"Lack of belief"

[ArtieE]

The answer is in the same passage.

Acceptance, then, may be a passive and inevitable act, whereas rejection may be an active operation that undoes the initial passive acceptance. The most basic prediction of this model is that when some event prevents a person from "undoing" his or her initial acceptance, then he or she should continue to believe the assertion, even when it is patently false. For example, if a person is told that lead pencils are a health hazard, he or she must immediately believe that assertion and only then may take active measures to unbelieve it. These active measures require cognitive work (i.e., the search for or generation of contravening evidence), and if some event impairs the person's ability to perform such work, then the person should continue to believe in the danger of lead pencils until such time as the cognitive work can be done.

Depends on the individual. You evaluate the initial statement after comprehension/acceptance and choose how you wish to view it based on whatever criteria you want.

The default state is acceptance though, not neutrality, as is demonstrated in the experimental part of the paper.

Before you have heard that lead pencils are a health hazard you don't believe they are a health hazard. And before you have heard that lead pencils are not a health hazard you don't believe they are not a health hazard. You have no beliefs regarding lead pencils and health before you have heard of it. What you are talking about is what happens after you have heard of it.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes you have. You have chosen to not have the belief the gods exist.

Sorry but I have not chosen to believe gods exist and I have not chosen to believe gods don't exist until persuasive evidence for any of those positions is available.

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry but I have not chosen to believe gods exist and I have not chosen to believe gods don't exist until persuasive evidence for any of those positions is available.

Right. You have chosen to have neither belief.

The point is that you made that choice. You chose that position. It is, in fact, a position. It is not just the lack of one. It is not a default state.

 

[ArtieE]

Right. You have chosen to have neither belief.

No I haven't chosen any of them.

The point is that you made that choice.

I haven't made any choice. You have two choices and I haven't chosen any of them.

You chose that position. It is, in fact, a position. It is not just the lack of one. It is not a default state.

It is a lack of the positions "gods exist" and "gods don't exist". Not taking a position is not a position. There are only two positions. Gods exist or gods don't exist. The default is not having taken any of those positions.

 

[Willamena]

Right. You have chosen to have neither belief.

The point is that you made that choice. You chose that position. It is, in fact, a position. It is not just the lack of one. It is not a default state.

What is a choice?

 

[Willamena]

It is a lack of the positions "gods exist" and "gods don't exist". Not taking a position is not a position. There are only two positions. Gods exist or gods don't exist. The default is not having taken any of those positions.

Obviously, if one can lack a position on 'god,' there are three positions in the larger picture. None is "default."

 

[idav]

Obviously, if one can lack a position on 'god,' there are three positions in the larger picture. None is "default."

I don't know anyone can lack a belief of coming from somewhere short of not believing we existing.

 

[Willamena]

I don't know anyone can lack a belief of coming from somewhere short of not believing we existing.

But believing we exist isn't the question. The topic is atheism.

 

[idav]

But believing we exist isn't the question. The topic is atheism.

The claim is to say, atheists lack belief in believing they come from somewhere, that way theist logic isn't the problem by trying to say atheism lacks belief in god. Them silly atheists!

 

[Augustus]

What you are talking about is what happens after you have heard of it.

Yes, that's what the topic of discussion was and what you asked about.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, that's what the topic of discussion was and what you asked about.

The point is that not believing that lead pencils are a health hazard is the default state before you have heard about it. We are talking about the default state full stop. Not the default state after you have heard about something.

 

[Willamena]

The claim is to say, atheists lack belief in believing they come from somewhere, that way theist logic isn't the problem by trying to say atheism lacks belief in god. Them silly atheists!

Yet another third position.

 

[ArtieE]

Obviously, if one can lack a position on 'god,' there are three positions in the larger picture. None is "default."

Obviously one can have the position that gods exist or the position that gods don't exist. The default is not having taken any of those positions. Not having taken a position on something is the default until you have taken a position.

 

[Willamena]

Obviously one can have the position that gods exist or the position that gods don't exist. The default is not having taken any of those positions.

The default is the third, yes, provided one has encountered the juxtaposition of the other two.

Edit: If one isn't old enough to sway from a path, then it isn't a default.

 

[Augustus]

The point is that not believing that lead pencils are a health hazard is the default state before you have heard about it. We are talking about the default state full stop. Not the default state after you have heard about something.

I don't get your point. The default state for ignorance is ignorance, yes. That's pretty self-explanatory.

That has nothing to do with any of my posts that you replied to though. They were about how it is wrong to claim you don't hold a belief regarding things you are aware of and can comprehend.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh but you know I love them so! Let's bring it back to reality then.

None of you are merely lacking belief in the existence of gods. You are all choosing to not believe that gods exist. This is an active position, complete with reasons, arguments, and rationalizations.

I believe it's leaving out rather pertinent information to claim that you guys merely "lack belief in gods". And it is blatant misrepresentation to further claim that this "lack of belief in gods" is a non-position.

Any position other than belief in gods is covered under the label "lack of belief in gods". Lack of belief covers anything and everything from "I know with certainty that every god does not exist" to "what's a god?"

So yes: atheism is not a position. It's a label that applies to a wide variety of positions.

Now... someone who does reject gods has taken a position. If you want them to defend that position, then just ask them "why do you reject these gods?"

It's not misrepresentation to acknowledge that the word "atheism" really only just says what position you didn't take and to describe the positions you do take with other terms.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't get your point. The default state for ignorance is ignorance, yes. That's pretty self-explanatory.

And if you're ignorant about something you can't believe in it either. So what's default when it comes to belief? No belief. Absence of belief. A person who doesn't believe. No active effort is required to be a person who doesn't believe. You start off with no belief and it requires no effort to have no belief in something. It's the default before you start believing something.

 

[Augustus]

And if you're ignorant about something you can't believe in it either. So what's default when it comes to belief? No belief. Absence of belief. A person who doesn't believe. No active effort is required to be a person who doesn't believe. You start off with no belief and it requires no effort to have no belief in something. It's the default before you start believing something.

Totally unrelated to anything I've been discussing. All this time I've been talking about how it is impossible not to hold a belief about something you can comprehend.

What you are ignorant of is irrelevant.

 

[Willamena]

The default state for ignorance isn't the default for atheism, unless ignorance is atheism.

Not all atheism is ignorance.

Some of us actually KNOW what it is we object to.

 

[Willamena]

And if you're ignorant about something you can't believe in it either. So what's default when it comes to belief?

Then you're "not believing" in nothing (regardless that "believing" isn't an act)(and "not believing," doubly so).

If you're ignorant about something, it is nothing to you.