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

[Willamena]

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 atheism is an opinion or belief about "god," then the infant isn't even technically an atheist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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''

Your absolutely right. There is in essence no idealised position whatsoever in light Athiesm is a response directed towards Theism.

The ideology of Athiesm points to the fact that people are not at all privy towards Theism unless the idea gets introduced. first.

Technically however the response of Atheism points to that default position, (or state) , for which remains the case and fact that there is no pre-existing ideology to start with.

 

[columbus]

All we need to resolve this issue is a word to distinguish one of the subsets of the nontheists.
I used to think it was "igtheist", someone who doesn't know enough to have a position. Apparently that word already has another meaning. "Apatheist" is probably even closer to the world view of an infant than agnostic, but it still doesn't seem to capture the ignorance that is the defining feature of the concept very well.

Any suggestions?
Tom
ETA ~Maybe I am just ruining a perfectly good useless argument? ~

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I'm an advocate for elimination of hypocrisy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All we need to resolve this issue is a word to distinguish one of the subsets of the nontheists.
I used to think it was "igtheist", someone who doesn't know enough to have a position. Apparently that word already has another meaning. "Apatheist" is probably even closer to the world view of an infant than agnostic, but it still doesn't seem to capture the ignorance that is the defining feature of the concept very well.

Any suggestions?
Tom
ETA ~Maybe I am just ruining a perfectly good useless argument? ~

"Igtheist" and "agnostic" don't work as default positions, since both are based on positive claims (respectively: "the term 'god' is meaningless" and "the existence of god(s) is unknowable").

"Apatheist" is a term that speaks to a different issue: whether you care whether gods exist, you still either believe or not.

"Non-theist" and "atheist" both work fine, since "non-theist" is just a euphemism for "atheist".

 

[निताइ dasa]

Lol this whole debate is simply based upon a disagreement on terms like "atheist" and "default position".

 

[viole]

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''

I agree. Belief in God is probably a natural adaptation. And therefore, it is unlikely to be the default position. If we reset humanity to a blank state of total ignorance, they will start making up some god once again, I suppose.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

The default positions is ignorance. I never understood why atheists wanted to be compared to new born babies and inanimate objects as a defense of their philosophy, but if they ask for it should we deny it? I guess I've just always, even as an atheist, refused to accept a position I then would not or could not defend. But it's just like the burden of proof games of atheism, it's a position based on the refusal to engage and defend, and is admittedly (and for some reason proudly) accepted as a position explicitly not based on evidence.

Obviously this is not true of all atheists, but on the internet it seems to be nine out of ten.

 

[columbus]

I never understood why atheists wanted to be compared to new born babies and inanimate objects as a defense of their philosophy, but if they ask for it should we deny it?

It probably wouldn't come up in conversation if it weren't for the regularity of arguments like
"You atheists know God exists, you just hate Him" or
"Everyone is born Muslim, they just get taught wrong things"
Tom
ETA~"Isn't Atheism a Faith-Based Non-Religion"~

 

[McBell]

The default positions is ignorance.

Huh?
What does ignorance have to do with belief (or lack of)?

I never understood why atheists wanted to be compared to new born babies and inanimate objects as a defense of their philosophy, but if they ask for it should we deny it?

What are you talking about?
What does atheism have to do with philosophy?

I guess I've just always, even as an atheist, refused to accept a position I then would not or could not defend.

I feel no need to "defend" my atheism.

But it's just like the burden of proof games of atheism,

The one making the claim has the burden of proof.
It matters not whether the one making the claim is an atheist or a theist.

it's a position based on the refusal to engage and defend, and is admittedly (and for some reason proudly) accepted as a position explicitly not based on evidence.

What are you talking about?
Seems to me that if you are claiming that atheism is based on "refusal to engage and defend" you have not paid any attention to this thread, let alone the world.

Obviously this is not true of all atheists, but on the internet it seems to be nine out of ten.

Really?
Then you should have no problems with providing examples?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The default positions is ignorance. I never understood why atheists wanted to be compared to new born babies and inanimate objects as a defense of their philosophy, but if they ask for it should we deny it?

"This label includes positions of ignorance" does not imply "this label only applies to positions of ignorance.

I guess I've just always, even as an atheist, refused to accept a position I then would not or could not defend. But it's just like the burden of proof games of atheism, it's a position based on the refusal to engage and defend, and is admittedly (and for some reason proudly) accepted as a position explicitly not based on evidence.

Obviously this is not true of all atheists, but on the internet it seems to be nine out of ten.

Ha! The guy who can't talk to atheists without being combative and insulting is perplexed when atheists don't engage with him.

Protip: when your demeanour suggests you're interested in actual respectful conversation, you'll get engagement. When you just shout at people, they'll either just shout back or simply ignore you.

 

[Acim]

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.

Being the first person to bring up babies in this thread, and being one that is gnostic theist, I'd like to come back and revisit this. What you wrote (and I highlighted) is a good starting point IMO. You wrote: babies naturally exist without belief in pretty much anything

And I'm curious if you (or anyone) would offer an exception that amounts to something babies believe? Or am at least a little curious why you didn't just say, "babies exist without beliefs in anything?" It's as if you are allowing for an idea that babies do have beliefs about some things.

What I was going to say before quoting your post is that from our perspective of babies, they appear to have ideas of being hungry, or being sleepy, or being able to move their baby bodies.

Belief being equal to: acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Thus is it known to us that babies accept that something exists (perhaps namely themselves), even while they might not understand it in the way we do, and for sure that they are unable to express it in the way we, who are more reasoned, do.

Cause that's really what babies are (from our perspectively) knowingly lacking, a way to express their beliefs (about anything) to us in words. How they express themselves we have our own ideas about what it means. And we respond (hopefully) in nurturing and caring ways to what we see as their needs, in the moment. Most of that, I think, is simplistic and has been done for thousands of years, so chances are pretty good that we are doing whatever we are doing with regards to babies in an adequate way, even while they lack ability to express to us in words what it is they want, believe, need.

Yet to jump from that (lacking ability to express to us in words) to incapable of belief (in gods) is a stretch. In at least one of the ways our dictionaries define gods, parents (or those who care for babies) are gods, to the babies. Arguably 2 of the definitions that I'm familiar with.

The main one that I think applies is: an adored, admired, or influential person. Clearly the caregiver is an influential person to a baby, and still a baby is incapable of expressing this, as a baby, to their caregiver, using words.

The second one that may apply: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. From baby perspective, adults are superhuman beings having power over (human) baby's fortunes. And again, babies are unable to express in words that this is occurring with them, even while it is observable. I would say well known.

 

[Acim]

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".

Uh, yeah, we do.

 

[Skwim]

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

Which, as I pointed out in post 17, is covered by "I lack the belief that . . ." the unstated position of babies, the severely feeble minded, and goldfish.


.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If atheism is an opinion or belief about "god," then the infant isn't even technically an atheist.

I wouldn't expect you to fall prey to the same pointless trap as everyone else here... But I'll play along for clarification, since it seems needed.

Let's use your same argument for a different topic... Babies know nothing about nor have formed an opinion on politics. We can probably agree on that, right? Does that mean that it's a mistake to say that they are NOT political? If you think that they aren't apolitical, I would like to hear why. I mean, they certainly are without political knowledge or experience. They are ignorant of political concepts and histories, by default, as they've never been exposed to them. So what's wrong with saying that babies are apolitical, even if only technically?

They aren't Communists. They aren't Monarchs. They aren't Democratic. They aren't Dictators. They aren't Aristrocrats. They aren't Plutoarcs. They aren't Oligarchs... yadda yadda yadda.

Are any of those statements false?

They aren't.
We are applying our special knowledge of topics (in this case politics) that they are ignorant of and lableing them with descriptions that fit, based on that special knowledge. The whole debate is a logical fallacy. The fact that these descriptions technically apply makes no real difference...

The dialogue needs to be centered around the nature of how we learn and become any of those labels over the course of our lives - not which version of semantics we find more appealing to our individually created worldviews. All of these posts and threads about "Atheism means this..." or "Atheism doesn't mean that..." are red herrings and wastes of time UNLESS they eventually lead to actual discussions about theories of knowledge.

Some much more productive questions, for example, would be:

• "Since we recognize that babies are without knowledge of certain topics, how can we be sure that our current understanding of said topics is accurate?"
• "Where does our propensity for faith originate?"
• "What factors in my life led me to my current belief system?"
• "Am I certain of what I believe?"
• "How do I know what I know?"

This is what I mean by completely missing the point of the original claim. Saying that babies are atheists is a characterization of a greater concept of knowledge - not a blank statement of fact.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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

You do realize there is no third position right?

 

[columbus]

Being the first person to bring up babies in this thread, and being one that is gnostic theist, I'd like to come back and revisit this.

Babies are a commonly used example of these sorts of nontheists, but they are not the only ones.
My father's youngest sister was born severely handicapped. She could dress herself but that is about it. I am pretty sure she had no real position about matters theological, despite living in a very Christian home for over 60 years.
Tom

 

[Acim]

The dialogue needs to be centered around the nature of how we learn and become any of those labels over the course of our lives - not which version of semantics we find more appealing to our individually created worldviews. All of these posts and threads about "Atheism means this..." or "Atheism doesn't mean that..." are red herrings and wastes of time UNLESS they eventually lead to actual discussions about theories of knowledge.

Some much more productive questions, for example, would be:

• "Since we recognize that babies are without knowledge of certain topics, how can we be sure that our current understanding of said topics is accurate?"
• "Where does our propensity for faith originate?"
• "What factors in my life led me to my current belief system?"
• "Am I certain of what I believe?"
• "How do I know what I know?"

This is what I mean by completely missing the point of the original claim. Saying that babies are atheists is a characterization of a greater concept of knowledge - not a blank statement of fact.

I'm interested in addressing the questions asked, cause I do recognize why the baby thing is brought up. Superficially, it is brought up to show how ignorance equates to (form of) atheism, but beyond that it is brought up as way of understanding particular ideas about god(s) and faith. So, onward with those questions:

"Since we recognize that babies are without knowledge of certain topics, how can we be sure that our current understanding of said topics is accurate?"

*Do want to stipulate on the "certain topics" here, and wonder again why not go with "all topics?" Or, if not that, then would be very interested in what topics babies are with knowledge of, and how we understand that (or know it ourselves).
- The answer to the inquiry is faith/trust. I would say there's more to the response than that, but going with brevity for now.

"Where does our propensity for faith originate?"

- within our being
Kinda thinking you were more asking 'when.' If so, I'd go with conception.

"What factors in my life led me to my current belief system?"

Rhetorical question, I see. Perhaps they all are, but some I chose to address. This one, I'll let it remain rhetorical.

"Am I certain of what I believe?"

Also rhetorical, but is in vein that I think is near intellectual heart of debate on theism and atheism. As I would say once certainty is mixed in with belief, it gets nuanced. It transforms from mere belief into something else, along lines of conviction, or knowledge. This one obviously has more to be said, or added to it, though I do think it is bit of non sequitur to suggest certainty and belief go hand in hand.

"How do I know what I know?"

Another rhetorical inquiry.
- I'm going to go with answer of: because of circular reasoning, and awareness of a set of ideas, or axioms

 

[Acim]

My father's youngest sister was born severely handicapped. She could dress herself but that is about it. I am pretty sure she had no real position about matters theological, despite living in a very Christian home for over 60 years.
Tom

That's really a statement about you, rather than her.

 

[buddhist]

You do realize there is no third position right?

I'm not sure what your point is ... ?