Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[paarsurrey]

A month old infant hasn't "selected" anything. He's just not a theist and won't be until he has started believing in the existence of god(s).

A month old infant hasn't "selected" anything yet. He is just not an Atheist and won't be until he has started believing wrongly that "God does not exist", so the infant is a believer in God . Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

OK... give us some positive arguments for the non-existence of all the thousands of gods you don't believe in. Or can you only find fault with others?

It is the same reason, among others, as is with one in not to believe in non-existence of all the thousands of superstitious gods. That doesn't mean that One-God doesn't exist. Please
Regards

 

[ArtieE]

It is the same reason, among others, as is with one in not to believe in non-existence of all the thousands of superstitious gods. That doesn't mean that One-God doesn't exist. Please
Regards

So you don't believe gods exist but make an exception for just one god out of thousands. That is like saying "I don't believe fairies exist except the one that does." That is illogical.

 

[Nakosis]

Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

Arguing against Atheism is both reasonable and wise, though not essentially needed.
Regards

It's reasonable only if you can provide a reason for believing in a god.

Maybe you want there to be a god? Ok, you believe because you want god to exist. I don't have a problem with that. I personally don't want to believe something exists just because I want it to be true. I want what I accept as true to be based on something that can be proven.

Is it wrong to want to be able to test and prove what you accept as true? It is easy to believe in what you want to be true but is that really being honest with yourself?

Why believe in something that can't be proven? That's my position. You're going to have to argue that I should believe in what can't be proven. You've made your choice in what to believe in and I've made mine. It's not just about god. It's that I think I owe it to myself to be able to test and verify what I accept as truth.

 

[Willamena]

It's reasonable only if you can provide a reason for believing in a god.

Technically, all you have to do is provide a reason for not disbelieving in a god, which is far simpler.

 

[Willamena]

So you don't believe gods exist but make an exception for just one god out of thousands. That is like saying "I don't believe fairies exist except the one that does." That is illogical.

This argument of yours admits the existence of gods.

 

[VioletVortex]

You can still argue against the point of view. Atheists do not understand what theism is, and proabbaly vice versa. Really, most of us theists are deists and pantheists. Very few of us are literalists.

 

[1AOA1]

A month old infant hasn't "selected" anything. He's just not a theist and won't be until he has started believing in the existence of god(s).

The existence of a representation of God is perceived.

 

[Falvlun]

So you don't believe gods exist but make an exception for just one god out of thousands. That is like saying "I don't believe fairies exist except the one that does." That is illogical.

Why would it be illogical to believe only one of something exists?

 

[paarsurrey]

Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

To be most correct, the opposite is reasonable.
"Silly"
antonyms:

Near Antonyms brainy, bright, clever, intelligent, smart; logical, rational, reasonable, valid; well-advisedAntonyms judicious, prudent, sagacious, sage, sane, sapient, sensible, sound, wise
Near Antonyms earnest, serious, solemn; believable, conceivable, credible, logical, rational, realistic, reasonable, sensible
Near Antonyms alert, conscious Antonyms clearheaded, unconfused
Thesaurus results for SILLY
Please
Regards

 

[Falvlun]

Don't change the subject. We are not talking about ignorance, we are talking about whether one is a theist or not a theist. Having taken a stance or not having taken a stance. It's just between those two. We start off not theists, not believing gods exist. Then when we learn about gods we can take the stance that gods exist but until then we stay not theists as we always were.

I didn't change the subject. The claim was made that atheism was the default position and I made an argument against that claim.

What is the purpose of claiming that atheism is the default position? The purpose is to support the idea that atheism is not a position, and that one is just naturally an atheist, without any effort taken by the atheist.

But is an atheist, like yourself, truly in a default state?

A baby is not a theist because he is ignorant of the subject and incapable of forming a belief. You are not a theist because you have rejected the arguments for theism and find atheism to be more rational. These are two very different positions. The former is an unconcious default state of being. The latter is an active choice.

How can an active choice be a default state?

You cannot label all cases of "non-theism" as the default state because they aren't all in a default state. It is false equivalence to conflate the two.

 

[paarsurrey]

I didn't change the subject. The claim was made that atheism was the default position and I made an argument against that claim.
What is the purpose of claiming that atheism is the default position? The purpose is to support the idea that atheism is not a position, and that one is just naturally an atheist, without any effort taken by the atheist.
But is an atheist, like yourself, truly in a default state?
A baby is not a theist because he is ignorant of the subject and incapable of forming a belief. You are not a theist because you have rejected the arguments for theism and find atheism to be more rational. These are two very different positions. The former is an unconcious default state of being. The latter is an active choice.
How can an active choice be a default state?
You cannot label all cases of "non-theism" as the default state because they aren't all in a default state. It is false equivalence to conflate the two.

"How can an active choice be a default state?"
I agree with one here.
It is a very reasonable argument indeed. Please
Regards

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The term "default position" necessitates the existence of a "position" (i.e., a point of view adopted and held). There is no "default position" regarding anything.

 

[Falvlun]

The term "default position" necessitates the existence of a "position" (i.e., a point of view adopted and held). There is no "default position" regarding anything.

I agree. That is another argument against the whole "default state" claim.

 

[ArtieE]

I didn't change the subject. The claim was made that atheism was the default position and I made an argument against that claim

That is correct. Atheism isn't a position. It's the absence of the position that gods exist.

What is the purpose of claiming that atheism is the default position? The purpose is to support the idea that atheism is not a position, and that one is just naturally an atheist, without any effort taken by the atheist.

How can possibly claiming that atheism is the default position support the idea that atheism is not a position?

A baby is not a theist because he is ignorant of the subject and incapable of forming a belief.

Correct. Implicit atheist.

You are not a theist because you have rejected the arguments for theism and find atheism to be more rational. These are two very different positions. The former is an unconcious default state of being. The latter is an active choice

Never said otherwise.

How can an active choice be a default state

Never said it was. I said not being a theist, being an atheist is the default state.

You cannot label all cases of "non-theism" as the default state because they aren't all in a default state. It is false equivalence to conflate the two.

All atheists are not theists which is the default state. The rest comes on top of that.

 

[ArtieE]

"How can an active choice be a default state?"

It can't of course.

 

[ArtieE]

The term "default position" necessitates the existence of a "position" (i.e., a point of view adopted and held). There is no "default position" regarding anything.

Correct.

 

[Falvlun]

All atheists are not theists which is the default state. The rest comes on top of that.

Prove it. Prove that atheism is the default state. Give me your reasons for believing that.

As far as I can see, you are just claiming it by fiat. The only explanation you can possibly give to support it rests upon false equivalence.

 

[Falvlun]

it can't of course.

Then you are not in a default state, since you have considered the concept of gods and have decided to with-hold your belief.

 

[Falvlun]

The term "default position" necessitates the existence of a "position" (i.e., a point of view adopted and held). There is no "default position" regarding anything.

Correct.

Kilgore is saying that a default position doesn't exist. You can't agree because you are arguing that one does.

I agree with Kilgore. The whole concept of a default position regarding beliefs is meaningless. Why is it so popular among atheists?

Kilgore can correct me if I'm interpreting him incorrectly.