If atheism is a 'lack of a position', then it can't be the default position

[Desert Snake]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

 

[Valjean]

Linguistic sleight-of-hand.
Would you prefer "default non-position?"

 

[buddhist]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''.

What makes atheism the "default position"?

If anything, I'd say agnosticism makes a better candidate.

 

[George-ananda]

Neither side has the default position and also that really doesn't matter. What matters is what we individually think makes the most sense and we then debate/discuss that with others.

 

[Kartari]

Hi syncretic,

I have no problem with calling atheism a position, either in its strong or weak form. Even in its weak form, one can have a position of lacking faith in the existence of gods in the same way one can view zero as a valid number. It is the position of being unconvinced that gods exist.

And, as mentioned elsewhere, I view weak atheism as the default position.

 

[Kartari]

Hi buddhist,

What makes atheism the "default position"?

If anything, I'd say agnosticism makes a better candidate.

Well, maybe this depends on which meaning you have in mind for the term agnosticism. Concerning the agnostic position that knowledge of gods is both unknown and unknowable, I'd argue that this is indeed a faith-based assertion. The title of default position imo is best granted to the assertion-less position of lacking faith in gods (i.e. weak atheism).

 

[Kartari]

Hi George,

Neither side has the default position and also that really doesn't matter. What matters is what we individually think makes the most sense and we then debate/discuss that with others.

I agree with what you say about what matters.

In logical discourse however, it makes more sense to me to at first assume the position with the least unfounded assumptions, and to work one's way up from there to support any given alternative view. In the case of gods, weak atheism (i.e. the lack of faith in gods' existence) has the least presumptions - it has precisely zero presumptions.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

It's the "default" for those who believe in nothing/nonexistents.

I suspect they view existence as a thing, hence its negation resolves itself.

 

[Willamena]

Linguistic sleight-of-hand.
Would you prefer "default non-position?"

What are the other non-positions?

 

[Acim]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

Playing atheists advocate, the default position refers to ignorance (or weak atheism). It's the idea that babies have no concepts (whatsoever) and are ignorant of any theistic claims. It's not only babies, but I think it helps understand how it is plausible as default position.

Yet, as I've stated elsewhere on RF, babies would be the only true atheists, and adult atheists who are not ignorant of theistic claims would be in a gray(er) area, that is clearly not the default. If weak in atheism, it is closer to agnosticism, but given zealous attention to nuances and hyperbolic distinctions, it may be argued as having nothing to do with position of agnosticism.

 

[Altfish]

What makes atheism the "default position"?

If anything, I'd say agnosticism makes a better candidate.

I would argue that since, when you are born you have no knowledge of god or gods then you are an atheist. You are not born unsure about the existence of god...because you don't even know that he/she has been invented.
It is only when you start to learn that you hear about gods, at that stage you could become agnostic.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Quoting from an old post (not mine, but reddit user u/Parivill501 )

"You cannot "lack a belief" once you've come into contact with the ideas around it. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it a belief which rejects the claims of theism. Likewise an anti-communist doesn't lack a belief about communism, they have a belief which is the rejection of communism. This muddling of the language is a semantic game by the New Atheists and shows their lack of philosophical understanding."

Atheism is a position, but it is clearly not a default position in the sense that all agents naturally have this position (which is an absurd idea). I think agnosticism is prob the most default position one can get.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

Im not understanding here. The default is "lack of belief in god". We dont make a position or take it until we know later on in life if not ealier like myself that god doesnt exist.

Claiming the position is not a default. The position itself is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.
Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

Atheism involves a rejection of theism. I guess the default position would be having no knowledge of God beliefs, and not having a view.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Quoting from an old post (not mine, but reddit user u/Parivill501 )

"You cannot "lack a belief" once you've come into contact with the ideas around it. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it a belief which rejects the claims of theism. Likewise an anti-communist doesn't lack a belief about communism, they have a belief which is the rejection of communism. This muddling of the language is a semantic game by the New Atheists and shows their lack of philosophical understanding."

Atheism is a position, but it is clearly not a default position in the sense that all agents naturally have this position (which is an absurd idea). I think agnosticism is prob the most default position one can get.

I think you confusing belief with existence. Some children never experienced nor knew existence of love from people and their parents. They lack belief (default) as a result of what they have no knowledge about.

They cant reject love when it doesnt exist in their worldview. They can hear about its existence (like I heard about god growing up) but that doesnt equal to rejection of love (or god) but ignorance of their existence first and foremost.

Then, once you hear the claim exist, you have to decern it from fact and fiction. If youre find its fiction, youre not rejecting it you are just realizing love or god isnt part of your worldview. It doesnt existence to reject. The claim is but thats not the same as rejecting the actual existence of god.

We are conditioned to take a position on how we define and/or identify with things. If I never needed to make a position about my belief in god, the word just like some other words would hold no meaning.

Thats not reject. Thats ignorance.

Atheism is a position and non position. Belief in god is not inherit. We are atheists (we have no god concept) at birth. Its only a position when we make a statement of disbelief when we realize (not reject) claims of theists that does not make sense in our logical worldview.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

You don't think lack of belief can be a default "position"? If so, aren't you making way to much of the word "position" here? It's quite easy to get lost in semantics, and I suspect that's what you've done. Consider that a "lack of belief" is most likely what babies are born with. Why quibble, then, over whether on not lack of belief should be described as a "position"?

 

[Skwim]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Yup.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position''

Who's claiming that it's a "non-position"? Atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. Or, in other words, the atheist's position is that deities don't exist.

If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

Not at all. The denial of X is just as much a position as is the affirmation of X. Let me ask you what you think about the existence of the Land of Oz?

1. I believe the Land of Oz exists. (I have the belief the Land of Oz exists) (I affirm the existence of the Land of Oz)

2. I believe the Land of Oz does not exist. (I lack the belief that the Land of Oz exists) (I deny the existence of the Land of Oz)​

Three different ways each of the two conclusions can be stated. And while each of the three pairs indicate a difference in emphasis, they remain valid positions. One of them (1.) is an "affirmative" position and the other (2.) is a "negative" position. Moreover, while the "I believe. . . ." "I have the belief. . . ." and "I affirm/deny . . . ." positions imply thoughtful reflection, and may be challenged as default positions, "I lack . . . " does not. It's not only the possible position of the those who have thoughtfully reflected on the issue but also the default position of those unaware any such issue exists. The "I lack the belief that . . ." is also the unstated position of babies, the severely feeble minded, and goldfish.


.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Consider that a "lack of belief" is most likely what babies are born with. Why quibble, then, over whether on not lack of belief should be described as a "position"?

In this context having a position implies having a view or belief about God, neither of which a new-baby can have.

 

[Sunstone]

In this context having a position implies having a view or belief about God, neither of which a new-baby can have.

In which case, the OP is trivial.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Atheism is often described as the ''default position''. There's a problem with this. If atheism is the ''default position'', then it is a position, from which a person would become a theist.

Atheism can't be both the ''default position'', and a ''non-position'' ,// or 'lack of belief'. If atheism were actually a 'lack of belief', per definition, then it is a non-position, not the ''default position''

It is an interesting quirk of the way the words are created.

The default position of the claim of theism is that you reject the positive assertion that there is some form of theistic entity until satisfactory evidence is provided.

In a way a-theism is also the rejection of the positive claim that there is some form theistic entity.

So you whilst you are indeed correct in a pedantic way, the result is the same, for the very same reason.