Atheism is not a default position

[Bunyip]

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 defeat your position beyond statements.

Why not just clarify terms with whoever you are talking to rather than argue about what terms should mean? Seems a waste of time.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Yes, but that is the problem - you can not get much more meaningless and useless a definition that that. It does not even specify what 'God' means.

 

[Thief]

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"

so you just want to kick the line drawn?

lacking the word .....god....in your vocabulary would be ignorance.

as soon as you realize the word....god....you have to make a choice.

not making a choice is deliberate.....and therefore an action

There is no circumvention.
Atheism is a choice and a declaration.

never a 'born to it' condition.

 

[Thief]

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.



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.

see previous post

 

[Shad]

Why not just clarify terms with whoever you are talking to rather than argue about what terms should mean? Seems a waste of time.

I did clarify in a post already. You disagreed without putting forward a reason why.

 

[Bunyip]

I did clarify in a post already. You disagreed without putting forward a reason why.

I believe I have done so several times.
There is no official correct definition of atheism, I do not understand why you are arguing for one.

 

[Thief]

I believe I have done so several times.
There is no official correct definition of atheism, I do not understand why you are arguing for one.

just read the entire thread again.
there's bound to be a post....by an atheist....that you can accept.

 

[Copernicus]

'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.

I've been down this road before with my atheist friends, and you know that I'm a very strong atheist, Thief. So, despite all our disagreements in the past over religion, I will offer some support to what you are trying to say here. According to the way that most people use the word "atheism", it is not a position of mere lack of belief in gods. I would call failure to have a belief in gods "nontheism", not "atheism". A better definition of atheism, IMO, is "rejection of belief in gods", not "lack of belief in gods".

That said, you will find a lot of dictionaries that use the "lack of belief" definition, and probably the majority of active atheists will swear on a stack of science texts that "lack of belief" is the only possible definition. It has become a very political issue for them, and I'll give my opinion as to why I believe people get so heated about it. First of all, atheists tend to reject belief, because there appears to them to be no reasonable evidence to support such a belief. I definitely agree with that perception, but I'll go further to the point of saying there are good positive reasons to reject belief in gods. So atheism at least entails lack of belief, even it is slightly more than that. By broadening out the definition, atheists can claim lack of belief as the natural "default" position to take. But I would never go so far as to claim that infants or animals qualify as atheists--which is the absurd position that the "lack of belief" argument leads to. I would go so far as to say that minds capable of holding beliefs all start out in a condition of nontheism. Theism requires exposure to a belief in the possible existence of gods. And, IMO, atheism also requires exposure to a possible belief, because that belief is what atheists reject.

 

[Bunyip]

just read the entire thread again.
there's bound to be a post....by an atheist....that you can accept.

There are many of them.

 

[Shad]

I believe I have done so several times.
There is no official correct definition of atheism, I do not understand why you are arguing for one.

No you just put forward statements without an argument backing such statements. Atheism has a definition in it's philosophical context which people ignore or refuse to use. I have refuted the lack of view. I have refuted the agnostic means atheist view. So there a multiple definition that can not stand up to scrutiny when put to the test. So no you did not put forward a reason at all. You picked ones you liked, nothing more.

 

[Thief]

I've been down this road before with my atheist friends, and you know that I'm a very strong atheist, Thief. So, despite all our disagreements in the past over religion, I will offer some support to what you are trying to say here. According to the way that most people use the word "atheism", it is not a position of mere lack of belief in gods. I would call failure to have a belief in gods "nontheism", not "atheism". A better definition of atheism, IMO, is "rejection of belief in gods", not "lack of belief in gods".

That said, you will find a lot of dictionaries that use the "lack of belief" definition, and probably the majority of active atheists will swear on a stack of science texts that "lack of belief" is the only possible definition. It has become a very political issue for them, and I'll give my opinion as to why I believe people get so heated about it. First of all, atheists tend to reject belief, because there appears to them to be no reasonable evidence to support such a belief. I definitely agree with that perception, but I'll go further to the point of saying there are good positive reasons to reject belief in gods. So atheism at least entails lack of belief, even it is slightly more than that. By broadening out the definition, atheists can claim lack of belief as the natural "default" position to take. But I would never go so far as to claim that infants or animals qualify as atheists--which is the absurd position that the "lack of belief" argument leads to. I would go so far as to say that minds capable of holding beliefs all start out in a condition of nontheism. Theism requires exposure to a belief in the possible existence of gods. And, IMO, atheism also requires exposure to a possible belief, because that belief is what atheists reject.

it's been a long thread
wish you were here sooner.

or did I miss the post?

 

[Bunyip]

No you just put forward statements without an argument backing such statements. Atheism has a definition in it's philosophical context which people ignore or refuse to use.

Well of course they do - they are free to do so. Philosophical glossaries do not dictate usages. Why would you think they did?

I have refuted the lack of view. I have refuted the agnostic means atheist view. So there a multiple definition that can not stand up to scrutiny when put to the test. So no you did not put forward a reason at all. You picked ones you liked, nothing more.

What is the point of 'refuting' a word usage?

I understand that is what you have been doing, but why? You attack the attempt made to describe the position I hold, not the position. What does this acheive, other than to prevent any meaningful discussion?

 

[Copernicus]

it's been a long thread
wish you were here sooner.

or did I miss the post?

No, that was my first post in this thread. (I've been hanging around in Secular Cafe for a while and came back because we're thinking of switching to this software.) This thread topic is a perennial favorite, and, wearing my lexicologist/lexicographer hat, I can't resist it. But my minority position does not sit well with many of my atheist cohorts.

 

[Thief]

No, that was my first post in this thread. (I've been hanging around in Secular Cafe for a while and came back because we're thinking of switching to this software.) This thread topic is a perennial favorite, and, wearing my lexicologist/lexicographer hat, I can't resist it. But my minority position does not sit well with many of my atheist cohorts.

at least you possess the good will to draw a line properly.
so much discussion in this thread...and the item is really very simple.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Neither are they an atheist. There is no "default position", because the term itself is essentially self-contradictory (a position is a perspective/stand one takes, and by definition can't be a "default" anything).

And no conscious rejection is required to be an atheist.

Then rocks are atheists, as they require no conscious rejection of anything. Of course, rocks aren't atheists, because it is ridiculous to ascribe to entities incapable of belief any epistemic claim/position. It is likewise ridiculous to do so with infants. Atheist implied belief in gods for centuries, and then was defined in contradiction to theism/deism but remained a position one took/had. Only since the dumbing down of atheist philosophy and ideology in the late 20th and 21st centuries has this perspective that atheism is somehow a default surfaced as an intellectually bankrupt argument against BOTH theistic/religious perspectives and the great atheist intellectual tradition through Russell.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would call failure to have a belief in gods "nontheism", not "atheism". A better definition of atheism, IMO, is "rejection of belief in gods", not "lack of belief in gods".

Perfect.

 

[Bunyip]

Neither are they an atheist. There is no "default position", because the term itself is essentially self-contradictory (a position is a perspective/stand one takes, and by definition can't be a "default" anything).

You are attacking the term, not the position. Which is frankly bizarre. Implicit atheism is not self contradictory - it is just a label for a given position.

Then rocks are atheists, as they require no conscious rejection of anything. Of course, rocks aren't atheists, because it is ridiculous to ascribe to entities incapable of belief any epistemic claim/position.

Which only you are doing. If it is ridiculous to say that rocks are atheists - why are you doing it? You are challenging him over what you say is a ridiculous claim, that you and not he is making.

It is likewise ridiculous to do so with infants.

Why is that? Babies are implicit atheists.

Atheist implied belief in gods for centuries, and then was defined in contradiction to theism/deism but remained a position one took/had. Only since the dumbing down of atheist philosophy and ideology in the late 20th and 21st centuries has this perspective that atheism is somehow a default surfaced as an intellectually bankrupt argument against BOTH theistic/religious perspectives and the great atheist intellectual tradition through Russell.

You are trying to fight a word usage - why do that? You need to address the position being described, not the attempt to describe it.

 

[Copernicus]

It is likewise ridiculous to do so with infants.

Why is that? Babies are implicit atheists...You are trying to fight a word usage - why do that? You need to address the position being described, not the attempt to describe it.

Legion is merely pointing out that word meanings are determined by how people use those words, not how we would like them to use the words. Nobody other than those pushing the special "lack of belief" definition thinks of babies as atheists. That is the procrustean argument of those who have painted themselves into a semantic corner. Why should it even matter so much to us atheists that we can claim babies among our number? Theism is a very natural human response to the mystery of why things are the way they are. Atheism is a reaction to theism, not the so-called "default", which is neither atheism nor theism. The default is ignorance of the concept of a god.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

According to the way that most people use the word "atheism", it is not a position of mere lack of belief in gods. I would call failure to have a belief in gods "nontheism", not "atheism"....

Citation needed.

That said, you will find a lot of dictionaries that use the "lack of belief" definition

Oh! There it is!

Bunyip, I've only known you a short while and I already love you like a brother-and/or-sister-but-demographically-most-likely-brother, but you've let a bunch of schoolchildren bat you around like a shuttlecock for going on five pages now. You've let them define every term, fix every goalpost, and set every standard. Enough playing defense, ya?

Some people require a reason to believe something. If a person has no reason to believe in invisible, weightless fairies, he lacks belief in invisible, weightless fairies---he does not have to be ignorant of the idea of invisible, weightless fairies, he merely has to lack a reason to believe in them. If a person has no reason to believe in very sneaky unicorns, she lacks belief in very sneaky unicorns---she does not have to be ignorant of the idea of very sneaky unicorns to lack belief in them.

Now: If, by the very same logic, a person has no reason to believe in a very sneaky god, you've got yourself an atheist.

It really is that simple.

This whole "are babies atheists?" is an asinine red herring: Yes, babies have no reason to believe in god, and are thus technically atheists. They also have no reason to believe you'll reappear during a game of peek-a-boo, and thus may burst into tears and soil themselves when subjected to your unexpected disappearance. In neither case do babies contribute anything to the discussion, which is why atheists don't invest a great deal of time in belabouring this ridiculous semantic minutia.

Absent a reason---the default position---a person does not believe. This is true of literally everything. Literally. Everything. Including, for example, the belief this person has that it's absolutely, unequivocally insane that he's currently typing the one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-nineteenth post in this ongoing saga of monumental absurdism.

Atheism is, by relevant authority (see Dawkins, Harris), by logic, by literal dictionary definition, the lack of belief in gods.

Period.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

... (and don't forget to check out Hudson's work in network grammar, non-cognitive linguistic grammars such as HPSG, cognitive grammar, etc.) ...

Oh! And just in case you thought you were being left out: Yes, I'm deliberately ignoring you. Your cowardly efforts to freeze people out of the discussion with calculated laundry-lists of obfuscating jargon and assigned homework are as transparent as they are childish.

I assert that even those on your "side" would rather you "put up or shut up". Make an argument: you know---with a start, and a middle, and an end. Then, defend it against rebuttal---with words you have to write yourself.

Yes, yes, I know, it is hard. Having to articulate our points is a burden the rest of us have to live with every day.