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

[Willamena]

... except when they say precisely that.

Exodus 20:2-3:

That's not a monotheist speaking, in that narrative.

And the Tanakh version doesn't say precisely that.

 

[Segev Moran]

I wrote in agreement with a dictionary definition of "atheism", see my prior post here.

Atheism is actually a Greek word that literally means: "Without God"..
If you'll look for the definition of Atheism, you might find several different definitions yet the only one consistent is the Lack of belief there is a God or anything secular.

Example: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

As I said, There are "Hard" Atheists.. that claim there is no God...
But it is not (by far) a majority of Atheists...
The plain Atheist term is as it is... Lack of belief in a God or Deity.
If you'll feel better.. I can present myself as "Soft" Atheist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not a monotheist speaking, in that narrative.

It's a monotheist speaking when a monotheist holds up the Ten Commandments and proclaims them as a true reflection of their own beliefs.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Except "atheist" means "a person who does not believe in gods", not "a person who doesn't accept that they believe in a god/gods."

The comparison works just fine.

Yes that is the problem with comparing the two dichotomies.

Theism/atheism is a statement on belief.

Civilian/Servicemen is a statement of social designation.

There is no way of making the civilian/servicemen dichotomy a statement of belief. That was the point i was trying to make

They are not the same.

Therefore your comparison cannot work.

 

[Willamena]

It's a monotheist speaking when a monotheist holds up the Ten Commandments and proclaims them as a true reflection of their own beliefs.

How so?

Don't we all do that, inherently? Or is monotheist some symbol for individuality?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You choose to join the military (hopefully - I'll ignore the possibility of conscription to make the analogy more directly comparable). You start out as a civilian.
And the fact that we start out as civilians doesn't stop someone - once they're in a position to do so - to make an explicit choice not to join the military.

Atheism is a view, a rejection of theism. This analogy would only work at the point where somebody is making a choice between military or civilian life, that would involve forming a view.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Theism/atheism is a statement on belief.
Civilian/Servicemen is a statement of social designation.
They are not the same.
Therefore your comparison cannot work.

I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is a view, a rejection of theism.

How does a person reject theism... including the countless number of gods he's never even heard of?

Edit: even with the gods we've heard of how does a person reject all of them? I reject plenty of arguments for gods, but I recognize that true claims can be argued for using bad arguments, so I can't use the poor quality of arguments for gods as justification to reject the god(s) being argued; all I can do is say "you haven't made your case and I won't accept your god(s) until you do."

There are only a few gods that we can actually reject. There are plenty of arguments for gods that we can reject, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Willamena]

It's a monotheist speaking when a monotheist holds up the Ten Commandments and proclaims them as a true reflection of their own beliefs.

Still trying to puzzle this out. Is it suggesting that God has a belief in God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still trying to puzzle this out. Is it suggesting that God has a belief in God?

What? No. I wasn't thinking of God as the monotheist in my post.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Thing is, you're calling it higher thought. What you are describing itself could be considered higher thought. The idea that 'if I cry, I will be answered in a way that matches my desire.' That's some magical (higher) thinking going on there. Granted, baby isn't probably verbalizing to their own self words, like we possibly do when we sit back and contemplate on a subject. Yet, when we mediate on (anything), it can, rather easily, be coming to certain insights that may later be put into words, yet which during the experience may have not involved any words or concepts as words when they came to us (or from us).

Then there's the idea that babies are (observably) experiencing de facto gods (parents/caregivers) as what essentially the entirety of their experience entails (as babies).

My explanation of how a mind mentally accepts the physical world around it is not a direct quote of the thoughts within that mind... That shouldn't need to be said. It is merely a summation of the thought process which leads me to take ownership of the claim that babies do have some thoughts. They have them in the the same way that any other animal has thoughts. Dogs know that the sound of dry food shaking in a bag means they are going to be fed. I'll openly claim that dogs have thoughts regarding their feeding times and what certain stimuli in their environment mean for their daily routine. But what are their thoughts on Theism?

Using your argument, can't it be said that a dog sees its master as a god-like figure? Aren't we, in a sense, just de facto gods? Does that mean dogs are theists?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. Yet here we are...

Again, I see you assuming that God(s) is (or are) higher thought(s). That's disputable. If thought to own self, that's still expression or conception via words. In a mystical type experience, that stuff is either not occurring or is taking backseat to experience (without need to express it, to own self).

There is plenty of spiritual messaging that advocates to become childlike. While that can have nefarious implications that I dunno, amount to become naive so we can mold you and manipulate you like a pawn, it also has what I see as self evident rationale at work, which is get away from your so called "educated view on how life works" and accept yourself at very basic level, where words you are familiar with (or use daily, currently) do not grasp Who You Are.

I keep wanting to interject mystical experiences I've had that I think may better explain all this, but instead I go with the intellectual appeal. I honestly believe (all) people have plenty of own mystical experiences, but perhaps write it off as unimportant and treat worldly affairs as 'what life today is really about for them' regardless of how mundane and uneventful that worldly life actually is.

Yes. Contemplating the complexities of theistic claims is a higher thought, akin to debating which social practices and forms of government are the "best" at implementing equality and justice to a populace while not infringing too harshly on individual freedoms, for example. Expressing and discussing the sensations and origins of mystical experiences would also fall into this category of "higher thought". (Honestly, what are religions other than different forms of language and systems of rationalizing parts of the human experience?) But these things are very different from simply being aware of one's surroundings and beginning to realize motor functions and their ability to serve the body's needs... Don't be obtuse here. You know what I'm talking about.

The differences between the inability to contemplate a thought and the ignorance of a topic are actually very similar. That's what this whole discussion should be about.

 

[Willamena]

What? No. I wasn't thinking of God as the monotheist in my post.

I don't follow then.

Moses, a monotheist, holds up the tablet, on which G-d essentially says that none other is G-d, and that demonstrates what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't follow then.

Moses, a monotheist, holds up the tablet, on which G-d essentially says that none other is G-d, and that demonstrates what?

You missed my point.

When a monotheist living today says "I agree with the Ten Commandments," they're saying - among other things - that out of all the gods, they're choosing God.

When I said "hold up the Ten Commandments", I meant this in a figurative sense (i.e. proclaiming them as true), not literally holding up stone tablets.

 

[Willamena]

You missed my point.

When a monotheist living today says "I agree with the Ten Commandments," they're saying - among other things - that out of all the gods, they're choosing God.

When I said "hold up the Ten Commandments", I meant this in a figurative sense (i.e. proclaiming them as true), not literally holding up stone tablets.

How is adopting the commandments indicative of choosing G-d? Rather, the realization of G-d is of the one G-d. Then it's seen that there are no others.

 

[Acim]

Any concept of God I might have mentioned is surely not mine.
It might be I describe someone else's concept of God as a reference to make a point.

That somewhat doesn't make sense. If you express a concept of God, even as what another has said, then that says you do have a concept of God, and depending on how you word that, it does plausibly belong to you (that understand/conceptualization). Anyway, I dug up what I was referring to. When you said on another thread:

for me it means a person that believes there is a God/s that takes an active part in our day to day lives.
when I say God, I mean an Entity that is beyond our natural existence and has the ability to manipulate our universe in a way that might "break" the knowledge we have today regarding how the universe works.

Now, this was said in response to this which was said by @LuisDantas

Not everyone even has a conception of deity.

For this claim to make sense, you would have to begin by defining what you mean by "theism". And in so doing you will unavoidably clash with other people's definitions.

Not looking to rehash what can be discussed in the other thread, but looking to be fair to what you responded to, and to present. Where you say, "when I say God, I mean an Entity that" - I see that as a conceptualization of God for you. It also comes across to me as a belief (acceptance) of what God is for you, even if it ultimately is an assertion that doesn't make sense, upon further examination.

Why it doesn't make sense how you are now conveying it, is two fold.

A) People who believe in truth of the Bible, are using concepts of God as a reference point that are not theirs, yet they adopt it and include it in their understanding or what they mean by God. You appear to be doing similar thing (in part I quoted, though obviously not in identical fashion).

B) If I said I don't have any concept of science, and then said: "when I say science, I mean an endeavor that is a mental construct which actually utilizes the scientific method rather paying lip service to that method." So, if I said that would you think I actually have a concept of what science is, or that I do not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is adopting the commandments indicative of choosing G-d? Rather, the realization of G-d is of the one G-d. Then it's seen that there are no others.

It's a matter of considering the possibility of other gods and then rejecting it. This entails recognizing other gods as a possibility at least in potential, even if not in reality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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''

Allow me to explain. Firstly this is nothing but semantics which makes it useless in the actual application of meaning but lets look at it anyway.

Its not a non-position. Its clearly a position that one does not accept the "god theory" or "theism" to be well founded. They lack the belief or acceptance of such a thing. That is a clear position. What it is not is the positive assertion that god does not exist. They are two totally different arguments. Each with 2 sides. While one can be used as a counter argument it does not negate the fact that they are two distinct points.

The default position, which doesn't actually exist but is often claimed or declared, would logically be a non-opinion. We don't start off with a positive belief in something. We all must be convinced of points before we believe them.

 

[Willamena]

It's a matter of considering the possibility of other gods and then rejecting it. This entails recognizing other gods as a possibility at least in potential, even if not in reality.

But monotheism starts with the realization of the one G-d.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But monotheism starts with the realization of the one G-d.

You're begging the question.

 

[Willamena]

You're begging the question.

Not really. Is a person a monotheist while they're "shopping" for a god? Are they a monotheist having selected god off a shelf?