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

[The Neo Nerd]

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

I've always had an issue with the point that all babies are atheists.

Newborns are incapable of considering the question of theism.

So in a sense they are atheists. But it is as meaningless as saying a rock is an atheist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Newborns are incapable of considering the question of theism.
So in a sense they are atheists. But it is as meaningless as saying a rock is an atheist.

I don't think newborns are theists or atheists or anything, because as you say they are incapable of considering the question or forming a view about it.

It's like asking whether a baby is a Republican or Democrat.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The problem of this argument is one of special knowledge. We are reducing the complexity of our adult experiences back to a time in ourselves (and others) where these ideas factually did not exist. There were no gods to us like there was no algebra, and for the same reasons. It's like judging an ancient culture's medicinal practices because they didn't know anything about germ theory... it's ultimately a pointless conversation.

Factually:

• Babies do not believe in gods
• Babies do not believe in algebra
• Babies do not believe in gravity
• Babies do not believe in gender
• Babies do not believe in ecosystems
• Babies do not believe in The Walking Dead
• Babies do not believe in Democracy...

So what? While these statements are factually true - while babies technically are atheists as the word can define them, it really means nothing. The only reason we have to discuss the default lack of belief in this instance is so that we can begin to understand the nature of our adult beliefs. It's so we can start to break down our theories of knowledge and our understanding of self. I'll never understand why this forum gets so caught up in the minor details of this discussion and constantly fails to follow the implications of it any further...

Since babies naturally exist without belief in pretty much anything, what does that say about the existence of even our most deeply held beliefs?

THAT is the discussion that we should be having. The clean slate of infancy is nothing more than a starting point for a deeper and productive debate.

 

[Valjean]

"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."

Balderdash. You're defining strong atheism, not weak or essential atheism.
What would you call someone who never heard of God or Communism? They're not rejecting God or communism, yet they lack belief.

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.

Semantic nitpicking. A default position is a non-position. If you can think of a better term for a lack of position I'd be glad to hear it.

Atheism involves a rejection of theism.

So someone who never heard of God; who's ignorant of the whole concept, can't be an atheist?
The essence of atheism ls lack of belief. Other features -- rejection, skepticism, &c, are add-ons.

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

Yes. No knowledge or no opinion.

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.

That's a strong atheist's view, not the essence of atheism. That means someone never exposed to the concept of God can't be an atheist.

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)

Not the only alternatives:
3. I don't know/have no opinion about the existence of Oz.
4. What's "Oz?"

 

[Thief]

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''

nice touché'.....

 

[Thief]

The problem of this argument is one of special knowledge. We are reducing the complexity of our adult experiences back to a time in ourselves (and others) where these ideas factually did not exist. There were no gods to us like there was no algebra, and for the same reasons. It's like judging an ancient culture's medicinal practices because they didn't know anything about germ theory... it's ultimately a pointless conversation.

Factually:

• Babies do not believe in gods
• Babies do not believe in algebra
• Babies do not believe in gravity
• Babies do not believe in gender
• Babies do not believe in ecosystems
• Babies do not believe in The Walking Dead
• Babies do not believe in Democracy...

So what? While these statements are factually true - while babies technically are atheists as the word can define them, it really means nothing. The only reason we have to discuss the default lack of belief in this instance is so that we can begin to understand the nature of our adult beliefs. It's so we can start to break down our theories of knowledge and our understanding of self. I'll never understand why this forum gets so caught up in the minor details of this discussion and constantly fails to follow the implications of it any further...

Since babies naturally exist without belief in pretty much anything, what does that say about the existence of even our most deeply held beliefs?

THAT is the discussion that we should be having. The clean slate of infancy is nothing more than a starting point for a deeper and productive debate.

if the technicality is there
let it stick

that is to say....it's not a default postion

 

[निताइ dasa]

Semantic nitpicking. A default position is a non-position. If you can think of a better term for a lack of position I'd be glad to hear it.

It impossible to have a non-position when you come into contact with any set of ideas regarding such a position. As soon as we gain knowledge of the concept of God we automatically conform to a position regarding that information (i.e evaluate it).

I actually don't think there exists something as a 'default' position regarding anything.

What would you call someone who never heard of God or Communism? They're not rejecting God or communism, yet they lack belief.

If someone is unaware of a concept in the first place, then the question of position (or lack of) is irrelevant. I would certainly not call that a default position. Both weak and strong atheists are aware of the notion of God and pick a position accordingly. In this way we can define atheist as a position which does not accept fully the existence of a God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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''

"Default position" doesn't mean "non-position". And yes: theists start out as atheists and then become theists.

I don't see why the thing you're saying is a problem is a problem at all.

 

[Shad]

I've always had an issue with the point that all babies are atheists.

Newborns are incapable of considering the question of theism.

So in a sense they are atheists. But it is as meaningless as saying a rock is an atheist.

I do not think we currently have methods to evaluate if they do or do not that would be ethical to use nor without a form of contamination due to the requirement of language based communication. Perhaps this type of question should be ended on this note until neurosciences develops further

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've always had an issue with the point that all babies are atheists.

Newborns are incapable of considering the question of theism.

So in a sense they are atheists. But it is as meaningless as saying a rock is an atheist.

Do you also have a problem with calling babies "civilians" before they're capable of understanding what it means to serve in the military?

"Why are they counting babies when they give civilian casualty reports from this war? The way they use the term is meaningless! By their definition, they should also be including rocks that have been blown up!"

 

[Thief]

God made rock
the rock does not believe in God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God made rock
the rock does not believe in God

The rock also doesn't serve in the military, smoke cigarettes, or eat meat... but we don't put up ridiculous objections to the words "civilian", "non-smoker", or "vegetarian".

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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''

Yes. And before you take a position on the matter, which involves being convinced by either spoken words or literature, one is an atheist. It is the 'default position' we are all born into, which may or may not continue to be held based on ones intellectual fortitude after being exposed to said words or literature.

When you buy a hard drive for your PC, the default state is blank. You can install windows, or Linux, or even some variant of BSD if you want actually...but that is all after the fact.

 

[Thief]

The rock also doesn't serve in the military, smoke cigarettes, or eat meat... but we don't put up ridiculous objections to the words "civilian", "non-smoker", or "vegetarian".

so...you are advocate for all of the infants?

 

[buddhist]

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.

I would say that both "atheism" and "agnosticism" are positions made by choice, and a baby chooses neither.

I define "atheism" as "a-theism", a choice against theism, and so a baby cannot be an atheist in my mind.

 

[jonathan180iq]

if the technicality is there
let it stick

that is to say....it's not a default postion

 

[McBell]

so...you are advocate for all of the infants?

No more so than you are.

 

[Altfish]

I would say that both "atheism" and "agnosticism" are positions made by choice, and a baby chooses neither.

I define "atheism" as "a-theism", a choice against theism, and so a baby cannot be an atheist in my mind.

I have to disagree.
When you are born you do not believe in gods.
You may define atheism as you want but it is actually, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" - since the new born baby meets both those criteria it is an atheist at birth.

 

[buddhist]

I have to disagree.
When you are born you do not believe in gods.
You may define atheism as you want but it is actually, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" - since the new born baby meets both those criteria it is an atheist at birth.

I would say that when you're born you neither believe nor not believe in gods.

 

[Altfish]

I would say that when you're born you neither believe nor not believe in gods.

Well you can't believe in something that you don't know about. So that part is true,
The question is then, can you believe in something you don't. I find it hard to see how you can. Which is the definition of an atheist.

People only start to believe in gods when they become indoctrinated by their elders