The default position...

[Bunyip]

I asked about a belief and you connected that belief to a lack of understanding such that others should question the sanity of a person holding such a belief.

No, not at all. I am questioning the sanity of taking the position that you neither believe, nor disbelieve in God.

Well, as it turns out a holder of such a belief may grasp dichotomies more so than most. And the view is valid. So, the above has to deal with explaining the view which I am assuming you did not understand. Hopefully we can get back to my original question of you now...what is a person who believes both are true?

Confused.

 

[Curious George]

I think Schrodinger was talking about something completely unrelated. A person is either a theist, or not.

Nope, this is equally applicable to any grouping of mutually exclusive views. This deals most directly with the op re default position and also with the concept that every possible view falls under a classification in the atheist/theist grouping.

So, what is someone who believes both God exists and God does not exist are true?

 

[Curious George]

No, not at all. I am questioning the sanity of taking the position that you neither believe, nor disbelieve in God. Confused.

Lol, then perhaps you misunderstand the possibility of accepting both God exists and God does not exist as true.

 

[Bunyip]

Nope, this is equally applicable to any grouping of mutually exclusive views. This deals most directly with the op re default position and also with the concept that every possible view falls under a classification in the atheist/theist grouping.

So, what is someone who believes both God exists and God does not exist are true?

As I said - confused.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That it is patently irrational. There is no way you can neither have, nor not have a belief.

It's a position of not accepting belief or disbelief. I don't know enough to take either position.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, then perhaps you misunderstand the possibility of accepting both God exists and God does not exist as true.

Well because it is not a possibility. It would be holding two mutually exclusive views at the same time, it would be an example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Curious George]

As I said - confused.

Lol so, despite having an equally valid logical viewpoint as the traditional default position...they are confused. That makes little sense.

Despite their views being more in line with science and despite the Nobel prize winning physicist who has shown the validity of this approach, these people are confused?

But again, while they are "confused" are they atheist or theist?

 

[Bunyip]

It's a position of not accepting belief or disbelief. I don't know enough to take either position.

Sorry, you've lost me. If you do not know enough to take a position on the existence of God, you are atheist. In that you do not hold a belief in God.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol so, despite having an equally valid logical viewpoint as the traditional default position...they are confused. That makes little sense.

It is not a valid or logical worldview, it is cognitive dissonance.

Despite their views being more in line with science and despite the Nobel prize winning physicist who has shown the validity of this approach, these people are confused?

No idea whatosover why you imagine science supports this particular example of cognitive dissonance.It doesn't.

But again, while they are "confused" are they atheist or theist?

If they do not hold the belief that a God exists, they are atheist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry, you've lost me. If you do not know enough to take a position on the existence of God, you are atheist. In that you do not hold a belief in God.

I've seen other's do this before on this forum. Not only do some atheist try to claim me as an atheist, they focus only on half of what I said.
What I said, fully, was I don't know enough to accept belief or disbelief. There are two parts to that, not one.

 

[Curious George]

Well because it is not a possibility. It would be holding two mutually exclusive views at the same time, it would be an example of cognitive dissonance.

Lol, it is holding them as true until one is excluded. The dissonance is removed by the understanding that only one will ultimately be true. But nothing prevents one from accepting the truth of either any more than something prevents one from not believing either when one must be true

 

[Bunyip]

I've seen other's do this before on this forum. Not only do some atheist try to claim me as an atheist, they focus only on half of what I said.
What I said, fully, was I don't know enough to accept belief or disbelief. There are two parts to that, not one.

If you do not know enough to believe in God, you are atheist.

I think you are going to a great deal of trouble to disassociate yourself from other atheists, but yes you are an atheist whether or not you chose to call yourself one.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, it is holding them as true until one is excluded. The dissonance is removed by the understanding that only one will ultimately be true. But nothing prevents one from accepting the truth of either any more than something prevents one from not believing either when one must be true

Sorry what?

 

[Curious George]

It is not a valid or logical worldview, it is cognitive dissonance. No idea whatosover why you imagine science supports this particular example of cognitive dissonance.It doesn't.If they do not hold the belief that a God exists, they are atheist.

Because we make hypotheses and try to falsify them. We do not wait for someone to sway us.

This person holds a belief that god exists and holds a belief that god does not exist...so are they a theist or an atheist?

 

[Curious George]

Sorry what?

Cat in a box with poison...

Is it dead or alive?

The default position would be to believe neither until some evidence of the truth of one was known.

Equally valid is the assumption that both are true until falsity of one is known?

This is not rocket science...I am pretty sure that you understand. There is no cognitive dissonance involved.

When presented with the dichotomy God exists or God does not exist, the same default positions are applicable.

You say the first is "atheist" well what is the second?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you do not know enough to believe in God, you are atheist.

You could just as easily spin that to "If you don't know enough to not believe, you are theist." But rather you focused on only half of what I said.

 

[Curious George]

I've seen other's do this before on this forum. Not only do some atheist try to claim me as an atheist, they focus only on half of what I said.
What I said, fully, was I don't know enough to accept belief or disbelief. There are two parts to that, not one.

This is the default position that the op was talking about. Modern atheism has constructed this non belief into atheism based on the lack of the central characteristic of theism...belief in a god.

If a or b must be true.
And people who believe a is true are x.
People who believe neither a or b are still not x.

This is the logic behind the classification.

Hopefully you can see why they are ignoring half of what you said. This is because based on the classification system and definitions they are using, only half of what you said is necessary to categorize you.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You could just as easily spin that to "If you don't know enough to not believe, you are theist." But rather you focused on only half of what I said.

Sorry to but in but I have recently solidified my position on this topic.

What you are arguing is akin to a Christian stating that they are a Christian but not a theist.
You might be missing the point that these are simply 'hit on' categories, you are not required to identify within them.
But whether you identify with it or not is irrelevant, the definitions don't lie.
Agnosticism is a category of atheism, just as Islam is a category of theism.

This is one of those situations where you're arguing a set point, like complaining that the Earth is round.
You can say whatever you want about the Earth not being round, but that will not make it any less round.

 

[leibowde84]

Because I'm not an atheist. I don't hold a position towards either end. Atheism does not describe my views, and theism does not describe my views.
It creates a problem when people try to claim my views are something they aren't.
As I said earlier, some have moved beyond the atheist/theist dichotomy.

I know, and many of them do so to gain some kind of fake upper hand. That is why I feel so strongly about this discussion. I hate when theists try to paint atheism in lights that make no logical sense.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry to but in but I have recently solidified my position on this topic.

What you are arguing is akin to a Christian stating that they are a Christian but not a theist.
You might be missing the point that these are simply 'hit on' categories, you are not required to identify within them.
But whether you identify with it or not is irrelevant, the definitions don't lie.
Agnosticism is a category of atheism, just as Islam is a category of theism.

This is one of those situations where you're arguing a set point, like complaining that the Earth is round.
You can say whatever you want about the Earth not being round, but that will not make it any less round.

Same question to bunyip to you...if someone believes both are true until one is excluded, what are they?