressed the active declaration of both sides in relation to the null state. So how do you reckon that I'm "denying the active discussion of declaration"?
How does your statement make any sense at all, given that I included active declarations in my analogy?

Atheism is not a null state.
You have made a choice.

have you read this thread?

now if you would like to say atheism is wrought of ignorance......

 

[Shad]

If you say so - seems pretty pointless to me. But if that is the definition you are using - I'm not an atheist ajd have no interest or desire in arguing for or against a position I neither hold nor reject. Sorry, but I really do not see the logic there. Sorry, I am not following you.

This is due to using an ill-informed definition. If you know of theism as an atheist then you are rejecting it as true. You may not have actually considered the reasons for rejecting the position but this is irrelevant. It just means people have not considered their position with any reason. Hence pop-culture atheism. If you have no concept of theism or of classic theistic god then you are agnostic as you lack knowledge of concepts. This is the classic dynamic.

You have a reason for rejecting theism do you not? Unwillingness to engage in a dialogue about theism is not a reason for rejecting it. It is a point of interest not an argument.

Think of a line with atheism and theism on opposite sides. Agnostic would be between these as the true neutral position. Probability is .5 for both thus to take a position on either side is illogical. The other use of agnostic is in regards to theism and atheism along with justification for. Think of a cross with theism and atheism on opposite sides with agnostic and gnostic as upward and downward parameters along this line. Hence an agnostic theist believes but acknowledges there is no or can not be knowledge of God. A gnostic would put forward there is knowledge for or against. The mistake is assuming gnostic and agnostic function as both a belief position and knowledge at once. Hence an agnostic atheist would be "Lack of knowledge for God (evidence/justifcation) thus belief is unjustified (belief position). You are applying the knowledge parameter as the belief one. An agnostic on the belief line would be "lack of knowledge in support of either position thus judgement is withheld". By your defination agnostic atheist would be "lack of belief/lack of belief" which is pure nonsense.

Atheism is the disbelief in God, you seem to be trying to cantilever such a simple thing into something far more complex and opaque. The first cause argument is not relevant to atheism as I understand it - but if you think it is, please elaborate.

No it is rejection of theism as true. You are only focusing on the result of rather that the whole dynamic between the two positions. Like I said before if atheism is a "lack of belief" then rocks are atheists. This is an illogical view hence why your definition fails when scrutinized.

Sorry, but I really do not see the logic there.

Simply put you are not see the difference between the theological concept of God; Allah, Jesus, etc. with the philosophical positions; ontological, teleological, etc. If I reject the philosophical argument I just rejected all of the above since theology attempts to cross reference it's view of God with the philosophical concept of God. Instead of addressing each individual religion it is easier to attack positions many religions share; creations, creator, first cause, morality, etc. If the first cause is rejected I have no need of refuting the claims regarding Jesus. I have already dismissed the object of the claim, God, that is put forward within the Jesus claims.

 

[Shad]

Shad

You say; However if as per my argument atheism is a position in relation to theism then one can be an agnostic atheist. They do not believe there is or will be knowledge of God but still rejection theism.

Yes, sure. Agreed.

See my rely as I covered this comment with the one post. You also agreed atheism is "rejection of" rather than "lack of"

I may have missed some of your replies with the server being offline. If I did let me know.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheism is not a null state.
You have made a choice.

have you read this thread?

now if you would like to say atheism is wrought of ignorance......

Why are we talking about me?
What does my decision, lack of decision, or negation of a response to a decision have anything to do with the default position?

Yes. I have made a choice. I am an Atheist with a capital A.
Others in this thread have made a choice, as they are also Atheists with a capital A.
Note that there are also theists, such as yourself, who have made a choice.

The question of the default position necessitates reference to the null state, before said decisions have been made, correct?
If we don't agree on that there is no reason for any of us to discuss any of this.

People who have not made a choice, are ignorant the need to make a choice, or simply do not care and are completely ambivalent to said choices, are all atheists with a lower case "a", because they are simply and implicitly "without theism". They are not, mind you, Atheists with a capital A, because they are making no declaration - to use your terminology.

Again, neither 0 nor -1 are equal to 1.

 

[Thief]

'Default position' is no more than a play on words.
it doesn't work.
Atheism is a position held......by declaration.

It is not a condition we are born to.
Ignorance is the condition we are born to.

 

[`mud]

Rock-a-bye baby, in the treetop.
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall.
And down will come baby, cradle and all.
~
When the cradle falls,
will the 'word' be already heard ?
~
When does the choice occur ?
~
When does 'ignorance' stop ?
~
Silliness abounds !
~
'mud

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The belief is a choice.
gotta have some notion in your head about what a god is.
THEN you can decide.

you're not an atheist until you say so.
it's a declaration.
not a condition.

I disagree. One can be without belief even if one does not have the concept of that belief. In fact its specifically required. To be an acclaimed atheist or to be a philosophical atheist one would fit that definition. However even if we remove the argument altogether of those that have never heard of god it changes nothing of the original argument about "lacking" vs "rejecting"

 

[jonathan180iq]

'Default position' is no more than a play on words.
it doesn't work.
Atheism is a position held......by declaration.

Atheism, capital A (explicit atheism) is a position held. You are absolutely correct; just like theism is a position held.
But we aren't talking about explicit atheism or theism when discussing the default position.
A declarative position cannot, by definition, be the default or null position.

Discussing defaults requires discussion of the null state - the period that exists before declarations.

It is not a condition we are born to.
Ignorance is the condition we are born to.

Explicit, declaratory, atheism is not a condition we are born to, you are correct.
We are born into null states, without any declarations about any conditions. The null state is the default position.
And since the null state is without theism, it is implicitly atheistic, as has been shown.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=theist&searchmode=none

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=atheist&searchmode=none

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=a-

Since the word theism, as we use it, is of Greek origin, then the prefix 'a' applies a simple qualifier meaning "without" or "not".
Since theism cannot exist without a positive claim of deity, atheism can likewise not exist without there first being theism.
Atheism, at its base meaning, is literally nothing more than a state of being without theism.

Anyone and anything without making a positive claim of belief or faith in a deity is atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

This is due to using an ill-informed definition. If you know of theism as an atheist then you are rejecting it as true. You may not have actually considered the reasons for rejecting the position but this is irrelevant. It just means people have not considered their position with any reason. Hence pop-culture atheism. If you have no concept of theism or of classic theistic god then you are agnostic as you lack knowledge of concepts. This is the classic dynamic.

You have a reason for rejecting theism do you not? Unwillingness to engage in a dialogue about theism is not a reason for rejecting it. It is a point of interest not an argument.

Think of a line with atheism and theism on opposite sides. Agnostic would be between these as the true neutral position. Probability is .5 for both thus to take a position on either side is illogical. The other use of agnostic is in regards to theism and atheism along with justification for. Think of a cross with theism and atheism on opposite sides with agnostic and gnostic as upward and downward parameters along this line. Hence an agnostic theist believes but acknowledges there is no or can not be knowledge of God. A gnostic would put forward there is knowledge for or against. The mistake is assuming gnostic and agnostic function as both a belief position and knowledge at once. Hence an agnostic atheist would be "Lack of knowledge for God (evidence/justifcation) thus belief is unjustified (belief position). You are applying the knowledge parameter as the belief one. An agnostic on the belief line would be "lack of knowledge in support of either position thus judgement is withheld". By your defination agnostic atheist would be "lack of belief/lack of belief" which is pure nonsense.





No it is rejection of theism as true. You are only focusing on the result of rather that the whole dynamic between the two positions. Like I said before if atheism is a "lack of belief" then rocks are atheists. This is an illogical view hence why your definition fails when scrutinized.



Simply put you are not see the difference between the theological concept of God; Allah, Jesus, etc. with the philosophical positions; ontological, teleological, etc. If I reject the philosophical argument I just rejected all of the above since theology attempts to cross reference it's view of God with the philosophical concept of God. Instead of addressing each individual religion it is easier to attack positions many religions share; creations, creator, first cause, morality, etc. If the first cause is rejected I have no need of refuting the claims regarding Jesus. I have already dismissed the object of the claim, God, that is put forward within the Jesus claims.

Sorry, that has all been covered before. We have to just disagree.

 

[Shad]

Sorry, that has all been covered before. We have to just disagree.

You are free to do so. However I do not see your disagreement as justified thus I see it as irrational. You have yet to defend your position beyond statements.