Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

That makes no sense. Atheism isn't about anything. It is the absence of a specific belief. Absence doesn't require anything.

Atheism is about something if it's about the absence of a specific belief.

 

[Jumi]

Then Atheism = Ignorance of information?

Lack of information can be a cause of lack of belief. Accepting the fact that more information might not convince one to accept the belief.

 

[leibowde84]

I meant that it doesn't fit with what I know, of course.


No, I was saying I don't believe in Abe-Mango, and stating the reason. I wasn't stating a default position.


But I don't have a default of "no" in regards to Abe-Mango. I have a reason to disbelieve.

If you don't positively believe that is enough.

 

[Jumi]

Atheism is about something if it's about the absence of a specific belief.

I would say group of beliefs regarding theistic gods.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Atheism is about something if it's about the absence of a specific belief.

But it can only be about something that someone else claimed there to be.
There would be no understanding of the term at all, were it not for theistic claims.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly.
There would be no need to have this conversation because his default status regarding deities would not exist. There can be no discussion of implicit atheism without there first being a theistic claim.

This means - drum roll please - that the default position for every single thing that has ever lived is.... ?
A lack of belief in deities.
It can only become an active disbelief when there is claimed to be something to believe in.

If his default status doesn't exist, how can he have a default status?

 

[Willamena]

But it can only be about something that someone else claimed there to be.
There would be no understanding of the term at all, were it not for theistic claims.

Nevertheless, an absence is something, not nothing.

 

[Aquitaine]

The first claim is ".. Does not deny and does not posit... ", even claiming a baby like innocence/ignorance. Yet there is such emphatic opinion that what other person believes is only 'MYTH'. Ha ha.

That's because I'm expressing my own views, which are pretty atheist in nature. I'm not describing the neutral baby's position.

 

[Curious George]

Everyone calm down - and answer this simple question.

Without theistic claims, what would you call an atheist?

The acceptance of the proposition God constructs only exist in people's minds.

 

[Blastcat]

Not believing is NOT a default.
You still have to think about it.....and then declare.

Cause and effect.
The universe (the one word) is the effect....God is the Cause.

oh?

do you have any evidence for this weird belief?

 

[Blastcat]

Everyone calm down - and answer this simple question.

Without theistic claims, what would you call an atheist?

reasonable..

next question

 

[Windwalker]

(That's my "unfollow" post)

 

[atanu]

"Disbelief" includes both the belief that something does not exist AND the mere lack of a belief. They are not the same thing, and we are discussing the later here.

If 'mere lack of belief' meant absence of any mental content then a stone would be an atheist. Or, if a 'mere lack of belief' meant a lack of knowledge of the proposition wrt to deity, then a baby would be an atheist. If both of these are true then atheists are foolish indeed .. Vacuum minds.

We are discussing the term 'lack of belief of deity'. In the context of an atheist it can only mean that an atheist has considered the question of existence of deity and has come to a conclusion that the deity in question does not exist.

 

[atanu]

reasonable..

Ha.

 

[Blastcat]

Ha.

Yes.. that's what you often offer as an argument.

PLEASE explain your position if you.. care to be involved in a discussion /

 

[Ouroboros]

If 'mere lack of belief' meant absence of any mental content then a stone would be an atheist. Or, if a 'mere lack of belief' meant a lack of knowledge of the proposition wrt to deity, then a baby would be an atheist. If both of these are true then atheists are foolish indeed .. Vacuum minds.

We are discussing the term 'lack of belief of deity'. In the context of an atheist it can only mean that an atheist has considered the question of existence of deity and has come to a conclusion that the deity in question does not exist.

Yup. Agree.

If the label "atheist" should be used on babies who doesn't have the neural pathways to have an opinion either way, then we could just as well start claiming that babies have no belief in organization and government, no belief in their own existence, no belief that they are, themselves atheists or theists, no belief in that their parents are their real parents, no belief in Hitler being wrong, no belief in roads, taxes, life, existence, math (they don't believe 1+1=2), and so on, which then means they're parent-hating nihilistic nazi anarchists who reject math! Well... they are kind'a rebellious at times.

 

[atanu]

You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of.

Suppose, leibowde84 is a stone, unaware of things, can we say that "leibowde84 lacks belief"?

Please pause and try to be honest.

I would assume we are talking about conscious beings, as I am not sure why the term "atheist" would be useful in any way in describing a stone. But, I guess technically you might be able to. Why would that bother you?

Why would you assume things when pinned down?

You claimed "You still lack a belief in something that you are unaware of". I asked you whether a stone, which is truly unaware can be said to be lacking a belief? Now, you wish to restrict this only to conscious things. As if conscious things can have an empty mind. Ha.

Conscious things can only have the following positions wrt to a prposition: "I believe", " I do not believe", or "I am undecided".

For a mind which is empty in respect of a proposition (as in a baby) or in case of absence of a mind (as in case of a stone) the correct statement is: "neither disbelief nor belief". A stone or a baby is unaware of the proposition.

 

[atanu]

Yes.. that's what you often offer as an argument.

PLEASE explain your position if you.. care to be involved in a discussion /

Honestly no. What explanation can one offer when you (and a few others others) claim 'reasonableness' for yourself?

 

[Ouroboros]

For a mind which is empty in respect of a proposition (as in a baby) or in case of absence of a mind (as in case of a stone) the correct statement is: "neither disbelief nor belief". A stone or a baby is unaware of the proposition.

Also, we should ask the baby what the baby believes about being an atheist. As it so happens, the baby disagrees. A baby doesn't believe he/she is an atheist. So obviously the atheists are wrong about the babies being atheists by default, since babies don't believe they're atheists. And this unbelief in being atheists, they are... by default!

 

[atanu]

Yup. Agree.

If the label "atheist" should be used on babies who doesn't have the neural pathways to have an opinion either way, then we could just as well start claiming that babies have no belief in organization and government, no belief in their own existence, no belief that they are, themselves atheists or theists, no belief in that their parents are their real parents, no belief in Hitler being wrong, no belief in roads, taxes, life, existence, math (they don't believe 1+1=2), and so on, which then means they're parent-hating nihilistic nazi anarchists who reject math! Well... they are kind'a rebellious at times.

Yes. Babies have neither belief nor disbelief on these points. They have not considered these prpositions at all.

Those who have considered a proposition can have only three position:

"I do believe".
"I do not believe".
"I am undecided".

To say I have mere lack of belief is either meaningless (as for a baby or for a stone) or the following will obtain:

From another author

1 If the term “atheism” describes a missing mental property (i.e. a lack of belief), then the definition is too broad to be meaningful. Given this new definition there would be no difference between an atheist and the armchair he’s sitting on; that is, an armchair also lacks a belief in God just like the atheist.
2 If the term “atheism” simply describes a lack of belief, then there can be no argument to support what is lacking. It is merely describing an absence of an opinion. Atheists, therefore, cannot support absence with any good reasons; for, in absence, there is nothing to support. This relegates their view to the same level of seriousness as an aversion to lima beans or boiled cauliflower.
3 If the term “atheism” simply describes a lack of belief, then atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens went to an awful lot of trouble writing books describing their missing mental property. As a matter of fact, I’m curious how the internet atheist should interpret Dawkins’ chapter title in The God Delusion: “Why There Almost Certainly is No God”. Perhaps he should read it as: “How My Lack of Belief Explains Why There is No God”.