Atheism or atheisms?

[paarsurrey]

Koldo said: ↑
Do you mean you don't consider your mother to be your biological mother ?

No. if you can believe something such as that your mother is your biological mother without proof, why isn't the same of god's existence? isn't that faith? if you accept that your mother is your biological mother without proof, it means the proof is not a necessary basis for belief. Hence, atheism/lack of belief cannot be the default position; belief is the default position. it just isn't necessarily religious.

A good argument.
Regards

 

[Laika]

I am rather surprised by your answer. Most people simply don't require evidence for most things, except for claims they find particularly important and/or particularly extraordinary.
Not to mention that the concept of proof belongs to the mathematics, and pretty much nowhere else. It is possible to remain skeptical in the lights of any evidence you find.

Belief doesn't require proof. I haven't ever heard of anyone claiming otherwise. Have you?

well, thats the thing. the line between belief and faith is blurred and you will often find people demand proof for things even when you can't exactly prove them. What's somewhat bizzare for me is that as a materialist, my views will be described as dogmatic because they aren't based on proof. So, even though I am an atheist, I get equated with believers (and find myself on the same side on several philosophical conflicts). however, if the idea that atheism/lack of belief is the default position, that would seem to equally be characterised as a dogma. my experience has been that the demand for proof is a weapon to be used against people with heretical views to favour the status quo.

Can you elaborate on how you have reached this conclusion based on the former premise(s)? I don't see the connection.

I suppose this is to do with the view that belief must have some universal standard to be measured. So "my mother is my biological mother" and "god exists" are eqivilent statements in terms of the nature of belief. if belief requires proof, it follows that all belief requires proof (even if it may not be possible to do); but if one requires proof and the other does not, it means that there must be different types of beliefs and therefore different ways to establish they are true/ accept them.

 

[Koldo]

well, thats the thing. the line between belief and faith is blurred and you will often find people demand proof for things even when you can't exactly prove them. What's somewhat bizzare for me is that as a materialist, my views will be described as dogmatic because they aren't based on proof. So, even though I am an atheist, I get equated with believers (and find myself on the same side on several philosophical conflicts). however, if the idea that atheism/lack of belief is the default position, that would seem to equally be characterised as a dogma. my experience has been that the demand for proof is a weapon to be used against people with heretical views to favour the status quo.

How did we get started into a conversation about belief and proof ?

I suppose this is to do with the view that belief must have some universal standard to be measured. So "my mother is my biological mother" and "god exists" are eqivilent statements in terms of the nature of belief. if belief requires proof, it follows that all belief requires proof (even if it may not be possible to do); but if one requires proof and the other does not, it means that there must be different types of beliefs and therefore different ways to establish they are true/ accept them.

Where did I say that belief requires proof ?

 

[Koldo]

Ah.

So, can you expand on it? What other ways?

Misplacing agency like I have mentioned before.

 

[Laika]

How did we get started into a conversation about belief and proof ? Where did I say that belief requires proof ?

you didn't, but there's a tendency for "lack of belief" in god = lack of proof for god's existence.

 

[Bunyip]

you didn't, but there's a tendency for "lack of belief" in god = lack of proof for god's existence.

If God were proven, there would be no need for faith.

 

[ArtieE]

If God were proven, there would be no need for faith.

If God shows up we would have to arrest him immediately under suspicion of genocide and untold other crimes against humanity based on his autobiography.

 

[Augustus]

I really don't see the point of arguing against what a word means. Challenging the argument of somebody can be useful - but you seem to be attacking language instead.

I'm not arguing specifically about what it means, I'm arguing that as a concept it is problematic.

'Babies are born without religious beliefs or affinity for a particular religion' is something I can easily agree with. 'Atheism is the default' is a much more complex statement that makes several assumptions and value judgements.

Even if we assume the truth of the statement 'babies don't believe in god', this is not the same as saying 'atheism is the default'.

 

[ArtieE]

Even if we assume the truth of the statement 'babies don't believe in god', this is not the same as saying 'atheism is the default'.

What was a person before he either became a theist or a strong atheist? What all persons are before they become either a theist or a strong atheist. A weak atheist. Not a theist.

 

[leibowde84]

So, if someone says they worship an object, as a god, you are going to say that one has to deny the existence, of that object, in order to be an atheist?

No, that's ridiculous. They would merely have to DENY THAT OBJECT AS BEING A GOD, and lack belief in any other deity. Simple as that.

 

[leibowde84]

But it sure puts an interesting spin on Dawkins' "root of all evil" when religion was originally invented by atheists.

By necessity, and technically, the one's who first thought of deities must have been atheist. It's simple logic. If there was no belief in deities before that point, everyone would have "lacked belief in the existence of God or gods".

 

[Augustus]

What all persons are before they become either a theist or a strong atheist. A weak atheist. Not a theist.

That something is the normal state for babies doesn't necessarily follow that it should be considered the normal state for an adult.

In the context of discussions here 'atheism is the default' frequently carries the additional meaning 'theism is therefore unnatural', it is a rhetorical strategy to call atheism the default.

That babies don't believe in god requires you to answer 'what constitutes belief in god'. If belief in god is simply a function of the brain, why should we assume that babies don't believe in god? I, for one, know very little about babies' brains. We can assume they don't believe in Vishnu, but is there evidence they don't believe in god?

I have no problem agreeing if it can be demonstrated, without evidence though I'll just consider it 'not proven' and try to avoid making statement that suggest that it has been.

 

[ArtieE]

That babies don't believe in god requires you to answer 'what constitutes belief in god'. If belief in god is simply a function of the brain, why should we assume that babies don't believe in god? I for one, know very little about babies brains. We can assume they don't believe in Vishnu, but is there evidence they don't believe in god?

That seems to depend on many different factors. Some human brains seem more or less evolved to be predisposed to believe in things like supernatural agents and life after death because these beliefs led to better chances of survival in a particular environment and culture. Just like a person can be born predisposed to get cancer but doesn't have cancer at birth, some are born predisposed to believe in or evolve supernatural beliefs of their own. On the other hand Will Durant has documented that there are pygmy tribes in Africa who have no concepts of gods or superstitions. "Durant also reports that a Zulu, when asked who made and governs things like the setting sun and the growing trees, answered:

"No, we see them, but cannot tell how they came; we suppose that they came by themselves."
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm

Whether one evolved a brain predisposed to believe in supernatural agents or spirits or life after death seems to depend on whether such beliefs meant increased chances of survival in the environment and culture you were born into.

 

[Augustus]

Whether one evolved a brain predisposed to believe in supernatural agents or spirits or life after death seems to depend on whether such beliefs meant increased chances of survival in the environment and culture you were born into.

I think that both theism and atheism can be considered natural, which is one of the reasons why I prefer not to use the expression 'default'. It carries with it too many connotations, as well as assumptions and I find it is often used to make a claim under the guise of making no claim at all.

Whatever point is trying to be made by using it could be much better made using an alternative combination of words.

 

[ArtieE]

But it sure puts an interesting spin on Dawkins' "root of all evil" when religion was originally invented by atheists.

Once upon a time a primitive human watched another making something. Then he looked at a mountain and tried to imagine the being who made the mountain. The first theist.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think that both theism and atheism can be considered natural, which is one of the reasons why I prefer not to use the expression 'default'. It carries with it too many connotations, as well as assumptions and I find it is often used to make a claim under the guise of making no claim at all.

Whatever point is trying to be made by using it, could be much better made using an alternative combination of words.

A good point, I appreciate it.
Regards

 

[columbus]

Once upon a time a primitive human watched another making something. Then he looked at a mountain and tried to imagine the being who made the mountain. The first theist.

I would add this though.
He started making up stories about the being who made the mountain and became the first prophet.
Tom

 

[columbus]

@ArtieE post made me think of something so obvious it gets overlooked in this discussion. The definition of theism generally used isn't really accurate.
A simple belief in God's existence is not theism. That would be deism. Theists always add a lot of other things. Those things vary enormously. Different theists have different worldviews and hold the beliefs with different levels of certainty. But what those beliefs have in common is a lack of objective evidence. Once a belief is supported by evidence it stops being theist and becomes scientific.
A worldview that includes prophets, divine plans, miracles, afterlife, karma, scriptures, reincarnation, angels/demons, worship, etc etc(or some combination) is a religion and therefore theistic.

It is this lack of a workably accurate meaning for the word theism that is most of the problems.
Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

Misplacing agency like I have mentioned before.

But they were atheists though when they did it. They couldn't have been theists before they misplaced agency of natural processes. They were lacking that belief before they suddenly started to believe. Don't you agree?

 

[Ouroboros]

By necessity, and technically, the one's who first thought of deities must have been atheist. It's simple logic. If there was no belief in deities before that point, everyone would have "lacked belief in the existence of God or gods".

Agree. That's exactly what the logic says.

I don't agree with the premises, but with a premise which says that everyone is an atheist before they become a theist, the conclusion must be that theism was invented/created/thought-up by atheists.