The default position...

[Deathbydefault]

Words are defined by their usage, the dictionary records usages - it does not dictate meanings. What words mean is fluid - what God means (and hence what atheism means) is the most fluid word of all.

I can see sense in that.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh, I agree. Both of you are fun to watch comment, hence my followings.
I didn't think either of you had ill will, as I've also seen you agreeing before.
I don't think you could ever expect anyone to believe exactly the same things as you, but understanding is always nice.
My comment was an attempt, no matter how bad it may seem, to help the understanding of 'this is where I'm coming from' in your arguments.
It looks as though I hit more towards your side, maybe because I see more sense in it.

I believe atheism was a term originally used to described those who were not of the same belief as you 'atheistic to my belief' one might say.
Not sure though.

All else aside, these are subjects I am deeply interested in and very curious to explore. Any chance to do so with an intelligent person such as yourself I will grab. There is no right and wrong, there is only dialogue - meaningful exchange. That is the goal.

 

[Deathbydefault]

All else aside, these are subjects I am deeply interested in and very curious to explore. Any chance to do so with an intelligent person such as yourself I will grab. There is no right and wrong, there is only dialogue - meaningful exchange. That is the goal.

Ah, yes.

As a wise man once said, "it isn't possible to lose an argument you learn from".
(paraphrasing due to it's original being French)

I do look for subjects to debate quite often as well, however, it seems we agree very closely on many things.
I would also be very interested in debating with you, for the same reason, just got to find something we disagree on .
Surely there must be at least one thing?

 

[Bunyip]

Ah, yes.

As a wise man once said, "it isn't possible to lose an argument you learn from".
(paraphrasing due to it's original being French)

I do look for subjects to debate quite often as well, however, it seems we agree very closely on many things.
I would also be very interested in debating with you, for the same reason, just got to find something we disagree on .
Surely there must be at least one thing?

Oh there will be.

Don't worry about that mate.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Oh there will be.

Don't worry about that mate.

I look forward to it.

It will be a sight to see, I'm sure.

-

 

[Glaurung]

Why couldn't a weak atheist simply say: "I don't believe God exists and I don't believe God doesn't exist either I have no beliefs either way I'm neutral. I don't care. I have no opinions on that. It's irrelevant to me."

Weak atheism is the view that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God. To say there is no sufficient reason to believe in God is to commit to the view that God does not exist. That's my point. The only difference between weak and strong atheism is the degree of conviction. What you're describing is what others have called implicit atheism. The idea of a non-committal atheism is the very thing I'm rejecting as an incoherent word game.

I disagree that agnosticism is not a possible position. I agree that atheists do not hold a default position. This is so because I see a difference between agnosticism and atheism such that the two are exclusive. I base this on the historical development of agnosticism. Under agnosticism whether we accept no god exists or a god exists is irrelevant. That is we can deny both or accept both but ultimately agnostics do not get to belief because they make the claim that we cannot, at least at this time, have knowledge to prove or disprove either assertion. Agnostics then remove themselves from the question. To understand agnostics all we have to do is play with cats in a box...is the cat alive or dead...most may extrapolate an answer based on acquiring knowledge of the situation. But given no other information, we are all agnostics. So too this is true with gods existence or lack thereof. We pile on evidences and make extrapolations however some believe that these evidences are not evidences at all. Some choose to disregard factors that might tip the scale one way or the other and simply say that we cannot know whether that cat is alive or dead. Whether they take the default position of non-committance or they assume the cat is both alive and dead, doesn't matter. The claim they make is that the knowledge we have about the subject has no bearing on the truth. With such a belief about our knowledge, the agnostics never rise to make a claim or exclude a claim. Understanding this, agnostics should not care whether they are considered to be at the "default position" or whether they are considered to believe both positions, because either form is descriptive of their views. Atheism however makes a claim that what theism claims is untrue.

I differentiate myself from agnostics because while I entertain the possibility of any god, I believe that theistic notions of a god are untrue. If however, we abstract the God concept in such a way that for all intent and purposes obliterated the theistic notions of god, gods, or God- then I would concede that such has a equal chance of truth as the materialistic or natural models of the universe. Or that we have no way of knowing, at this time, anything that belies the truth behind such notions. This however is irrelevant to the discussion about theistic gods and my beliefs about those theistic gods.

But, I can completely understand how one could, with a strong skeptic nature, not commit to any belief. Such a person however would be distinguished from atheists because they do not believe theistic claims untrue, but rather accept that a theistic god's existence is equally as true (or false) as its nonexistence.

If I retract my use of agnostic and replace it with implicit atheism "the lack of belief" would that clear things up?

 

[Curious George]

And regardless of all that... first, I'm not talking about infants, that would be the whole "implicit atheism" discussion.. You are talking about default position.
And nothing you said there is in regards to that.. The default position is to reject any claim until some evidence is shown.
The default position to "God exists" is Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed... The default position to "No gods exist" is.. Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed..
The default position to, God is a tree! =Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed...
God is nature = Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed...
God is evil and the bible is wrong = Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed...
This is always the default position. Regardless of the views of the population.

Thus the default position requires both ability to believe and knowledge of the subject.

 

[ArtieE]

Weak atheism is the view that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God.

No it isn't. That's agnosticism.

To say there is no sufficient reason to believe in God is to commit to the view that God does not exist.

No it isn't. You can just say "I don't think there's sufficient reason to believe in God but I don't think there's sufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist either. I'm undecided."

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No it isn't. That's agnosticism.

Isn't that when you take the view that there isn't sufficient evidence to support either positive claim of deities existing or not? Or is that just a misconception?

 

[ArtieE]

Isn't that when you take the view that there isn't sufficient evidence to support either positive claim of deities existing or not? Or is that just a misconception?

Agnostics just don't know if gods exist or not for lack of evidence either way.

 

[Glaurung]

No it isn't. That's agnosticism.

No, agnosticism is the view that one cannot know whether or not God exists; thus one refrains from committing to any belief regarding the question whatsoever. An atheist of any description cannot be classed here.

No it isn't. You can just say "I don't think there's sufficient reason to believe in God but I don't think there's sufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist either. I'm undecided.

No you're not. If you say that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God, then you have made a decision by your own admission.

It really is one or the other. I and others here have made our cases on why that is. If you would like to address our points then go ahead. Restating what we have already rejected isn't making a case.

 

[ArtieE]

No, agnosticism is the view that one cannot know whether or not God exists; thus one refrains from committing to any belief regarding the question whatsoever. An atheist of any description cannot be classed here.

Are you kidding? A person who "refrains from committing to any belief regarding the question whatsoever" is a weak atheist.

No you're not. If you say that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God, then you have made a decision by your own admission.

Nonsense. If you say there is no sufficient reason to believe in God you might simply go on to say there is no sufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist either. So what "decision" have you made? None. You haven't decided whether God exists or not.

 

[Glaurung]

Are you kidding? A person who "refrains from committing to any belief regarding the question whatsoever" is a weak atheist.

I reject your use as both dishonest and incoherent. Please read post #70 by Windwalker.
The default position... | Page 4 | ReligiousForums.com

Nonsense. If you say there is no sufficient reason to believe in God you might simply go on to say there is no sufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist either. So what "decision" have you made? None. You haven't decided whether God exists or not

If you say that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God, you have by the very act of claiming that made a decision that belief in God is unjustified. This is a definite position no matter how much you try to doublespeak your way out of it.

 

[ArtieE]

If you say that there is no sufficient reason to believe in God you have by the very act of claiming that made a decision that belief in God is unjustified. This is a definite position no matter how much you try and doublespeak your way out of it.

If you don't understand that if a person says "I think there's no sufficient reason to believe God exists and no sufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist either so I won't take any position or make any decisions about God's existence" he means that he hasn't made any decisions then I can't help you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you can easily be agnostic, but if you aren't an agnostic theist then you would be considered an agnostic atheist.

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in god.
Agnosticism is the position that knowledge of god cannot be known.
Atheism answers questions of god with "there is not god."
Agnosticism answers questions of god with "I don't know." Some leans towards theism, some lean towards atheism, but some are do not lean either way.

 

[leibowde84]

I think we know it is not provable or disprovable by now; so the burden of proof doesn't really mean anything in this case. In the end we each take our position as to what is the most reasonable belief considering all evidence and argumentation.

But, doesn't this assume that making a decision on the subject is better than not. That one has to make the decision of whether they believe that God does or doesn't exist. Wouldn't the most prudent position be that we just don't have enough information either way.

 

[leibowde84]

I think we know it is not provable or disprovable by now; so the burden of proof doesn't really mean anything in this case. In the end we each take our position as to what is the most reasonable belief considering all evidence and argumentation.

But, doesn't this assume that making a decision on the subject is better than not. That one has to make the decision of whether they believe that God does or doesn't exist. Wouldn't the most prudent position be that we just don't have enough information either way.

 

[Glaurung]

If you don't understand that if a person says "I think there's no sufficient reason to believe God exists and no sufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist either so I won't take any position or make any decisions about God's existence" he means that he hasn't made any decisions then I can't help you.

I do understand, someone who decides to no view in particular regarding the existence of God is an agnostic. My contention is that agnosticism is exclusive with atheism, because atheism by logical necessity entails an explicit rejection of theism (and that is committal). My argument, is that the attempt to define 'weak atheism' as 'no theism' leads to absurdity. If you can't (or won't) understand that then I can't help you. Now if all you have for me is continued repetition and condescension, then there will be no further discussion between us. I understand your arguments, and I reject them. You don't have to agree with me, but if you refuse me even basic charity then that's more of a reflection on you, not me.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Atheism is the rejection of the belief in god.
Agnosticism is the position that knowledge of god cannot be known.
Atheism answers questions of god with "there is not god."
Agnosticism answers questions of god with "I don't know." Some leans towards theism, some lean towards atheism, but some are do not lean either way.

I can see what you mean but at the same time it's hard for me to imagine.
I'm not the one to be debating on this, that's for certain.

My opinion on such subjects is swayed much too easily for me to lay down a solid argument.
Whether it be for or against.

 

[ArtieE]

I do understand, someone who decides to no view in particular regarding the existence of God is an agnostic. My contention is that agnosticism is exclusive with atheism, because atheism by logical necessity entails an explicit rejection of theism (and that is committal).

So in your view most atheists aren't atheists because they don't claim or deny anything?

"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism..."
What is Atheism? Overview of How Atheism is Defined in Dictionaries and By Atheists