The default position...

[Ouroboros]

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.

Right. All ateethists join here in the discussion and refute this. We have to enforce a main definition of ateethism as the lack of belief in teeth.

I believe that when atheists are enforcing this labelling, it's not based on any reason, but on need. There's this need to take more territory.

But technically, the kids are agnostic. That's the label that was used the most in the past, not atheist, not even implicit. Implicit was invented in 1979, before that, it was agnostic. Agnostic means the position in between. And so it should remain, or the identities of atheism and atheists will be very watered down. This has happened to other -ism-s in the past. I can't remember which one I read about a while ago, but there are other philosophical ideas that were expanded and widened to such a degree that it became useless for any kind of identification.

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.

The research shows that the ability to believe or think of hidden, secret agents influencing our daily life and create purpose to our own life sustenance is more-or-less built in. Before we can speak or create concepts, we already have started to assign "mysterious" forces to explain the things around us and that mom and dad are these magical creatures getting us milk. Believing in non-visible agents is pertinent even to this forum, right here, right now. I don't think of you as a software or just characters on the screen but as an agent on the other end, somewhere where I can't see you, participating in this little virtual world called RF. This ability is crucial for human life.

 

[viole]

The research shows that the ability to believe or think of hidden, secret agents influencing our daily life and create purpose to our own life sustenance is more-or-less built in. Before we can speak or create concepts, we already have started to assign "mysterious" forces to explain the things around us and that mom and dad are these magical creatures getting us milk. Believing in non-visible agents is pertinent even to this forum, right here, right now. I don't think of you as a software or just characters on the screen but as an agent on the other end, somewhere where I can't see you, participating in this little virtual world called RF. This ability is crucial for human life.

Yes, and this is probably why it has been naturally selected.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and this is probably why it has been naturally selected.

Agree. And that's why we've become such a force in nature.

Science originates from this as well. We are looking for the agents behind the things in nature. We have excluded the personal, sentient agent, but we're still looking for the natural agents of natural events and existence. Without the drive to look for the answer (finding the "magician" behind the veil) we wouldn't have the technology and medicine we have.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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've said before, I don't care when or where a concept originated so long as it defines differences.
The association that most people make with the term "atheist" is extremely varied, both positive and negative, depending on the individual. For me, at least, explicit and implicit atheism is well defined and I make no associations with implicit things like I would with explicit things.

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.

The part about them not having a belief is the whole crux of why I think the term even exists.
The part about demeaning the other core "tenets" of atheism I can understand and I don't necessarily disagree with.

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 have the same concern - I simply separate the two with the implicit or explicit modifier.

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.

I think you're totally right, but...

Which of these two things get people talking more?:

"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."

or

 

[Awkward Fingers]

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

I disagree, mostly in the part "without evidence".
What is an example?
As I said before, it could just be someone they trust tells them, and that is sufficient evidence for them.
It could be, they don't understand how a sun could move in the sky, but they understand chariots move things, so, by the evidence they have, the sun could very well be in, or be a chariot.
There is a reason I specified "not believing until sufficient reason, specific to you and the circumstance, is given to you, "
One persons evidence may be enough for them, but not for someone else. And one persons evidence may be horribly flawed, and absurd to someone else..
But without that reason to believe, whatever it is, the default position is to not believe.

And the above is why it's so lovely to find a common standard for evidence, and peer review of said evidence, to minimize how often incorrect decisions are made from the incoming data, as different people may interpret things differently, or have different personal standards of evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think you're totally right, but...

Which of these two things get people talking more?:

"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."

or

I know. That's why it's become so popular to make this stance. It's a meme.

The first one above is the philosophical discussion and will provide more meaning and insight.

The second one, a cute picture with challenging words, is propaganda and rhetoric, and not really a discussion. To me, it reminds me of the posters we did in church a long time ago. It was a hardcore, cultish, fundamentalist church. Did the same thing, but with "Jesus Saves!" or "You're Going to Hell!"

I just think that when atheism adopts the same behavior, we lost the brain. It's becoming "religious" or cultish rather than meaningful.

It's too sad, but there's nothing I can do about it except expressing my view of concern here on this board.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I know. That's why it's become so popular to make this stance. It's a meme.

The first one above is the philosophical discussion and will provide more meaning and insight.

The second one, a cute picture with challenging words, is propaganda and rhetoric, and not really a discussion. To me, it reminds me of the posters we did in church a long time ago. It was a hardcore, cultish, fundamentalist church. Did the same thing, but with "Jesus Saves!" or "You're Going to Hell!"

I just think that when atheism adopts the same behavior, we lost the brain. It's becoming "religious" or cultish rather than meaningful.

It's too sad, but there's nothing I can do about it except expressing my view of concern here on this board.

Is there an example in this thread? Or forum you could show?
I apologize for being to lazy, but I'm hours pas tsleep time, and since I've come into the "atheist babies" discussion, almost the entire argument on the "pro" side for it has been. "Technically, it's true"
And the most radical idea off that is using that for evidence that we aren't born with religious beliefs, which would follow.

If you're claiming some "fundiesque overly propaganda style argument" coming from this, I'd like to see an example, because I came in late and missed that part, and am curious.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I know. That's why it's become so popular to make this stance. It's a meme.

The first one above is the philosophical discussion and will provide more meaning and insight.

The second one, a cute picture with challenging words, is propaganda and rhetoric, and not really a discussion. To me, it reminds me of the posters we did in church a long time ago. It was a hardcore, cultish, fundamentalist church. Did the same thing, but with "Jesus Saves!" or "You're Going to Hell!"

I just think that when atheism adopts the same behavior, we lost the brain. It's becoming "religious" or cultish rather than meaningful.

It's too sad, but there's nothing I can do about it except expressing my view of concern here on this board.

That's a good example.
In the right hands, the tool of those church signs is used to express the believer's point of view. To the passer-by, it comes across as more religious lunacy. But to someone on the fence, who might be curious, it will spark an internal and hopefully external conversation.

These memes, and similarly the mindset, are just a way to reel people into a conversation about the origin of religion and faith. In the right hands, it's a tool to help express a thought. It's not the whole philosophical argument.

 

[viole]

I disagree, mostly in the part "without evidence".
What is an example?
As I said before, it could just be someone they trust tells them, and that is sufficient evidence for them.
It could be, they don't understand how a sun could move in the sky, but they understand chariots move things, so, by the evidence they have, the sun could very well be in, or be a chariot.
There is a reason I specified "not believing until sufficient reason, specific to you and the circumstance, is given to you, "
One persons evidence may be enough for them, but not for someone else. And one persons evidence may be horribly flawed, and absurd to someone else..
But without that reason to believe, whatever it is, the default position is to not believe.

And the above is why it's so lovely to find a common standard for evidence, and peer review of said evidence, to minimize how often incorrect decisions are made from the incoming data, as different people may interpret things differently, or have different personal standards of evidence.

Of course it is lovely. Of course it leads to truth.

But that does not entail that it is the default position. My point is that it requires a huge cultural baggage. Probably the same cultural baggage that motivates our current morality.

My point is that if you reset humanity, it will start developing those crazy things again. I might be wrong, but, as I said, the only evidence we have (history of humanity) points in that direction.

I think it was Galileo one of the first who actually tested things and looked for evidence of things. 17th century. Hardly the beginning of humanity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

To quote Ernest Nagel (American philosopher early to mid 20th century)

"I shall understand by 'atheism' a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist - for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."
Critiques of God, edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.

Here's a link to some thoughts by a modern philosopher, John S Wilkins, that you might like: Definitions of atheism | Evolving Thoughts
"“Atheism” is historically defined as the denial of some specific deities. When Hume was called an atheist by his contemporaries, it was because he rejected the orthodox Christian God and religion; he was most likely a deist, someone who believes in a deity that is not directly involved in the ordinary affairs of the universe."

Hume's work really only lead to weak deism or natural theism. He pretty much trashed revealed religions in all of his work from one angle or another. He also lived at a time where open disbelief was a capital offense. In England the Supremacy Oath still existed thus it was treason to deny the oath or refuse it. Becoming an atheist would be a form of treason. This Act was not modified until 1950. Although pure speculation on my part I think he was a closet atheist but avoided out right saying it due the world during his life.

 

[Ouroboros]

Is there an example in this thread? Or forum you could show?
I apologize for being to lazy, but I'm hours pas tsleep time, and since I've come into the "atheist babies" discussion, almost the entire argument on the "pro" side for it has been. "Technically, it's true"
And the most radical idea off that is using that for evidence that we aren't born with religious beliefs, which would follow.

If you're claiming some "fundiesque overly propaganda style argument" coming from this, I'd like to see an example, because I came in late and missed that part, and am curious.

The picture is.

When atheism is propagated in media through meme-pictures that are only kind'a true, then it's just like how it was done in church. I've lived long enough to see it many times. I'm just afraid that atheism is going the same way.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hume's work really only lead to weak deism or natural theism. He pretty much trashed reveled religions in all of his work from one angle or another. He also lived at a time where open disbelief was a capital offense. In England the Supremacy Oath still existed thus it was treason to deny the oath or refuse it. Becoming an atheist would be a form of treason. This Act was not modified until 1950. Although pure speculation on my part I think he was a closet atheist but avoided out right saying it due the world during his life.

Right.

Atheism was to take a stand against religion and belief. It wasn't the couch potato guy who never had a meaningful thought in his life. Atheism used to mean something.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

It appears to us that you have not done your due dilligence either. Doesn't say too much because it''s subjective. Best to not even mention it, right?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

But "not believing" = atheism.

 

[Shad]

He is showing bad form, imho. He accused me of changing definitions when, in actuality, I literally copied and pasted them from an online dictionary. I can completely understand disagreement on meaning, but accusations of fraudulently changing definitions is pretty darn pathetic.

I replied to your first definition as there was no second one at that time. However my point was that you supplied two definition which are not the same as one included people and one did not. You favored the second one as it suited your argument. I dismissed both as being factual wrong.

Did you not supply two definitions which are not the same? Considering the evidence in this thread shows that you did my claim is validated. My response come

"Atheist" and "Atheism" are different terms. One applies to the absence of theism, one applies to a person who adheres to atheism. I provided the definition for both and did not change either after doing so. Please don't make blatantly false accusations about me. It is poor form.

Which is still wrong as the philosophical term is still rejection of theism as per my linked sources, Legion's and Ouroboro's quotations. So you can keep linking a layman's dictionary all your want but all you are doing is taking the word out of it's philosophical context, nothing more.

Just as a warning, since I never changed any definition, I am going to report false accusations from you about dishonesty.

To clarify, I included the definition for atheism in my first comment. Then, I added the definition for the term "atheist" in the second. No changes were made to either.

Look at it from my view, you posted a definition of atheism, I replied to this one since the atheist one was not present when I hit the reply button. The atheist definition was provided 2 minutes after your first post and 1 minute after my reply under a drop down window which I can not see, 13' notebook monitors are horrible. However you ignored the very comment you were replying to. I will remind you of it

Not a single definition provided by anyone has the requirement of people in regards to atheism

So your atheist definition is meaningless since I was talking about the word atheism. Thus this is an attempt to inject personhood into atheism by using a different word, although derived from atheism, as a counter. Atheist is a personal label, this does not mean atheism is a personal label. As pointed out before atheism is a rejection of theism not a lack of it.

You can report me all you want. I will just point out you went off of topic by ignoring the word I was actually talking about which is atheism then injected a personal label term as if this changes atheism at all.

I would also point of to lack something is a failure of an expectation. for example "You lack courage" is to expect you to have courage then see that you do not. Thus to lack theism is to say theism is more prominent then atheism. Thus theism is closer to the default position than atheism is. Absence also falls under this example.

 

[Shad]

It appears to us that you have not done your due dilligence either. Doesn't say too much because it''s subjective. Best to not even mention it, right?

Actually I did considering I am one of the only 3 people in the last few pages to even provide philosophy sources for atheism while you have quoted dictionaries while providing few or no source links. None were philosophy sources. Legion, Ouroboros and I have done our homework. The major issue is most people are using pop-culture references while only a few of us are using contextual sources. It is apparent which one of us is using contextual sources

 

[Shad]

Right.

Atheism was to take a stand against religion and belief. It wasn't the couch potato guy who never had a meaningful thought in his life. Atheism used to mean something.

These days atheism is discussed in a pop-culture framework rather than a philosophical one. It more like a fad then any serious discussion.

 

[Ouroboros]

These days atheism is discussed in a pop-culture framework rather than a philosophical one. It more like a fad then any serious discussion.

Exactly. It's vogue. I can see this with my kids. When they went through high-school and even now, what they say and discuss on Facebook, and so on, it gives me a feeling of this "stand up against the man" attitude the young often have.

 

[leibowde84]

I replied to your first definition as there was no second one at that time. However my point was that you supplied two definition which are not the same as one included people and one did not. You favored the second one as it suited your argument. I dismissed both as being factual wrong.

Did you not supply two definitions which are not the same? Considering the evidence in this thread shows that you did my claim is validated. My response come



Which is still wrong as the philosophical term is still rejection of theism as per my linked sources, Legion's and Ouroboro's quotations. So you can keep linking a layman's dictionary all your want but all you are doing is taking the word out of it's philosophical context, nothing more.



Look at it from my view, you posted a definition of atheism, I replied to this one since the atheist one was not present when I hit the reply button. The atheist definition was provided 2 minutes after your first post and 1 minute after my reply under a drop down window which I can not see, 13' notebook monitors are horrible. However you ignored the very comment you were replying to. I will remind you of it



So your atheist definition is meaningless since I was talking about the word atheism. Thus this is an attempt to inject personhood into atheism by using a different word, although derived from atheism, as a counter. Atheist is a personal label, this does not mean atheism is a personal label. As pointed out before atheism is a rejection of theism not a lack of it.

You can report me all you want. I will just point out you went off of topic by ignoring the word I was actually talking about which is atheism then injected a personal label term as if this changes atheism at all.

I would also point of to lack something is a failure of an expectation. for example "You lack courage" is to expect you to have courage then see that you do not. Thus to lack theism is to say theism is more prominent then atheism. Thus theism is closer to the default position than atheism is. Absence also falls under this example.

I never made the claim that atheism only applies to people. My only claim was that the term "atheist" is defined as applying to people. And, I provided my reasoning for why I think archaic definitions are not appropriate for this discussion, no matter whether they were known to be the original meaning thousands of years ago. We are discussing the assignment of the term in public discourse, so I think the "layman's understanding" should be considered.

 

[Ouroboros]

As it happens, Smith's definition of explicit atheism is also the most common among laypeople. For laypersons, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the belief that there is no god. Thus, most laypeople would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as skepticism or agnosticism. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however, as many atheist philosophers, including Theodore Drange, use the narrow definition.

New World Encyclopedia, Atheism - New World Encyclopedia