• 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!

The default position...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Now, that being said, what is wrong with the statement "babies do not believe in god." ?
That's not a problem at all to me. You can say that babies don't believe in god. It's the faulty use of the term atheism. Atheism is a philosophical position. It's a doctrine of unbelief, not just unbelief.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
By definition, lack means 'having not enough' or 'insufficient'. And not 'don't have'. Clear enough?
You are incorrect. In this context it means to be without. While the term can mean both in different contexts, by your logic, an atheist would be someone who believes in God, just not enough, which is certainly not correct. See definition of "lack" below.

lack
lak/
noun
  1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.
Clear enough? Lol.
 

lstan135

Member
Nope. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. Atheist is what I said referred to people, not atheism. I agree that atheism started with those who explicitly rejected God's existence, but since when does the initial meaning of a term ages old determine it's meaning for the rest of time. Just not reasonable. Many atheists merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
  1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Nope. Disbelief is total unbelief. Lack belief is insufficient belief. Clear enough?
 

lstan135

Member
You are incorrect. In this context it means to be without. While the term can mean both in different contexts, by your logic, an atheist would be someone who believes in God, just not enough, which is certainly not correct. See definition of "lack" below.

lack
lak/
noun
  1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.
Clear enough? Lol.
Ya, the latter definition agrees with mine too.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Ya, the latter definition agrees with mine too.
Right, as i clearly stated there are two, you see? Yours is one of them. Different meanings in different contexts, and as I explained, the meaning here is most definitely "to be without". If your claim was true, an atheist would be one who believes in God, just not enough. See how silly that would be?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Nope. Disbelief is total unbelief. Lack belief is insufficient belief. Clear enough?
You are incorrect. Disbelief includes those who are incapable of belief. And "lack" in this context means "to be without".

dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun
  1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
That's not a problem at all to me.You can say that babies don't believe in god.
Awesome!
That simple statement is all that is meant by "implicit atheism".
Babies don't believe in god. It seriously carries no other weight than that.

It's the faulty use of the term atheism. Atheism is a philosophical position. It's a doctrine of unbelief, not just unbelief.
Like I said somewhere in one of these threads or another, I think the issue that people have is the addition of the "atheist" moniker. People attribute varying degrees of weight to that word and get put off by it immediately. So, while the term is accurate in essence, it's inaccurate by association.

Call them implicit non-believers, if you like. Call them implicit agnostics. Call them anything, really, since it ultimately doesn't matter what the term is. It's simply a factual thing that babies don't believe in god(s).

(I don't think there is an assumed ideology that goes along with generic non-belief - but I've been wrong before.)
 
Last edited:

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
You guys are approaching him the wrong way.
This guy is similar to my mother, logic and reasoning don't exactly do the trick.
You have to fight fire with fire here, at least until he leaves...

Example:
Nope. Disbelief is total unbelief. Lack belief is insufficient belief. Clear enough?

You obviously have zero idea of which you are discussing.
Maybe coming out of fantasy land for a little while might help you gain some brain cells.
That and a 7th grade education.
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
Explanations of previous uses of the word are great and all, but what do they really matter in this conversation?

It should be very clear how the terms are being used, as they've been defined multiple times by those of us who support the idea of implicit atheism.
It's also been well explained how, when, and why these terms apply to certain individuals.
To avoid any confusion I will say it again - Babies are not explicit atheists. It is impossible for them to be so. They are implicitly atheistic, however, because they do not believe in god(s).
Implicit atheism is a rather pointless term as it carries not weight - but it is an accurate statement regardless.

Now, that being said, what is wrong with the statement "babies do not believe in god." ?

Babies do not believe in Dragons
Babies do not believe in Gnomes
Babies do not believe in Democrats
Babies do not believe in Boy Scouts / Girl Scouts
Babies do not believe in Apartheid
Babies do not believe in Economics
Babies do not believe in Stephen Hawking
Babies do not believe in Sherlock Holmes
Babies do not believe in Condoms
Babies do not believe in Apollo 11
Babies do not believe in God

All of those statements are implicitly true. So what is the problem?
Excellent, a summation.
And an excellent one at that.
I'm afraid your posting rights may have to be blocked if you don't start adding more useless rhetoric, and vague useless comments.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
That's not a problem at all to me. You can say that babies don't believe in god. It's the faulty use of the term atheism. Atheism is a philosophical position. It's a doctrine of unbelief, not just unbelief.

I kind of agree.

Kids do not have teeth either. But it would be a bit silly, I think, to give importance to the fact that that having no teeth is the default position. Technically true, but useless.

Fact is, when kids grow up, they acquire teeth, and beliefs. So, I am not at all sure that atheism, which acquires meaning only when you can think about these things, is the real default position.

Ciao

- viole
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
No problem....children are not atheists.

and are you really sure what children believe?

I think the congregation here is relying on wordplay.
You pay taxes....and believe in the government.
You stop at red lights...and believe in the law.
You call the police when you need help....and believe it could happen.

or do you?
Like this.
Perfect example. Good job, Thief.
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Fact is, when kids grow up, they acquire teeth, and beliefs. So, I am not at all sure that atheism, which acquires meaning only when you can think about these things, is the real default position.

May I say that this is the smartest argument I have seen made for those against the atheist default position.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
"Atheism" is the word used to describe the default position because atheism is known by us teeth-chomping adults to describe a void in the god/belief arena.
Since babies are born without a belief in god, as without a mouth-full of teeth, it simply shortens the explanation.

"Babies are atheists" is just a way to start the conversation about the origination of faith and belief in the supernatural.
Ultimately, I think, the whole point is to show that people are taught their faiths - they aren't born with them. And because they aren't born with them, people's faiths have no jurisdiction over the lives of others.
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
I kind of agree.

Kids do not have teeth either. But it would be a bit silly, I think, to give importance to the fact that that having no teeth is the default position. Technically true, but useless.

Fact is, when kids grow up, they acquire teeth, and beliefs. So, I am not at all sure that atheism, which acquires meaning only when you can think about these things, is the real default position.

Ciao

- viole
Well, that depends on each person, I guess..
In general atheism would be the default.

When someone tells you a god claim, any and all god claims that you could hear.
..Do you immediately believe it, or do you disbelieve until you've been given sufficient reason to believe?
Even if that sufficient reason is the person telling you is someone you trust enough to believe them on the spot.
If you automatically believe every god proposition you hear, and consistently believe in all gods you hear about, then your default position may very well be something other than disbelief of god claims.

But if it's not, then default position still sits as "not believing until sufficient reason, specific to you and the circumstance, is given to you, " I would think.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Awesome!
That simple statement is all that is meant by "implicit atheism".
Babies don't believe in god. It seriously carries no other weight than that.
The problem I have is to link it to atheism in an shape or form. It's not atheism unless it's a view held by a person. This whole "implicit" thing is an invention, and not accurate use.

The term agnostic was the term that mean unbeliever because of no knowledge. Until the 70's. Then the concept was hijacked by Flew and Smith.

Like I said somewhere in one of these threads or another, I think the issue that people have is the addition of the "atheist" moniker. People attribute varying degrees of weight to that word and get put off by it immediately. So, while the term is accurate in essence, it's inaccurate by association.
It's only half-accurate. They don't have a belief, true, but they don't have a capacity for belief even. It is unnecessary and it undermines the core ideas of what the philosophical view of atheism is. It will deteriorate the usage of the core word. You will eventually see more theists making fun of atheists for being ignorant like children. That's the connection it makes. Atheists are atheists because they don't know better. And to me, that means atheism has lost its fight to gain trust and respect.

Call them implicit non-believers, if you like. Call them implicit agnostics. Call them anything, really, since it ultimately doesn't matter what the term is. It's simply a factual thing that babies don't believe in god(s).
How about not call them any of the terms. They haven't formed the conceptual abilities yet. They don't have the synaptic foundation to belief or unbelief.

And also, the research do show that the brain forms to accept belief in early age because of our genetic heritage, and that unbelief, in brainscans are not absence of anything, but is a pattern of nerve activity.

It's a mistake to make a link between ignorance or inability to form conceptual thoughts to atheism, that's all I'm concerned about.

(I don't think there is an assumed ideology that goes along with generic non-belief - but I've been wrong before.)
No, what's been happening is that this idea of implicit atheism was suggested as a kind'a-like'a label for those who didn't have any belief at all, but as I've seen in these threads here, the primary definition of atheism now is "lack of belief", which is extremely broad, and inaccurate. I don't mind if the "lack of belief" is used like this: "Children lack belief in God, so in some sense, we could say they're atheists, but they're not truly or fully atheists because atheism is a position or view that has been achieved by a person who has considered its foundations and consequences to some degree." Then the "lack" definition is a minor sidenote. But in this thread and the other, the "lack" definition has been made the primary, only, exalted, major definition. And that's a diminishing return of the philosophy behind atheism as a thought system.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Well, that depends on each person, I guess..
In general atheism would be the default.

When someone tells you a god claim, any and all god claims that you could hear.
..Do you immediately believe it, or do you disbelieve until you've been given sufficient reason to believe?
Even if that sufficient reason is the person telling you is someone you trust enough to believe them on the spot.
If you automatically believe every god proposition you hear, and consistently believe in all gods you hear about, then your default position may very well be something other than disbelief of god claims.

But if it's not, then default position still sits as "not believing until sufficient reason, specific to you and the circumstance, is given to you, " I would think.

Well, I like to think that "not believing until sufficient reason" requires a whole lot of cultural baggage.

Unfortunately, we have only the human race to put under test here. And it does not score very well. Most of it believes in the craziest things without evidence. And they started believing things without a shred of evidence. In many cases independently, and developing different and contradicting beliefs.

So, if we look for evidence that atheism is not the default, we have it. That it is indeed the default, we have no evidence.

If you believe the contrary, then it is you, I am afraid, that believes in things without evidence :)

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
Yeah I understood the intent. It was a deflection.

No it was a counter which is a valid logical argument. It take the proposition to it's logical conclusion when those that propose it have not done their due diligence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top