Atheism is not a default position

[jonathan180iq]

An atheist and a theist both may disbelieve existence of these deities.

Is this an admission that you lack belief in these two gods? I mean, aside from the fact that you'd probably never heard of them before I posted their names, you do admit that both atheists and theists alike either straight up disbelieved or lacked a belief in Abe-Mago, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe, right?

What would you say our default position was, in regards to the great fire god Abe-Mango, daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe?
What was the default position of every single person in the thread, and probably every single person on this forum, in regards to Abe-Mango?
Wouldn't you say that we all lacked a belief in Abe-Mango? That we were all Abe-Mango atheists?
And, unless simply hearing her name sparks a spiritual revolution in you, wouldn't you say that you're probably still an atheist, in regards to Abe-Mango?

The default position for both the theist and the Atheist is disbelief... They're both Abe-Mango atheists.

 

[atanu]

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

About the OP.

OP is not proving that theistic position is the default one. And OP is proving that the atheistic position is not so too.

As earlier, let me try to state in my own plain words:

"I believe that deity exists (apart from me)" is a belief.
" ... absence of belief in any deities .." is either meaningless (as in case of rock) or entails a reasoned belief .

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

 

[leibowde84]

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 )

Well-put.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Then no one can be an atheist.

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

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.

This has everything to do with the OP.
If I had done nothing - if I had never mentioned Abe-Mango, the great fire god and daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe - would you have believed in those gods, or continued to disbelieve in them as you did before you heard of their existence?

Thus, your default position in the matter was a lack of belief. Your default position towards Ab-Mango was atheism. Depending on your personal faith, it has probably advanced very quickly to the point of outright rejection or denial. You "know" there is no such thing as Abe-Mango, don't you?

 

[Willamena]

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

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

Yes. Ownership. Having is a result of ownership.

Every thought we have about the world, we own: every opinion, every interpretation, every perspective. We also own every truth, but we tend to give those away, back to the world so it can own them.

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.

Haha. It's those folks who would have us "lack belief" by being ignorant of things that I'm really arguing against. Ignorance isn't the same as being without a thing--being "without" requires a thing (proposition) to be without of.

And then you're no longer ignorant.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Eh... you make a good point. Some of the rest of it that was incoherent may actually be worse, how the hell would I know?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

This is an ignorant statement, and never should have been made in reply to what I said. OF COURSE a baby will not be born praising the name of anything. Honestly, the term "atheism" in any form should not be used to describe the state a baby comes into the world in. It's asinine. Call that state of being "clean"... and the rest of us can be lumped into various states of "unclean". That is WAY more accurate.

 

[Willamena]

This has everything to do with the OP.
If I had done nothing - if I had never mentioned Abe-Mango, the great fire god and daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe - would you have believed in those gods, or continued to disbelieve in them as you did before you heard of their existence?

I don't believe in them, as I have no reason to, but I do disbelieve in them because you proposed "fire" and "god," words which have meaning for me. From that I garner a proposition about Abe-Mango, one to which I can say, "no, that doesn't fit."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

But this line of thinking you're on is completely misleading. Take any fact at all present in the universe. The world is round, for example... when I was born, do you think I held a "disbelief" or a "lack of faith" that the world was round? What the hell would that even mean? The answer is a plain and straight "no". I am not informed, I have no information, for all I know as a baby the "world" is warm blankets and a breast in my mouth. You can't say that a baby "disbelieves" everything by default. Honestly - it's just dumb.

 

[Blastcat]

Then no one can be an atheist.

Why is that?
Could you perhaps EXPLAIN why you say things?

 

[Jumi]

God's I don't know are not part of the world, so I cannot have a proposition about them, so I cannot have a belief or a disbelief about them, because both belief and disbelief would require me to evaluate a proposition about them. If I learn about them, I can evaluate propositions about them. I can say, "yes, that's so,", or, "no, that doesn't fit at all." What I cannot do is say, "no, that doesn't fit" about things I don't know.

I wouldn't agree with those. In regards belief, learning about new gods hasn't added them to my world since my belief of their existence hasn't changed. They are still 0 on my equation.

 

[Blastcat]

But this line of thinking you're on is completely misleading. Take any fact at all present in the universe. The world is round, for example... when I was born, do you think I held a "disbelief" or a "lack of faith" that the world was round? What the hell would that even mean?

It would mean that you didn't have a belief that the earth was round, cubic or otherwise. You had NO belief in the roundness of the earth or of anything else, for that matter.

But you had no belief.
That's what it might mean in Hell or anywhere else they speak English.

The answer is a plain and straight "no". I am not informed, I have no information, for all I know as a baby the "world" is warm blankets and a breast in my mouth. You can't say that a baby "disbelieves" everything by default. Honestly - it's just dumb.

Aren't we atheists dumb.

So, you think it's "smarter" to say that babies BELIEVE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE by default?

Can you explain why?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Aren't we atheists dumb.

So, you think it's "smarter" to say that babies BELIEVE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE by default?

Can you explain why?

Of course it isn't. And I didn't say that. Why does this have to be black and white for all of you? Why is it either "believe" or "disbelieve"? There are other states in there, I assure you. Being uninformed about something IS A COMPLETELY VALID STATE OF BEING. For example, if I came to you and said "California just fell of the map due to the fault-lines finally cracking like an eggshell underneath it." - immediately following my statement do you believe or disbelieve? Come on now... make a decision - you ONLY GET ONE. Go. Do it. Am I to be believed or no? Which one?!??! NOW NOW NOW!!!!!!

Obviously, it will take verifying, validating, going on a quest for the information to reach a valid state of belief or disbelief about that statement. Until then, you can remain skeptical, uninformed, etc. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY FINE.

 

[leibowde84]

But this line of thinking you're on is completely misleading. Take any fact at all present in the universe. The world is round, for example... when I was born, do you think I held a "disbelief" or a "lack of faith" that the world was round? What the hell would that even mean? The answer is a plain and straight "no". I am not informed, I have no information, for all I know as a baby the "world" is warm blankets and a breast in my mouth. You can't say that a baby "disbelieves" everything by default. Honestly - it's just dumb.

I disagree. And try to be respectful. I would say that a baby "lacks belief" in God, as the baby is not familiar with the concept.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course it isn't. And I didn't say that. Why does this have to be black and white for all of you? Why is it either "believe" or "disbelieve"? There are other states in there, I assure you. Being uninformed about something IS A COMPLETELY VALID STATE OF BEING. For example, if I came to you and said "California just fell of the map due to the fault-lines finally cracking like an eggshell underneath it." - immediately following my statement do you believe or disbelieve? Come on now... make a decision - you ONLY GET ONE. Go. Do it. Am I to be believed or no? Which one?!??! NOW NOW NOW!!!!!!

Obviously, it will take verifying, validating, going on a quest for the information to reach a valid state of belief or disbelief about that statement. Until then, you can remain skeptical, uninformed, etc. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY FINE.

We aren't claiming belief that God doesn't exist. We are talking about the lack of belief either way. A baby is certainly without belief either way. Thus, the baby lacks a belief in the existence of God. Just as it lacks the belief that God does not exist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I disagree. And try to be respectful. I would say that a baby "lacks belief" in God, as the baby is not familiar with the concept.

I honestly meant no disrespect. The statement that a baby "disbelieves everything by default" when pertaining to anything it lacks knowledge of, is dumb in my opinion. You didn't actually make that statement, but I made it as a generalization of the "lack of belief in God" specific statement in order to make my point. I argue that being uninformed is a valid state. And neither belief nor disbelief need to come into play at all.

 

[Blastcat]

Yes. Ownership. Having is a result of ownership.

And NOT having is a result of NON Ownership.
What is your point?

Every thought we have about the world, we own: every opinion, every interpretation, every perspective. We also own every truth, but we tend to give those away, back to the world so it can own them.

But owning a statement doesn't mean that it's TRUE by default.
What is your point?

Just because we can make a statement that it becomes TRUE?
What ARE you trying to say?

Haha. It's those folks who would have us "lack belief" by being ignorant of things that I'm really arguing against.

I'm sorry, I'm not at all following your logic.
I can't possibly believe something that I don't know is TRUE.

I don't go around believing in FALSE things.. do you?

Ignorance isn't the same as being without a thing--being "without" requires a thing (proposition) to be without of.

I'm SORRY, Willemina, but ignorance is the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. Ignorance is being WITHOUT some knowledge.
That's what the IG part of IGNORANCE means.. NOT HAVING. The "norance" part of ignorance means "KNOWLEDGE".

But do you mean that you are WITH every possible truth statement?
You believe every possible truth statement , by default?

Am I describing YOU by saying that you believe literally EVERY truth statement, INCLUDING "Zanbumtig Exists"?

 

[leibowde84]

I honestly meant no disrespect. The statement that a baby "disbelieves everything by default" when pertaining to anything it lacks knowledge of, is dumb in my opinion. You didn't actually make that statement, but I made it as a generalization of the "lack of belief in God" specific statement in order to make my point. I argue that being uninformed is a valid state. And neither belief nor disbelief need to come into play at all.

All I am claiming is a "lack of belief in the existence of God".

 

[Blastcat]

I don't believe in them, as I have no reason to, but I do disbelieve in them because you proposed "fire" and "god," words which have meaning for me. From that I garner a proposition about Abe-Mango, one to which I can say, "no, that doesn't fit."

Doesn't fit WHAT?
You say your default position on other gods is that you DON'T believe, because as you say you don't have a reason to.

That's what it means to have a default of NO when it comes to truth claims.
UNTIL we are give a good reason to believe in the truth of the proposition, we have NO reason to do so.

Because our default is NO.

You are telling us that your default is no on Abe-Mango, or any OTHER gods.
Or any OTHER truth claim.

Just like us crazy atheists.

 

[Windwalker]

If I had done nothing - if I had never mentioned Abe-Mango, the great fire god and daughter of the Sun god Page-Abe - would you have believed in those gods, or continued to disbelieve in them as you did before you heard of their existence?

I never disbelieved in them. I neither believed, nor disbelieved. I was unaware of them in order to disbelieve. How could I evaluate my thoughts in order to say I believe or disbelieve if I was ignorant of them?

Thus, your default position in the matter was a lack of belief.

My default position was unawareness. Belief or disbelief was not part of it. I neither believed, nor disbelieved in them.