No, that is neither true nor accurate regarding the definition of atheism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If atheism is a 'lack of a position', then it can't be the default position
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I'm unconvinced, /don't have a belief, in atheism. Are you saying that I am not making a statement, by default? The idea can be inferred from my opinion,
Last edited:
What I am saying is that you are both ignoring the existence of weak atheism and misunderstanding strong atheism even beyond that.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
I Disagree, as an agnostic, you need to know the concept of God.
As an atheist, there is none.
I Have no concept of God..
I Cannot say there is no God as I don't have a definition of God.
I Cannot sat there is a God as I don't have a definition of God.
The Atheist say: I do not think that the definitions of God (Any of them for the argument sake) is true.
The Agnostic say's: I Don't know if there is or there isn't a God.
In anyway, The certain thing is that the definition of God is something made by Human mind and is not something that you are born with.
Unlike our 5 senses, you don't need to "learn" how to see...
You don't need to "learn" what taste is.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
First, the terminology in this area is messed up and confusing with additional confusion intentionally added by people with personal preferences and motives. To answer these questions we need to draw back from that mess and address simple meanings without any of the baggage.
Theism is the belief in a god or gods. It can relate to any proposed god or pantheon and doesn’t automatically infer any religion, indeed any conclusion or consequence beyond the simple belief in some god(s) or other. Atheism is essentially just the opposite of theism, without a belief in any god or gods. Likewise, it doesn’t infer any further conclusions or consequences and doesn’t infer any reasoning for that position (even that there has been any reasoning at all).
Theism and atheism don’t describe types of people. Nobody is only atheist or theist any more than we’re only our race, age or gender. Every individual has a vast range of beliefs, knowledge, experiences and understanding just on this specific subject, let alone all the other aspects that can influence it. Saying someone is atheist or theist doesn’t actually tell you very much about them at all.
Another aspect that I think is key and often misunderstood or misrepresented; Nobody chooses whether they believe in gods or not. There is no active acceptance or rejection, no consideration of all the evidence then a conclusion that “Yes, I’m going to believe that god exists”. Why we can take actions that indirectly influence our beliefs, they’re ultimately subconscious and beyond our control. That’s why some people can “lose” their faith however much they don’t want to.
With all that in mind, we can consider a “default” position. A new-born baby will from the moment of birth (actually a little before) begin to have the experiences of the world around them and will develop conscious and subconscious beliefs and understandings (however simplistic they will be). We don’t actually know precisely how babies think but I think it’s fair to conclude that they don’t start out with any belief in any defined theological beings. In that context, they can be described as atheist and give this is the starting point for all human beings, that can be seen as the default.
There’s a wider question of how much this actually matters and whether it’s all so much word-play (though personally I’m a fan of word-play for the sake of it
) and it is primarily used as a socio-political tool to push a particular position that any real quest for philosophical understanding.
Are you claiming that you never heard of weak atheism, or what?
Altfish
Veteran Member
That's an interesting comment. Not sure I totally agree.
I was brought up with my school teaching me bible stories from the age of 4; at that time anything you were told by a teacher was 'true'.
I didn't go to church as my parents weren't religious; but when I was about 8, I joined the Church Lads Brigade (my mates were in it and it seemed fun), this led to me attending Sunday School and later Church and even getting Confirmed. This lasted until I was 13/14 years old. I then started questioning what I'd been taught as 'fact'. So, I then chose not to believe in god(s) because it didn't make sense. That rejection of god has grown stronger as I have got older.
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.
One needn't start off with a philosophical default view.
Atheism needn't be the lack of a position.
Mine is.....
I don't believe in gods.
Why?
There's no good reason to.
This is part of a general approach to life.
If there's no good reason to do something, then I don't do it.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
First, belief isn't a choice. Second, your third position is a subset of the second, neither would be believers. Still only belief and non belief.
It is an inescapable binary.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I'm putting your second quote first to highlight a point.
The label of 'male' and 'female' predated our births, didn't they? At some point during our conception, we became one of those two sexes. We became things that were accurately described by those labels. We became male or female. We became labels.
And so, as with our gender or political affiliation, we become those aspects of the human condition that language has already seen before. We learn how to describe ourselves as we develop using words and concepts that are very usual. There's probably nothing about you or me than can't be described using words that existed before us. I'll proudly make that claim.
Over the course of my life, I became long-haired. I became educated. I became a dad. I became empathetic. I became ethical. I became aware that these positions and descriptions existed before me, factually, and that I have simply become them. They are antecedent to my development, and did not simply come into being the day that I became aware of them... much like concepts of theism.
Before I became anything, I was not that thing. Before I became educated, I was not educated. You could say I was uneducated, regardless of my capacity to learn or go to school. Before I grew my hair out, I was not long-haired. You could say I was short-haired or bald, either of which apply even before I can grow hair. Before I became a dad I was not a dad. Even if I lack the ability to sire children, I would still NOT be a dad. There's simply no way around it...
Were there no theistic claims, then atheism, by default, could not exist. But there are theistic claims, like there are political claims. And so, as with faith, politics, or absolutely anything else, until someone becomes something, they are not that thing. Until they become theists, they are atheists, people without theism.
Now, more importantly, why?
Labels are just descriptions of things. Creating explanations of positions, or concepts, is what language does. I would argue that we do become labels, in that we take on traits or characteristics that have been part of the human experience before. Hell, the only reason we ever have these posts pop up is because people disagree on what a certain label (or definition) means, right?
The label of 'male' and 'female' predated our births, didn't they? At some point during our conception, we became one of those two sexes. We became things that were accurately described by those labels. We became male or female. We became labels.
And so, as with our gender or political affiliation, we become those aspects of the human condition that language has already seen before. We learn how to describe ourselves as we develop using words and concepts that are very usual. There's probably nothing about you or me than can't be described using words that existed before us. I'll proudly make that claim.
Over the course of my life, I became long-haired. I became educated. I became a dad. I became empathetic. I became ethical. I became aware that these positions and descriptions existed before me, factually, and that I have simply become them. They are antecedent to my development, and did not simply come into being the day that I became aware of them... much like concepts of theism.
Before I became anything, I was not that thing. Before I became educated, I was not educated. You could say I was uneducated, regardless of my capacity to learn or go to school. Before I grew my hair out, I was not long-haired. You could say I was short-haired or bald, either of which apply even before I can grow hair. Before I became a dad I was not a dad. Even if I lack the ability to sire children, I would still NOT be a dad. There's simply no way around it...
Were there no theistic claims, then atheism, by default, could not exist. But there are theistic claims, like there are political claims. And so, as with faith, politics, or absolutely anything else, until someone becomes something, they are not that thing. Until they become theists, they are atheists, people without theism.
Incorrect. They are merely labels of positions that humans hold. There are, as with most things, variations among the severity or depth of these labels, but that's to be expected. Like, at what point does short hair become long hair? At what point is long hair considered relatively short? Is there a middle-ground where hair is neither long nor short? Those aren't ways of looking at the world - they simply descriptions of human hair length, because humans have hair and we want to have a way to talk about it...
Now, more importantly, why?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
God(s) not making sense to you wasn’t a choice, that was the subconscious conclusion based on your developing knowledge and experience. It’s not as if you could have decided to continue to believe in a god even though it made no sense to you.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Yeah, sure. Thanks for the reading the whole thing.
I'm leaving room in that sentence for things like you've described.
Very early in development, babies become aware of and respond to stimuli, both inside and outside of the womb. That's the beginning of cognition and each of those moments are part of the healthy baby's mental development. Those moments create consistent and logical patterns that the child will begin to expect and trust, which creates an environment where the capacity for belief can prosper. So, for example, the developing child can begin to believe that the sensations that it experiences are actually happening. Even before birth, babies in utero will develop sleep and behavior patterns that coincide with their mother's day cycles. This is one of the reasons why great changes to a mother's diet or physical habits during pregnancy are discouraged. And why consistent rearing practices after birth are encouraged. Those little minds must be nurtured and cared for in consistent ways. It is in stability that growth and development happen best.
I have no problem in stating that babies believe their body's desires and responses to things exist. I have no problem claiming that they believe that their cries will be answered. I have no qualms about agreeing that babies believe contact with human skin equates to safety and protection. I'm OK with that. I will not agree, however, that they are somehow magically capable of higher thought. I'm not sure that you're making that claim at all, but some people have attempted to claim that before so I'm just hedging my bets here.
Right.
It's not just in how they express themselves - they factually do not possess the capacity or ability to do certain things until their minds develop further. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of child development and cognitive ability. There are thoughts, for example, that even a 6 year old is simply not capable of, not matter how advanced their education or rearing systems are. The reason that there are no gymnast infants, or driving infants, is the same reason that there are no infant scholars, or authors...
I think the realization of a correlation between the infant/parent relationship and our propensity to want to return to that mental state via god concepts is a good one, but not for the reason you're probably hoping.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Hmm...I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. At the point where it did not make sense; I could have chosen 'faith' and affirmed my belief in god but the choice I made was to abandon my faith and become initially an agnostic and eventually an atheist.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I think that just demonstrates that there is a difference between expressions of religious faith and actually believing in the existence of a god or gods, which was also part of my point.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Just like nibbana is the absence of both self and of not-self, for example.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I thought that the commonly accepted definition for "atheist" is "There is no God", not "I don't think that the definitions of God are true".
buddhist
Well-Known Member
It's inescapable only if you believe "belief isn't a choice"; I happen to believe that it is a choice.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Even if one were to accept that premise(which I do not, but no matter...), You would have on one hand the people that have chosen to believe(theists) and everybody else(atheists).
This isn't a difficult concept.