Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

The default would then depend on whether someone was taught to believe in a god or not. I was taught to believe in the Christian God, but I never believed. For me the default position was non-belief.

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When the term "belief" simply does not apply. That can happen in many cases. It can happen when something is not a matter of belief (i.e., when something is a matter of knowledge and experience), and it can happen when something lacks the cognitive faculties to believe or not believe (i.e. the sun).

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.

 

[Blastcat]

I don't think we need a baby mind reading tool. I feel that it is an impossibility that a baby would have any concept of God, as they don't have a concept of anything at that point. They are still learning how to use their senses.

Your feelings on the subject have been noted. I put a LOT of stock on your feelings as they are what I usually refer to when trying to know how the world really is. So, thanks for reminding me what your feelings about baby thoughts are like and about.

Some religious folks DO say that they are born with an innate "sensus divinitatis". Maybe we are and maybe we aren't. How are we to know?.. How are we to know that babies don't HAVE concepts pre-formed in their brains without WORDS to describe them?

Maybe we DO .. this isn't a rhetorical question.
Modern neuroscience is learning fantastic amounts about how we think these days.....

 

[Willamena]

How can you neither believe nor not believe something?

When the conditions for belief do not apply, such as when a proposition has no (or can have no) truth value. Something you don't know, for instance, can have no truth value until and unless you learn it. Else, you leave the door open to belief in tea pots orbiting Mars, or alien vessels parked on Jupiter.

This is what I don't get. Willamena gives a very clear definition of the default as "Amongst a mess of options, the default is the option that will obtain if the chooser does nothing.", and yet says that there is "no default position with regards to belief". As if it's impossible for a person to choose nothing with regards to belief?

There is belief and its negation. A thing and its negation are not options of each other.

 

[leibowde84]

When the conditions for belief do not apply, such as when a proposition has no (or can have no) truth value. Something you don't know, for instance, can have no truth value until and unless you learn it. Else, you leave the door open to belief in tea pots orbiting Mars, or alien vessels parked on Jupiter.


There is belief and its negation. A thing and its negation are not options of each other.

What about "non-belief"? The state of not having a belief either way, but still being aware of the concept. Do you think that is impossible?

 

[Willamena]

What about "non-belief"? The state of not having a belief either way, but still being aware of the concept. Do you think that is impossible?

That's doubt. It's the opposite of belief.

 

[leibowde84]

That's doubt. It's the opposite of belief.

That can't be though. For example, I believe in God, but I seriously doubt the truth of that belief constantly. My doubt doesn't negate my belief. It would negate knowledge however.

 

[Willamena]

That can't be though. For example, I believe in God, but I seriously doubt the truth of that belief constantly. My doubt doesn't negate my belief. It would negate knowledge however.

Fair enough--I'm not going to argue what deserves to be considered belief and what not. I'm fine with people holding contradictory positions, it happens.

 

[Blastcat]

That's doubt. It's the opposite of belief.

You are like a dictionary.
I never knew words were so ... strict in their meanings.

However...

the word "doubt" does sometimes carry the connotation of wavering, hesitation, and uncertainty, you know, it the other dictionaries I sometimes refer to when you're not around .

 

[leibowde84]

Fair enough--I'm not going to argue what deserves to be considered belief and what not. I'm fine with people holding contradictory positions, it happens.

So, "belief" is "trust, faith or confidence in someone or something". And, "doubt" is "a feeling of uncertainty". Now, I have "faith" that God exists, but when I think about it using reason, I realize that my "faith" is based upon a lot of subconscious assumptions, which creates "a feeling of uncertainty". I don't get how that is contradictory.

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

 

[Willamena]

You are like a dictionary.
I never knew words were so ... strict in their meanings.

That's funny.

It's not like I'm holding anyone else to definition. I'm just defining.

However...

the word "doubt" does sometimes carry the connotation of wavering, hesitation, and uncertainty, you know, it the other dictionaries I sometimes refer to when you're not around .

Yes. And belief often carries the connotation of unwavering. It is, after all, an attitude of truth.

For instance, that the ground under your feet is solid is believed.

 

[Willamena]

So, "belief" is "trust, faith or confidence in someone or something". And, "doubt" is "a feeling of uncertainty". Now, I have "faith" that God exists, but when I think about it using reason, I realize that my "faith" is based upon a lot of subconscious assumptions, which creates "a feeling of uncertainty". I don't get how that is contradictory.

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

I don't! They're just opposites. They're not even negations of each other, as you implied--not that negation would make one of them vanish (elimination).

Perhaps look up vacillation in the dictionary.

 

[leibowde84]

That's funny.

It's not like I'm holding anyone else to definition. I'm just defining.


Yes. And belief often carries the connotation of unwavering. It is, after all, an attitude of truth.

For instance, that the ground under your feet is solid is believed.

That is not true. "That the ground under your feet is solid is 'known'". I agree that "doubt" is the opposite of "knowledge".

 

[Nakosis]

No. You are asserting you believe the claim is true. If I assert that 1+1=2, I both assert that I believe this is true and that it IS true. I can, however, assert that I believe that truth is relative without asserting that my belief is true. That is, I can distinguish between my belief and truth.

You can. I don't believe all minds are alike. Some are more consciously aware, more discerning, more flexible and creative than others.

I see atheism as my default position. It may not be someone else's default position. A universal default position for all of mankind... I don't know that that's really a thing.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're correct. Atheism is the belief that god does not exist. However, your following statement is truly awry:

I agree with Jojom (page 1 of replies) A LOT of the OP doesn't make sense - though certainly not for lack of trying to be something "profound". Belief IS an action - it is "something we do". That part was the worst of the mess.

At any rate, I think a lot of the people who hold up the OP and say it is a good point are merely detractors of atheism. So they'll laud anything that puts atheism in the back-seat - even when it is a mess from many an angle (grammar and coherence to name a couple).

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.

 

[atanu]

Sure!

Let X exist.

Both asserting a degree of certainty of X to the world and describing X as apart from me, apart from any degrees of certainty, are things we do.

Let me state in my plain way.

"I believe that deity exists (apart from me)" is a belief.
"I have absence of belief that any deities exist" is either meaningless or entails a belief.

"I exist" entails no belief, since the awareness of existence is pre mind. Mind is built upon this.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree with Jojom (page 1 of replies) A LOT of the OP doesn't make sense - though certainly not for lack of trying to be something "profound". Belief IS an action - it is "something we do". That part was the worst of the mess.

At any rate, I think a lot of the people who hold up the OP and say it is a good point are merely detractors of atheism. So they'll laud anything that puts atheism in the back-seat - even when it is a mess from many an angle (grammar and coherence to name a couple).

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.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. The "a" prefix simply means "without". Thus, an "atheist" is "without theism". Isn't a baby "without" the belief in the existence of God. As long as the baby doesn't actively believe that God exists, I would argue that they are technically atheist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. The "a" prefix simply means "without". Thus, an "atheist" is "without theism". Isn't a baby "without" the belief in the existence of God. As long as the baby doesn't actively believe that God exists, I would argue that they are technically atheist.

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.

 

[Windwalker]

If I understand well you think that any given reality is entirely subjective therefore studying it is an entire waste of time ?

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.

Im no philosopher, Im a freethinker and a reasonist, if you contest reality itself we have no point to start. If you consider it entirely subjective and that it cannot lie outside of our perception. Then we cannot even discuss it as we differ in perception.

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.

I think I better stop there. But I admit you might be right
I could not agree less about the fact that all reality is subjective. For me, that tree that falls in the forest falls either you witness it or not. For you it doesnt.

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?

By your reasonning you contest the basis of science and logic, how can you discuss with someone that contests the basis of logic without getting crazy, unreliable answers.

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.

Sorry, there are things i cant understand i guess. But Im happy you made me discover this "myth of the given" hypothesis.

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]

 

[atanu]

I agree with Jojom (page 1 of replies) A LOT of the OP doesn't make sense - though certainly not for lack of trying to be something "profound". Belief IS an action - it is "something we do". That part was the worst of the mess.

That is a brilliant example. A lot of the OP does not make sense to you. Yet you know for certain as to what was worse of the mess. Brilliant.