Atheism is not a default position

[ImmortalFlame]

Is there no one here who believes in the great fire god, Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?

Do we all lack belief in these deities?

*makes to raise his hand*

*thinks for a moment*

*wavers*


*lowers hand*

 

[atanu]

Is there no one here who believes in the great fire god, Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?

Do we all lack belief in these deities?

An atheist and a theist both may disbelieve existence of these deities. This point actually goes against you.

 

[Blastcat]

Is there no one here who believes in the great fire god, Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?

Do we all lack belief in these deities?

I do not currently have, and never have had a belief in the great fire god Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe.
But I'm perfectly prepared to have one.

If it's on sale.

 

[Blastcat]

*makes to raise his hand*

*thinks for a moment*

*wavers*


*lowers hand*

Do it... I know you wanna.....

 

[McBell]

So, the rock is an atheist.

I do not know.
Because I have no way of knowing if the rock lacks a belief in gods.

 

[Willamena]

One connotation of lacking is not having.
You can not have something that isn't real.

I am without the warrior god ZUBANTIG.
But so is everyone. Zubantig was just made up. It doesn't exist.

I can't BE WITH Zubantig as hard as I try.
I HAVE no choice but to be WITHOUT Zubantig, even though it doesn't exist.

We MUST lack something that we cannot acquire.
Unless, of course, you have a unique and personal way to define the word LACK.

( MAYBE you might agree that a lack isn't like a having )

Having is a relation, and so the negation of having. "Zubantig is unreal" is a proposition, something we can relate to. If there is no proposition there is nothing to relate to--no having and no not having.

 

[Blastcat]

An atheist and a theist both may disbelieve existence of these deities. This point actually goes against you.

Care to explain?

The theist may not believe in Mango-Bango or whatever.. WHY?... lack of evidence?
The atheist.. may not believe... why?
The point is that we all agree that a disbelief is the DEFAULT position.

But maybe you can explain your comment a bit. I'm not SURE what you mean.

 

[McBell]

An atheist and a theist both may disbelieve existence of these deities. This point actually goes against you.

lacking a belief in a particular deity does not make one an atheist.
It is the lack of belief in all proposed deities that makes on an atheist.

 

[McBell]

Care to explain?

The theist may not believe in Mango-Bango or whatever.. WHY?... lack of evidence?
The atheist.. may not believe... why?
The point is that we all agree that a disbelief is the DEFAULT position.

But maybe you can explain your comment a bit. I'm not SURE what you mean.

I disagree that disbelief is a default position.
It would be lack of belief that is the default position.

 

[Blastcat]

Having is a relation, and so the negation of having. "Zubantig is unreal" is a proposition, something we can relate to. If there is no proposition there is nothing to relate to--no having and no not having.

Oh boy, Willamena.. your comment is hard to understand.

HAVING is a relation.... hmmm ok.
NOT having is a relation as well?... OK.....

Zubantig is unreal IS a proposition.. Ok.....
We can relate to a proposition.. OK......

If there was no proposition about Zubantig, then we could not relate to the propostion about Zubantig... OK......

I have NO idea what your point is.
We can relate to propositions.. is that what you mean?

AND SO?

 

[Blastcat]

lacking a belief in a particular deity does not make one an atheist.
It is the lack of belief in all proposed deities that makes on an atheist.

Oh that is SO incorrect.
You forgot an "e".

 

[jonathan180iq]

I do not currently have, and never have had a belief in the great fire god Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe.
But I'm perfectly prepared to have one.

If it's on sale.

 

[McBell]

Oh that is SO incorrect.
You forgot an "e".

nag nag nag

 

[atanu]

Care to explain?

The theist may not believe in Mango-Bango or whatever.. WHY?... lack of evidence?
The atheist.. may not believe... why?
The point is that we all agree that a disbelief is the DEFAULT position.

But maybe you can explain your comment a bit. I'm not SURE what you mean.

Good that you ask. Where did DEFAULT position come into either of these positions?

Please read the following from the OP.

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.

 

[Blastcat]

Good that you ask. Please read the following from the OP.

I'm sorry, but I completely missed the part where you explained your comment.
Could you try again?

 

[atanu]

It is the lack of belief in all proposed deities that makes on an atheist.

Then no one can be an atheist.

 

[Windwalker]

No.

An inability is an inability. My one year old cousin is unable to cook, therefore they are not a chef.

No, an inability to disbelieve something requires the ability to think about it. Contexts exists, and contexts in fact matter tremendously. It is only an inability to believe when you are capable of believing or disbelieving. For your chef analogy to work where it has any meaning, your one year old cousin would have to able to cook, and then you can evaluate his capability as a chef. To say because he is incapable of manipulating a spoon or a stove does not qualify to call him not a cook. It would be the height of stupidity to even talk in those terms, certainly to those who you would proclaim him as a "non-believer in cooking". Context would not allow you to evaluate him in those terms. You would appear foolish to attempt to be actually serious as you said that to others.

So apply this to the theism and atheism question. Since he is incapable of doing anything required to 'believe or disbelieve' something, he is neither a theist, nor an atheist. He's not a cook or a non-cook. You cannot evaluate him in those terms of being or not being a cook. And thus he is not an atheist, unless you equate the infantile mind with atheist thought. I don't, but if that's what people wish to compare themselves with as an atheist, I'm glad I dropped that term for myself!

It isn't quite the same thing, but it is still one of the reasons a person may have for not believing something.

It is certainly not the same thing. If I had never heard of M-theory, of multi-universes before, would you say I "disbelieved" in them prior to hearing about them??? If you were to say that of me, I would call you badly misrepresenting my views. I had no knowledge of them, so I was neither capable of believing or disbelieving them. I didn't then convert from my "disbelief" to belief! This is a ridiculous use of language. Once I was no longer ignorant of the theory, then I could apply what I thought about them and lean either towards belief or disbelief in them. Ignorance is not the same thing as disbelief. I honestly don't know how you can twist things like this to make it say something it doesn't.

Again, if you wish to say atheism is based on ignorance, then knock yourself out. I wouldn't. I say it was based upon an ability to look at something a think about it. That's to its credit, actually, as opposed to just calling it ignorance.

I'm not equating the two. I have defined disbelief as the inability to believe. If you are completely ignorant of something, then you cannot believe it. Your incapable of belief, therefore you disbelieve it.

You are again dropping contexts. You need to bring them back into this. You have define the nature of that inability. It has to do with belief. So the context must include the ability to believe or disbelieve. Ignorance does not offer that. Very simple. It is not the same thought processes, and therefore, as Legion said, mutually contradictory. You can't have it both ways.

Since you have already agreed that disbelief can be defined as an INABILITY to believe, you cannot now suddenly say that somebody can only disbelieve something once they are CAPABLE of it. That makes no sense. If they can't yet believe something, then they do not yet believe it.

Then you need to go back and read my post again. You obviously aren't following why the two cases of "incapablity" are simply not comparable. You are focused solely on one context, and ignoring what the word means in the other. "Incapable of believing" in the context of awareness, means you cannot fit it into a belief category, and therefore it becomes "disbelief". You have to be aware of something to disbelieve it. Period. Ignorance is not awareness, and "incapable of belief" in that context means you would also equally be "incapable of disbelief"! If you aren't aware of something, you neither capable of belief, or disbelief. End of story.

Why do you have to try to make this fit so bad you ignore simple contexts? Does the "default position" suggest to you being "natural" or "right"? That's the curious question I'm not hearing addressed in this attempt to manipulate words to fit an ideology. That to me is the far deeper line of questioning, to arguing over the simple contexts in which language is used that changes their meaning. This is frankly too easy. It's arguing common sense. Let's go deeper instead.

 

[atanu]

I'm sorry, but I completely missed the part where you explained your comment.
Could you try again?

That is the problem. People are not discussing the OP.

 

[Blastcat]

Disbelief is defined as an inability to believe.

Inability?

What ABILITY am I lacking?

Let's say that I am perfectly ABLE to believe in the truth of a proposition.

I look for ways that it can be known as true.
I don't FIND those ways.. but I'm STILL FULLY ABLE to believe IF some way becomes available to me.

I don't LACK an ability to have a conviction, a trust, a confidence in a truth claim just because I don't believe in ONE truth claim or another. I believe in LOTS of things.. I have the ability to believe.
And I also have the ability to NOT believe what isn't convincing.

I simply LACK the belief. Belief is the consequence of my acceptance of a truth claim.

 

[Blastcat]

That is the problem. People are not discussing the OP.

I'm still completely NOT seeing how you explained your comment.
Any comment so far, actually.

About the OP.