Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Bunyip]

So, when someone tries to suggest that they have no position,

No position on what George? You keep leaving out all of the details needed to make what you are saying legible.

it is rather important to correct this error.

What error? You are only giving me fragments again.

However, some want to maintain that like "implicit atheists" they have no position. This hinders discussion. mixing implicit atheism with explicit atheism is an equivocation.

Who is doing that?

The rationale is very different between the two. One lacks a position, one has a position, albeit the skeptical default position.

Here is where it gets interesting. With so much evidence, (although none conclusive) the default position becomes harder to defend.

How so? Where is the argument for this?

In the case where one literally knows nothing to sway them either way, there is no burden of proof on the default skeptical position. However, once evidence is introduced, things change.

Now, the question is how in the face of the evidences can one maintain the default skeptical position?

What evidence? For what position?

This now places the burden of proof on the person claiming to hold the default skeptical position. Simply stating it is not good enough evidence is not enough. The evidences must be explained away such that it is still reasonable to hold the position that god might or might not exist.

What evidence? For what God? Your posts are absent the critical data you need to make them understandable

In here a host of inquiries relating to the "might" position. We may need to know how much evidence is enough evidence to move from might to belief that god exists or does not exist.

It cannot be conclusive evidence because then we would be dealing with knowledge not beliefs that are not knowledge.

Please George, I am trying to answer your questions as politely as I can - you need to at least fill in all the blanks mate.

WHO is maintaining WHAT position? Evidence for what? From who? To what end?

I'm not a mind reader.

 

[Curious George]

No position on what George? You keep leaving out all of the details needed to make what you are saying legible. What error? You are only giving me fragments again. Who is doing that? How so? Where is the argument for this? What evidence? For what position? What evidence? For what God? Your posts are absent the critical data you need to make them understandable

I apologize, I will try again tomorrow.

However, when I say evidences I am referring to anything likely to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

This applies to both the position god exists and god does not exist.

My take is that they both have evidence to support their claims. However, when one weighs both, the evidence thatgod does not exist prevails by more than eliminating reasonable doubt.

 

[Bunyip]

I apologize, I will try again tomorrow.

However, when I say evidences I am referring to anything likely to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

What matter has been asserted?

This applies to both the position god exists and god does not exist.

My take is that they both have evidence to support their claims. However, when one weighs both, the evidence thatgod does not exist prevails by more than eliminating reasonable doubt.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems asinine to talk about the implicit beliefs of babies. Their powers of reasoning are not even developed to the level of a child of five or six, and besides it would be hard to comment on just what they believe, even if this wasn't true.

Besides it being highly dubious that atheism is the human default in a psychological sense, this is all conflating psychological default with a logical one and trying, implicitly at least, to derive the latter from the former. The two are distinct, and even if humans did tend to be default atheists, that would not make atheism the rational default position.

No one here is discussing the "implicit beliefs" of children. Please don't create straw men. We are discussing the implicit/inherent "lack of belief" of children. Or, in other words, the FACT that children before a certain age are without a belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol.

No I don't think we have cleared this up though.

How can one focus on a position if there is no position on which to focus?

"Implicit atheism" is not a position, it is the lack of a position (or belief in this context).

 

[Curious George]

"Implicit atheism" is not a position, it is the lack of a position (or belief in this context).

They are not even in the discussion. They lack any relevance here. They are as important to this discussion as rocks who share their lack of belief.

 

[Curious George]

What matter has been asserted?

The matter asserted is just that. If one asserts anything (in this case, god exists or does not exist) then anything that is likely to support their reasoning is evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

They are not even in the discussion. They lack any relevance here. They are as important to this discussion as rocks who share their lack of belief.

"Rocks who share their belief"?! Do you live inside a cartoon or something?

 

[Curious George]

"Rocks who share their belief"?! Do you live inside a cartoon or something?

Try quoting my actual words. "Share their lack of belief."

 

[leibowde84]

Try quoting my actual words. "Share their lack of belief."

What difference does that make? Rocks don't "share" anything.

 

[Curious George]

What difference does that make? Rocks don't "share" anything.

They share in a characteristic. In fact, they share in many characteristics, but I am only discussing one here.

 

[leibowde84]

They share in a characteristic. In fact, they share in many characteristics, but I am only discussing one here.

I'm an idiot. Sorry about that.

 

[Curious George]

I'm an idiot. Sorry about that.

Lol, nw.

 

[atanu]

So, you are saying that the word "implicit" doesn't make sense in general? Or are you unable to get beyond the concept of lacking a belief without the necessity for contemplation?

You are always modifying definitions and leaving out parts to suit yourself. And I consider that dishonesty.

I will try to clarify one more time.

As we have often noted that the definition of Implcit atheism is "absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".

Okay. You are free to believe in above definition to be meaningful. I have no problem. You can do as you wish.

But I do not agree to above, since:

A) 'lack of belief in existence of deity/deities' entails a conscious rejection of existence of deity. It involves taking a conscious position and entails burden of proof.
B) 'absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it' actually does not apply to babies since 'conscious rejection' phrase does not apply to them. Babies can neither consciously reject nor consciously accept theistic belief.

C) Furthermore, the "implicit" sort can never be held by a rational human being. It is not possible to lack a belief in a proposition unconsciously.

So, let us agree to disagree.

But what is pathetic is that some atheists stoop down to dubbing us illiterate and uneducated for not agreeing to their view.

 

[leibowde84]

You are always modifying definitions and leaving out parts to suit yourself. And I consider that dishonesty.

I will try to clarify one more time.

As we have often noted that the definition of Implcit atheism is "absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".

Okay. You are free to believe in above definition to be meaningful. I have no problem. You can do as you wish.

But I do not agree to above, since:

A) 'lack of belief in existence of deity/deities' entails a conscious rejection of existence of deity. It involves taking a conscious position and entails burden of proof.
B) 'absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it' actually does not apply to babies since 'conscious rejection' phrase does not apply to them. Babies can neither consciously reject nor consciously accept theistic belief.

C) Furthermore, the "implicit" sort can never be held by a rational human being. It is not possible to lack a belief in a proposition unconsciously.

So, let us agree to disagree.

But what is pathetic is that some atheists stoop down to dubbing us illiterate and uneducated for not agreeing to their view.

The reason why I feel it necessary to use synonyms for "lack of" (like "being without"), is because you seem to not understand what the term "lack" means. "To lack" means "to be without". There is no other added requirement, such as contemplation, as you say. I, for example, am "without" (or "lack" - synonym to "be without") belief in every concept I am unaware of because it is not possible for me to hold a belief in something that is foreign to me. I also "lack" every material object I am not aware of, as I don't own or possess them, implicitly.

A) 'lack of belief in existence of deity/deities' entails a conscious rejection of existence of deity. It involves taking a conscious position and entails burden of proof.

This is not the case, but after all this, I am very interested in your reasoning to support this claim. Can you provide it? Why do you feel that to "lack" something requires conscious rejection?

B) 'absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it' actually does not apply to babies since 'conscious rejection' phrase does not apply to them. Babies can neither consciously reject nor consciously accept theistic belief.

Since I stipulated "without a conscious rejection of it", why do you feel that a conscious rejection is necessary?

C) Furthermore, the "implicit" sort can never be held by a rational human being. It is not possible to lack a belief in a proposition unconsciously.

The term "implicit" means "by definition" or "without expression". So, why would implicit lack of belief be impossible without conscious consideration?

I am honestly interested in how you are defining "lack of belief". Can you kindly provide an explanation as to what you think the term means in this context and generally? I appreciate it.

 

[idav]

Is this still going?

It is really easy. If you are not a believer in any gods then your not theist. That also happens to be what (a)theist means. Not theist.

So if a baby is not theist the baby is a rock? Lol

 

[atanu]

This is not the case, but after all this, I am very interested in your reasoning to support this claim.

Can you provide it? Why do you feel that to "lack" something requires conscious rejection?
Since I stipulated "without a conscious rejection of it", why do you feel that a conscious rejection is necessary?
The term "implicit" means "by definition" or "without expression". So, why would implicit lack of belief be impossible without conscious consideration?

I am honestly interested in how you are defining "lack of belief". Can you kindly provide an explanation as to what you think the term means in this context and generally? I appreciate it.

You are honestly interested? But I lack a belief in your honest interest. I do not believe in your claim of honest interest.

I repeat my view below:

1. A child has neither a belief nor a disbelief regarding existence of deity.

2. For an adult, the expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then he/she knows the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t’.
..............

So let us agree to disagree since we have already wasted a lot of time on this 'lack'.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

No one here is discussing the "implicit beliefs" of children. Please don't create straw men. We are discussing the implicit/inherent "lack of belief" of children. Or, in other words, the FACT that children before a certain age are without a belief in the existence of God or gods.

In what sense does this change the import of my post? Obviously, when I said it was asinine to discuss the beliefs of babies, I was also including what they don't believe under that heading. As I said:

Their powers of reasoning are not even developed to the level of a child of five or six, and besides it would be hard to comment on just what they believe, even if this wasn't true.

Besides it being highly dubious that atheism is the human default in a psychological sense, this is all conflating psychological default with a logical one and trying, implicitly at least, to derive the latter from the former. The two are distinct, and even if humans did tend to be default atheists, that would not make atheism the rational default position.

Why would you think that these comments weren't just as much aimed at claims about their lack of beliefs? I was, after all, quite obviously most critiquing the atheists, who seem to most wish to enter into these discussions.

 

[outhouse]

Besides it being highly dubious that atheism is the human default in a psychological sense

First of all, implicit atheism does not require a conscious rejection of theism.

Second, babies are not born theist. Theism is factually learned.

 

[leibowde84]

You are honestly interested? But I lack a belief in your honest interest. I do not believe in your claim of honest interest.

I repeat my view below:

1. A child has neither a belief nor a disbelief regarding existence of deity.

2. For an adult, the expression ‘lack of t’ will be meaningful if he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere. If he/she knows what it is for ’t’ to be present somewhere, then he/she knows the manner of presentation of ’t’. In the cognition negation of ’t’, ’t’ is the counter-positive of the negation of ’t’.
..............

So let us agree to disagree since we have already wasted a lot of time on this 'lack'.

You still haven't provided your definition of "lack of". Can you provide that? I agree that it isn't "meaningful" to assign the term "implicit atheism" in general. It is a pretty useless classification, but that doesn't mean that it is untrue, technically. If I can see how you are defining "lack of", I can start to figure out what your objection really is, as we agree that the term "implicit atheism" is pretty meaningless. It doesn't speak at all to what a child has considered or thinks. It is "implicit" by nature, in that it is true by definition alone.