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

[1137]

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

Ignorance is the default position in that you're not even aware of the positions, cannot even comprehend them. You cannot reject gods or claim a godless universe with zero ability to understand those terms.

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

Lol wut? What does a philosophical position have to do with philosophy? Cmon now.

I feel no need to "defend" my atheism.

And that's fine, I simply prefer a position that I find worth defending.

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.

If you hold a position you should be able to support it, end of story.

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.


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

Uh, just look in this very thread! Babies are atheist because of their ignorance, atheism isn't based on evidence, but a lack of evidence. God I wish I didn't feel uncomfortable in blinders, seems nice.

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

Alright.

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

What's cute is you think my behavior is anything but an adaption to years wasted trying to reason with atheists. Thanks to militant atheism taking the internet by storm, I'm surprised theists bother at all anymore.

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.

Hey, I learned from the best like you my friend: militant atheists are interested in belittling and **** swinging, and I'll treat you accordingly.

 

[McBell]

Ignorance is the default position in that you're not even aware of the positions, cannot even comprehend them. You cannot reject gods or claim a godless universe with zero ability to understand those terms.

When you decide to get back to the topic at hand, please feel free to let me know.

Lol wut? What does a philosophical position have to do with philosophy? Cmon now.

Atheism is not a philosophical position.
Nice try though.

And that's fine, I simply prefer a position that I find worth defending.

I did not say I could not defend it, just that I do not feel any need to.

Your assumptions are most comical though.

If you hold a position you should be able to support it, end of story.

Says you.
But then, who are you?
Just some random stranger on the internet who makes to many assumptions.

Uh, just look in this very thread! Babies are atheist because of their ignorance, atheism isn't based on evidence, but a lack of evidence.

Ah, so no examples, just more widely broad empty accusations...
Thank you for letting me know you are not interested in being taken seriously.

God I wish I didn't feel uncomfortable in blinders, seems nice.

More baseless assumptions on your part.

Hey, I learned from the best like you my friend: militant atheists are interested in belittling and **** swinging, and I'll treat you accordingly.

ah, so anyone who asks questions about your half assed presentations are to be treated badly?
You nailed that one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Uh, yeah, we do.

You refuse to call a baby a civilian?

I don't believe you.

 

[Acim]

You refuse to call a baby a civilian?

I don't believe you.

What don't you believe? Or is it lack a belief?

 

[Willamena]

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?

Atheism, like theism, is defined in terms of belief in God or gods. What's wrong with claiming atheism for the infant (lacking the capacity for belief) is that the referent gets changed from the "God or gods," that might or might not be believed in, to a mind's capacity for belief.

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.

We do not "become labels." It is incidental whether we get labelled at all.

"Theist" and "atheist" are only means of looking at the world.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What don't you believe? Or is it lack a belief?

In this case, I think your statement ("we do") is false, and I would bet good money that you don't object when labels like "civilian" are applied to babies (e.g. "there were 10 civilian casualties in the air strike, including 2 infants").

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***​

Please keep in mind Rules 1 and 3, folks.

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.​

 

[Kartari]

Hi viole,

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

An interesting view. If you're correct, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the belief in mysterious powers (i.e. gods as in polytheism, spirits as in animism, etc.) is actually the natural adaption. Monotheism came later.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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

Really? Did you already forget what you wrote?

You just claimed there is a third position!

 

[buddhist]

Really? Did you already forget what you wrote?

You just claimed there is a third position!

I claimed that the newly born neither believes nor not believes. It is the absence of belief. It is also the absence of non-belief.

 

[Thief]

I'm an advocate for elimination of hypocrisy.

likewise

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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

If the meaning of civilian is a human being who is not in the military. Then yes.

For atheism/theism to be the same as civilian/servicemen then civilian would have to be defined as a person who does not accept that they are in the military.

Until such time as that is the definition of civilian, your comparison is not competent.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I claimed that the newly born neither believes nor not believes. It is the absence of belief. It is also the absence of non-belief.

And again, there is no third position. Belief is either held or not held.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For atheism/theism to be the same as civilian/servicemen then civilian would have to be defined as a person who does not accept that they are in the military.

Until such time as that is the definition of civilian, your comparison is not competent.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

likewise

But haven't you adopted a hypocritical position?

The word "atheist" follows the same pattern as words like "vegetarian" and "non-smoker". If you know how to use these words properly, then surely you can recognize that all this "rocks are atheists" stuff is disingenuous.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For atheism/theism to be the same as civilian/servicemen then civilian would have to be defined as a person who does not accept that they are in the military.

Yes, it would have to involve a choice or a view, like somebody deciding whether to enlist in the military or remain a civilian.

 

[buddhist]

And again, there is no third position. Belief is either held or not held.

I disagree - in light of choice.

There is 1. Belief held (choice for attachment) or 2. belief not held (choice for aversion); the third position is no choice either way (no belief & no non-belief).

 

[Desert Snake]

A ''non-position'', that implies that there is no methodology to make it a position //theism, or atheism,/ can't be a default position that indicates a /direction. Ie, the ''default position'' clearly isn't atheism, but it also isn't biased to atheism.


We notice here that ''atheism'', is also clearly a position, in any manner, as well as being an assertion./ /'there isn't deity'

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism, like theism, is defined in terms of belief in God or gods.

I wonder. Isn't it instead (or better) defined in terms of theism?

Edited to add: on second thought, that is definitely the case. Not only that, but "god" itself is a concept better understood by deriving it from theism instead of the other way around. Theism is known to exist, has fairly clear properties and can be observed and studied. God, in truth, has neither of those defining attributes.

 

[LuisDantas]

I claimed that the newly born neither believes nor not believes. It is the absence of belief. It is also the absence of non-belief.

How can it be the absence of non-belief?