The default position...

[Willamena]

Bunyip is correct here, it is a polarity.
You are either a theist or atheist, there is no in between.

If you lack a belief,direct or indirect, you apply within atheism.
Time to get over it.

That's incorrect, as it suggests that there is a fixed set of beliefs that everybody must hold. I don't believe that for a moment.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That's incorrect, as it suggests that there is a fixed set of beliefs that everybody must hold. I don't believe that for a moment.

Honestly, they're just addon descriptions, don't read too far into it.
You either believe or you lack belief, simple as that.
There is no third option.
Feel free to try and present one though, if you want.

 

[Willamena]

Honestly, they're just addon descriptions, don't read too far into it.
You either believe or you lack belief, simple as that.
There is no third option.
Feel free to try and present one though, if you want.

It seems to me that you've read far too much into it, namely that being ignorant of a thing (0) is the equivalent of not believing in it (-1).

I don't believe that there are a fixed number of things in the world to believe in.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It seems to me that you've read far too much into it, namely that being ignorant of a thing (0) is the equivalent of not believing in it (-1).

Anything that is not a direct belief in God(s) is considered to be a lack of belief in God(s).
So you can still play the "I don't know so I don't choose" card, but it will still classify within atheism.

They are not the same, I'm not so stupid as to make such claims.
They just apply to the same side, any lack of belief applies you within atheism just as any direct belief applies you within theism.
There is no middle ground, you can't kinda believe and kinda not believe, and if you say that you can I will call you a liar.
You can not know, that's about as close as you'll get to a middle, but it still stands as a lack of belief.

 

[Willamena]

Anything that is not a direct belief in God(s) is considered to be a lack of belief in God(s).

Or not.

It could be a carrot.

So you can still play the "I don't know so I don't choose" card, but it will still classify within atheism.
They are not the same, I'm not so stupid as to make such claims.
They just apply to the same side, any lack of belief applies you within atheism just as any direct belief applies you within theism.
There is no middle ground, you can't kinda believe and kinda not believe, and if you say that you can I will call you a liar.
You can not know, that's about as close as you'll get to a middle, but it still stands as a lack of belief.

Oh, I do choose. Rest assured. I choose atheism.

I just argue against nonsense.

 

[Curious George]

It seems to me that you've read far too much into it, namely that being ignorant of a thing (0) is the equivalent of not believing in it (-1).

I don't believe that there are a fixed number of things in the world.

I believe he is stating-if we want to assign numbers as an analogy-
1 God exists
0 unknown
-1 God does not exist

He is referring to the 0s and -1s as "not ones.

He is equating ignorance to non belief, but this is based on saying that inability to believe is still not believing.

While I would prefer a system that highlights the difference, I can understand why some group those incapable of belief with those who are capable but do not believe.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Or not.

It could be a carrot.


Oh, I do choose. Rest assured. I choose atheism.

I just argue against nonsense.

Good thing I'm using logic and definitions then, huh?
Also inanimate objects do not have a "God decision" capability so they can't really be used here...
Even if I were to take up that argument all inanimate objects would be atheistic, as they lack a God belief.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I believe he is stating-if we want to assign numbers as an analogy-
1 God exists
0 unknown
-1 God does not exist

He is referring to the 0s and -1s as "not ones.

He is equating ignorance to non belief, but this is based on saying that inability to believe is still not believing.

While I would prefer a system that highlights the difference, I can understand why some group those incapable of belief with those who are capable but do not believe.

Yes.
All I'm saying is that having a lack of belief in God(s) assigns you to the atheism side.
That's it.
You can claim ignorance, or say what you please.
But if you do not directly believe in a God or set of Gods you are considered atheistic.

 

[Curious George]

Good thing I'm using logic and definitions then, huh?
Also inanimate objects do not have a "God decision" capability so they can't really be used here...
Even if I were to take up that argument all inanimate objects would be atheistic, as they lack a God belief.

But you should understand that to some of us atheists defining atheism solely on the definition of theism is somewhat wrong. But even if we were to take this approach theism pertains to a set of people capable of such a belief, so a not theist should also have this limitation. Thus implicit atheism dissolves to be irrelevant. Some of us are happy with this because if we just approach the dichotomy without using parameters that are logical, we are being equated to having the same standing as a rock, a carrot, a baby...it means that we are equivalent to those who have not been enlightened to the possibility of God. Thus, holding such views encourages the belief that atheists just haven't been converted...yet. this is something we should not encourage.

 

[Willamena]

Good thing I'm using logic and definitions then, huh?

Not traditional ones.

Also inanimate objects do not have a "God decision" capability so they can't really be used here...
Even if I were to take up that argument all inanimate objects would be atheistic, as they lack a God belief.

So it's not about B's capacity to believe in A, it's just about whether B believes in A.

Same 'ole illogic.

 

[Willamena]

All I'm saying is that having a lack of belief in God(s) assigns you to the atheism side.

That would be impractical, as then the carrots, the rocks and the babies would all be included. We should not have a definition that is inclusive of things we don't mean to include.

The rules of definition by genus and difference explained

2. The denotation of the definiendum and the definiens should be identical. This rule states that the definition of a term should capture the correct denotation of the term. A good definition will apply exactly to the same things as the term being defined, no more and no less. When this rule is violated we have a fallacy of either too broad or too narrow definition.

 

[Deathbydefault]

But you should understand that to some of us atheists defining atheism solely on the definition of theism is somewhat wrong. But even if we were to take this approach theism pertains to a set of people capable of such a belief, so a not theist should also have this limitation. Thus implicit atheism dissolves to be irrelevant. Some of us are happy with this because if we just approach the dichotomy without using parameters that are logical, we are being equated to having the same standing as a rock, a carrot, a baby...it means that we are equivalent to those who have not been enlightened to the possibility of God. Thus, holding such views encourages the belief that atheists just haven't been converted...yet. this is something we should not encourage.

None of that is my concern.
Atheism was originally the response to theism, I believe.
Also, theists can think whatever they please, they aren't any of my concern either.
You can find whatever means you feel is sufficient to not give them another thing to use against you.
I do not care about what they say.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I believe the chances are quite a bit larger than "1/2" for there being other life in the universe.

Well, you can feel free to believe whatever you wish, of course, I just prefer things like evidence and logic. We didn't really evolve to deal well with calculating probabilities (of all the areas of analytic, logical thinking probability is the one that is perhaps the one at which people are both least likely to have any kind of good intuition and most likely to have trouble learning). In this case we have a certain amount of data (a lot of data on evolutionary processes, complex systems, habitable zones, timelines required for complex life to evolve, etc.) and an approach to calculating "uncertainty" using a certain approach to, or kind of, "probability theory" called Bayesian inference/analysis/probability/statistics. It is ideal because we don't have any idea about the actual probability space that standard (elementary) probability theory requires, and that's why we find e.g., "Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life’s early emergence on Earth" in one of the leading science journals (PNAS). See here.

I actually think that the chances of there not being other life out there is nearly 0%

For extremophiles, it's probably nearly 0. For complex life, there is no rational inference method that would give us reason to conclude that complex life is at all likely anywhere in the universe. The kind of inference that would lead us to such conclusions is of the same type that leads us to the conclusion that their must be a designer because we see design. In the first case, the reasoning is that because life arose here, and the universe is so vast, that means somehow it is likely life evolved elsewhere. In the second, we simply reverse the perspective and look at all the things that had to be just so for us to exist, and conclude that the probability for our existence is so tiny that the only way we could exist is due to a designer. Both perspectives err in that they take the starting premise (we/life exists) and "double dip": we assert that because we exist (our premise) certain things must follow because...well...we exist. There's no epistemic justification for taking the premise to the next step other than speculation without reason, grounds, evidence, logic, etc. But people are not inclined to think logically in general and certainly not when it comes to calculating probabilities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Good thing I'm using logic and definitions then, huh?

You are using definitions that you have decided to use, and justified them by repeating them. Where's the logic?

Also inanimate objects do not have a "God decision" capability so they can't really be used here

Logically, they lack the sole criterion you've supplied for whether or not someone is an atheist: lacking a belief in god. So rocks are atheists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None of that is my concern.
Atheism was originally the response to theism, I believe.

Atheism was unknown in antiquity (the word referred to those who did not participate in cultic activities, which was why Christians were called atheists). Theism also didn't really exist (actually religion itself was, for most of humanity for most of the time, fundamentally different than what we refer to when we use the word now).

 

[Deathbydefault]

You are using definitions that you have decided to use, and justified them by repeating them. Where's the logic?

Logically, they lack the sole criterion you've supplied for whether or not someone is an atheist: lacking a belief in god. So rocks are atheists.

I'm reading your posts but not really getting much out of them.
You seem like a hard fella to explain things to, so I suppose I wont bother
Just go about whatever it is you're doing here and leave me be.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Atheism was unknown in antiquity (the word referred to those who did not participate in cultic activities, which was why Christians were called atheists). Theism also didn't really exist (actually religion itself was, for most of humanity for most of the time, fundamentally different than what we refer to when we use the word now).

Eh, I've seen articles that say that, I've also seen articles that say different.
I'm not an expert, I have no idea which is true.
What I do know is that if religions did not exist then neither would atheism.
That's what I based my statement off of.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So the default position has recently come to my attention in my long hours of surfing the web.

It is to my research of the default position that I have discovered the atheistic default position is what prevents most atheists from having a BOP (Burden of Proof).
It is most certainly and interesting idea that has received a high level of attention from me personally.

The default position, in terms of atheism and skepticism, states that as an atheist or skeptic we only believe in what we know to be factual or true or what has a large amount of sufficient evidence, such as gravity. When someone tries to force in an idea, such as a God or set of Gods, they must first present the password aka the proof of existence. If such evidence cannot be presented then it cannot be accepted as reality.

Note 1: This does not mean to say that atheist and skeptics say, "God(s) is not real". More along the lines of, "it cannot be proven".

Note 2: A BOP is necessary for anyone making a claim, atheists and skeptics are not making a claim they are denying it.

Note 3: Atheist: http://www.defineatheism.com/#atheist Skeptic: Skepticism | Definition of skepticism by Merriam-Webster

So, finally, my question.

Can the default position be used vice versa?

I would like to know specifically if it would be possible for a theist to turn the default position in their favor.

Thank you for viewing my thread, let the debates begin!

If you see help written in rocks on a deserted island beach, what's the default explanation? fluke action of the waves or intelligent agent?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So the default position has recently come to my attention in my long hours of surfing the web.

It is to my research of the default position that I have discovered the atheistic default position is what prevents most atheists from having a BOP (Burden of Proof).
It is most certainly and interesting idea that has received a high level of attention from me personally.

The default position, in terms of atheism and skepticism, states that as an atheist or skeptic we only believe in what we know to be factual or true or what has a large amount of sufficient evidence, such as gravity. When someone tries to force in an idea, such as a God or set of Gods, they must first present the password aka the proof of existence. If such evidence cannot be presented then it cannot be accepted as reality.

Note 1: This does not mean to say that atheist and skeptics say, "God(s) is not real". More along the lines of, "it cannot be proven".

Note 2: A BOP is necessary for anyone making a claim, atheists and skeptics are not making a claim they are denying it.

Note 3: Atheist: http://www.defineatheism.com/#atheist Skeptic: Skepticism | Definition of skepticism by Merriam-Webster

So, finally, my question.

Can the default position be used vice versa?

I would like to know specifically if it would be possible for a theist to turn the default position in their favor.

Thank you for viewing my thread, let the debates begin!

If you see help written in rocks on a deserted island beach, what's the default explanation? fluke action of the waves or intelligent agent?

 

[Deathbydefault]

If you see help written in rocks on a deserted island beach, what's the default explanation? fluke action of the waves or intelligent agent?

"someone else was here before me and may still be here so I should look for other people"
Good enough?