Atheism is not a default position

[Shad]

Defining atheism in terms of rejection just doesn't work:

- if you only need to reject SOME gods to be an atheist, then most theists are atheists.

Wrong as it dismissed any/all gods as theism represent monotheism, polytheism, deism, etc.

- if you need to reject ALL gods to be an atheist, then atheists have to be omniscient.

Nope, just rejection of various religions claims or even the concept of god itself

No matter what, the implications are absurd.

Only in your flawed idea which have no merit in regards to the word itself. You need to ignore what theism is for your idea to work thus it fails.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah! 3000 posts this thread!

I win!

Congrats on 3k

 

[Shad]

This is getting too drawn out so I'm going to condense this.

No, I'm not.

on·tol·o·gy
änˈtäləjē/
noun
noun: ontology; plural noun: ontologies

1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun
noun: philosophy

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
   • a particular system of philosophical thought.
     plural noun: philosophies
     "Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
   • the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
     "the philosophy of science"
     synonyms: thinking, thought, reasoning
     "the philosophy of Aristotle"
   • a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.

Read your own citation again. Philosophy covers a wide range of topics, one of these is about objects, entities or "things" that exist. That is specifically ontology. For example people will claim morals exist but these does not make it a thing but a construct. The same can be true of numbers.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/#Ont

Sure there is...

"Babies are theists" is a claim that would expect evidence that at least one baby, anywhere in the world, was born with some type of faith in a deity.
"Babies are atheists" is a claim that would expect evidence that no babies are born showing of faith in a deity.

So, quite simply, do you know of any babies that are born with faith in a deity? If there are none, wouldn't that be considered evidence for my argument?

No as you have no idea what they think. All you can claim is they are not Christian or Muslim as these are specific belief systems.

Right - and which argument has more backing?

Neither. Probability, to me, is strictly .5 as there is no evidence for either position.

Recognizing sounds and internally distinguishing the difference between other people and themselves is not anywhere near the same as babies being theists, is it?

Theism is not that complicated once stripped of it's religious environment.

I've said nothing of the sort - please take more time to read what I'm actually saying...

Recognizing objects and placing internal identifiers on them is, you must admit, not the same as making a theistic claim.
How can someone be a theist before they have created or accepted a theistic claim?

Theism could have been the result of plain out pattern finding and agency even animals have shown the capability to exercise.

What do you call someone who is not a theist?

A non-theist

I'm beginning to thing you have no idea what I'm saying... I'd have to be a complete loon to even hint at the things you're accusing me of.

Nope, I am just stating ideas which have greater implications you have not considered

Any parent worth their salt can distinguish one type of their child's cry from another - and those aren't cries that are taught. Babies generate their own communication patterns independent of our teaching. It's a purely organic sound that they make, which they make relatively consistently to distinguish between feelings or to express different needs. We, as parents, identify those sounds and associate them with the corresponding need of the child... This is communication and it is a primitive form of language - but nowhere in there do we see a theistic claim, do we?

So you put forward babies have their own communication pattern, as I did, then dismiss any analysis of these patterns when it comes to theism or atheism. Again theism is not complicated at all, religions make a simple idea complex by heap baggage on top of the idea. Have you tried to understand other sounds a child makes beyond crying about hunger, gas or a messy diaper?

Being completely oblivious to the theistic claim, and being without the ability to create it themselves, means that infants are born not theists.

Show that babies are unable to create the idea themselves. You said they couldn't now produce the evidence backing your assertion.

Again, I don't do that at all.

But seeing an object for the first time, internally titling that object, and referring back to our personal internal title is not the same as making a theistic claim.

Yes it is as it is pattern finding, agency and inference. This is exactly what theism is based upon

Yes, people did believe in gods before our word for god existed. You're absolutely correct. They probably had a word we couldn't even pronounce and that we'd never recognize - and they probably even come up with that word after the idea... But were any of the people who first posited those ideas infants?

Neither of us knows this which is exaclty what I maintain. We do not know thus to speculate about it as if the speculation is an answer is to give far to much weight to speculation.

Which word do we use for people who do not believe in god?
Even if you throw out the word "atheist" all together, how do you describe someone who has yet to make a theistic claim - or who has yet to consider the prospect of a previously made theistic claim?

Non-theist or apatheist

Let's avoid the negative connotation of the world entirely and never use the word atheist again....
Do infants believe in god?

No idea. You do not know either.

I realize that was not your point, but you inadvertently made mine in the process.

Even if you had never mentioned your knowledge of the local blue jays, my question. in principle, would still stand.
How much knowledge of those blue jays could you have possibly had prior to moving into that house?
Did you know that blue jays were abundant in the back yard of that property before you moved in? Had you studied blue jay behavior before then?
Why don't you know a lot about Toucan behavior?

I knew of blue jays but not those specific ones in the backyard years before moving in. Yes I knew blue jays would not be present as the environment blue jays inhabit was not present for over a decade. There were no trees for the birds to nest in. I know next to nothing about Toucans as it is not native to the environment here. However again I am expressing my knowledge of something. You wouldn't know any of this if I remained silence. You can only assume my view or refrain from stating your opinion of what I think, something which you do not do with babies.

Well, the same is true of infants and gods.

Nonsense due to pattern finds, agency and inference. God is not a bird, birds are directly observed, god is not.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The context for it, being hypothetical and all, is the context that you provide. You've provided no hypothetical context, yet.

If you provide it with one of those contexts, then it has one. Pick one.

The ball exists - period.
If I set some standards to it, I've completely changed the game.

If your initial idea of the ball was not in a stationary state, I'd like to know what it was.
I'd bet all day long that we all imagine the ball that exists to not be moving - This stationary state is not a negation of movement - it's simply the default state of rest.

For reasons already iterated, I don't agree (with a lot of this). Failing to believe isn't the same as the negation of believing--the null (the elimination) is not the negation. Atheism is, properly and sensibly, the negation. You admit the absurdity, but still allow it.

Yes. I think you're right about that and I'll agree with it all day long, so long as we admit that negation and failure are much more closely related than failure and positive belief.

I allow the absurdity simply to make the point that faith systems are things which must be taught and learned - we aren't born with them, as many devout worldviews would claim.

Again, I have to take issue. It's not a matter of choosing to interpret grammar. Grammar, informed by logic, is built into the language. In English, a verb has a subject, and a noun is an object--these things don't change because we can interpret (using language, no less).

I'm not arguing against the version of implicit atheism that holds the man on the desert island or the infant to be an atheist by virtue of the observer's concept of god. I'm just waiting to hear if or how it ties in with the discussion about defaults.

Well, to be fair, you've heard how it ties into defaults, you just reject that explanation of default.

I would ask then, do you believe humans have a default state for anything at all? If the default state is not to be "without", then what is it?

 

[jonathan180iq]

No as you have no idea what they think. All you can claim is they are not Christian or Muslim as these are specific belief systems.

If there is another metric for determining the theistic beliefs of people I'd like to see it.

Those belief systems are constructs, certainly - but so is the concept of god, isn't it?

Neither. Probability, to me, is strictly .5 as there is no evidence for either position.

Again, the depends on what metric you're using.
Other than the explicit claim to a god or gods, what is there?

Theism is not that complicated once stripped of it's religious environment.

I don't think so either, but I think you're conflating the human ability to have faith at all with full-blown theism, and they're very widely separated.

Theism could have been the result of plain out pattern finding and agency even animals have shown the capability to exercise.

This is what I was referring to in my above post.
An infant's understanding of pattern finding and agency could lend them to attribute the creation of those patterns to mommy and daddy, (along with many other possibilities). To turn that into theism, (while admittedly possible) is not the only necessary outcome.

Also, it kind of proves my point if we are agreeing that babies have to first recognize patterns and understand the concept of agency BEFORE they can interact with the god concept... Just sayin'

A non-theist

Yes.
So undoubtedly they aren't theists...

So you put forward babies have their own communication pattern, as I did, then dismiss any analysis of these patterns when it comes to theism or atheism. Again theism is not complicated at all, religions make a simple idea complex by heap baggage on top of the idea. Have you tried to understand other sounds a child makes beyond crying about hunger, gas or a messy diaper?

Sure I have - without a bias towards faith, which would ultimately lead the interpreting parent to infer something fatalistic about their child's cries and project their own concepts onto the child's meaning, would anyone every interpret an infant crying as meaning that the baby was emotionally crying out the "god"?

Having an understanding of something greater than ourselves still doesn't necessitate faith in god. It still doesn't imply theism.

Show that babies are unable to create the idea themselves. You said they couldn't now produce the evidence backing your assertion.

I don't have to do that. Even if babies did create the idea themselves, that means they were not born as theists...

Yes it is as it is pattern finding, agency and inference. This is exactly what theism is based upon

That's what faith is based upon - and yes, theism includes an aspect of faith - but faith does not necessarily include as aspect of theism.

Non-theist or apatheist

Yes.
Undoubtedly, they are not theists.

No idea. You do not know either.

But we kinda do.

I knew of blue jays but not those specific ones in the backyard years before moving in. Yes I knew blue jays would not be present as the environment blue jays inhabit was not present for over a decade. There were no trees for the birds to nest in. I know next to nothing about Toucans as it is not native to the environment here. However again I am expressing my knowledge of something. You wouldn't know any of this if I remained silence. You can only assume my view or refrain from stating your opinion of what I think, something which you do not do with babies.

Right - if I had never asked you, there would still have been a reality to your knowledge of birds. I'm not disputing that. I'm simply asking why you don't know as much about Toucans as you do about Blue Jays - Hell, maybe you knew a lot about Toucans, I was just taking a shot in the dark - oddly enough my inference of your lack of knowledge of Toucans was spot on...

You don't know as much about Toucans because you lack the experience with Toucans that you have with Blue Jays.
As I said before, so it goes with babies and gods.

Nonsense due to pattern finds, agency and inference. God is not a bird, birds are directly observed, god is not.

Which god is not directly observed? In many theistic cultures, god is very much a physical form. And even if the concept of god that you're using for this discussion is not visible, the initial meeting of that concept to the infant has to happen before the discussion can take place... Implying that the child in question was not born with an innate faith in your concept of god.

The ability to develop faith is not the same thing as a theistic claim, man. I know you know this.

 

[Willamena]

The ball exists - period.
If I set some standards to it, I've completely changed the game.

If your initial idea of the ball was not in a stationary state, I'd like to know what it was.
I'd bet all day long that we all imagine the ball that exists to not be moving - This stationary state is not a negation of movement - it's simply the default state of rest.

Existence is a given. You didn't propose a ball that doesn't exist, and if you propose a context for it, then it has that.

Not moving is context, as much as moving would be context (the negative vs. positive). But not moving is not the same as sitting--it might be stationary in relation to another object in motion, for instance. One negative context is not inherently ANY positive context. To think so would be fallacious.

Yes. I think you're right about that and I'll agree with it all day long, so long as we admit that negation and failure are much more closely related than failure and positive belief.

I allow the absurdity simply to make the point that faith systems are things which must be taught and learned - we aren't born with them, as many devout worldviews would claim.

But the idea that they must be taught and learned does not make the fact that we are not born with them significant. We are learning from Day 1--babies moreso and at a more terrific rate than older people--and each of us in our life-times acquires a unique set information, of what constitutes the world. What that means is that it is not just information that the infant has not yet encountered, it is information that the infant is not in any way required to encounter.

If atheism is the opposite of (therefore dependent upon) theism, and theism is dependent upon acquiring that one piece of arbitrary information, then, to put it in terms of the car on the road, to say that atheism is the default of all roads is like saying a lonely truckstop on Highway 67 determines that Highway 67 is the default of the parallel roads we currently are travelling.

Well, to be fair, you've heard how it ties into defaults, you just reject that explanation of default.

I would ask then, do you believe humans have a default state for anything at all? If the default state is not to be "without", then what is it?

(Edited)
No (well, technically yes). I just know what default is.

The term "default" doesn't have to apply to everything, or anything. It's only useful because we needed a term to distinguish what option would be advanced should other options not be selected.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Existence is a given. You didn't propose a ball that doesn't exist, and if you propose a context for it, then it has that.

Not moving is context, as much as moving would be context (the negative vs. positive). But not moving is not the same as sitting--it might be stationary in relation to another object in motion, for instance. One negative context is not inherently ANY positive context. To think so would be fallacious.

I'm asking you how you imagine the ball when I state that the ball exists.

Just a simple question - is the ball in your head floating? Is it sitting on a table? Is it flying through space? Is it deflated and without shape?
How do you see the ball, given it's existence?

But the idea that they must be taught and learned does not make the fact that we are not born with them significant.

Agreed.

We are learning from Day 1--babies moreso and at a more terrific rate than older people--and each of us in our life-times acquires a unique set information, of what constitutes the world.

Agreed.

What that means is that it is not just information that the infant has not yet encountered, it is information that the infant is not in any way required to encounter.

Agreed.

If atheism is the opposite of (therefore dependent upon) theism, and theism is dependent upon acquiring that one piece of arbitrary information, then, to put it in terms of the car on the road, to say that atheism is the default of all roads is like saying a lonely truckstop on Highway 67 determines that Highway 67 is the default of the parallel roads we currently are travelling.

You're referring to atheism as a rejection of theism, which is most cases we agree on, but I'm simply referring to it as the basic state of not believing.

If you agree that the theistic concept is something that we have to be introduced to, (which I'm assuming you do since you just said as much) then you should see what I'm talking about. Before the introduction of that "thing" which would spur theism in any person, were we theists?

Perhaps this whole conversation works better if we were to say that the default position is non-theism?
I mean, using the same comparison, if we are never introduced to that thing that would spur theism inside of us, then wouldn't we always remain non-theists?

No, I just know what default is.

The term "default" doesn't have to apply to everything, or anything. It's only useful because we needed a term to distinguish what option would be advanced should other options not be selected.

That's certainly one definition of default, yes. But it's not the only one.

Let me use an example to show you what I mean:
If you and I are going to enter into a debate about anything at all, one of us has to take the positive stance and once of us has to take the negative stance, correct?
For that to happen, we have to mutually agree on a default position in relation to either the positive or negative stance. (Note that the dissenter can simply defend the default position without having to support the direct negative in order to win the debate...) That's just debate class 101, isn't it? You can't make a positive argument without there having been a default position preceding the positive stance...

This is why theistic claims shoulder the burden or proof, right? It's incredibly easy to win theistic debates because the burden of proof lies with the claimant, implying that the default position is most certainly not the positive claim.

How does that not align with the way that I'm using the word default?

Since we are talking about how humans attain faith, or belief, or knowledge in anything at all, how does that not coincide with my use of default? The default position of the argument between theism and atheism is, we have to agree, not theism or atheism... (Again, we've both said as much)

 

[Willamena]

I'm asking you how you imagine the ball when I state that the ball exists.

Just a simple question - is the ball in your head floating? Is it sitting on a table? Is it flying through space? Is it deflated and without shape?
How do you see the ball, given it's existence?

"There is a ball..." is all I was given, the rest of the story left blank. It summons something like this. I'm pretty discrete when it comes to what I'm being asked to imagine. But that's just me. I don't feel a great need to add story, especially if it's someone else's story.

You're referring to atheism as a rejection of theism, which is most cases we agree on, but I'm simply referring to it as the basic state of not believing.

That's the problem I have with it, and excuse me for getting pedantic again: not believing isn't a state, it's a negation of the state of believing. Negations don't exist, they have no identity of their own--they are the positive negated. The world is positive. Not believing isn't basic, it isn't fundamental, and it isn't an ontologically real part of the world (as calling it a "state" would suggest). It's just a negation of believing.

The atheist, as the person who doesn't believe, specifically takes the stance against believing in god/gods, i.e. rejection. More broadly, the atheist takes a stance that contrasts with believing, such as naturalism. But there is no "state of not believing." That's a reification of negation (or, perhaps, sloppy grammar). The allowance of the reified negation allows for the fallacious idea of "non-belief" that "non-believers" "non-practice." But the world is positive.

If you agree that the theistic concept is something that we have to be introduced to, (which I'm assuming you do since you just said as much) then you should see what I'm talking about. Before the introduction of that "thing" which would spur theism in any person, were we theists?

Perhaps this whole conversation works better if we were to say that the default position is non-theism?
I mean, using the same comparison, if we are never introduced to that thing that would spur theism inside of us, then wouldn't we always remain non-theists?

If you could argue that non-theist is a more meaningful term than atheist in this regard, I'd consider it. But my arguments hold for non-theist as well as atheist.

Before we are either theist or non-theist, we are just ignorant of god/gods. Non-theist would only kick in when "god" enters the picture. In the instance of atheism that is of the implicit type, for example, "god" is very much in the picture, since the picture in question is the one viewed by a third-hand party labelling so-and-so to be an atheist.

That's certainly one definition of default, yes. But it's not the only one.

Let me use an example to show you what I mean:
If you and I are going to enter into a debate about anything at all, one of us has to take the positive stance and once of us has to take the negative stance, correct?
For that to happen, we have to mutually agree on a default position in relation to either the positive or negative stance. (Note that the dissenter can simply defend the default position without having to support the direct negative in order to win the debate...) That's just debate class 101, isn't it? You can't make a positive argument without there having been a default position preceding the positive stance...

I'm not familiar with a debate structure that allows one side to refrain from argument. It's always been my experience that both sides must present arguments: one for, and one against. But that could be a failing in my education.

You can't make any argument "against" without there first being a proposed "for" argument.

This is why theistic claims shoulder the burden or proof, right? It's incredibly easy to win theistic debates because the burden of proof lies with the claimant, implying that the default position is most certainly not the positive claim.

The theist's (alleged) claims shoulder the burden of proof because that burden is shouldered by all positive (affirmative) claims, not just because they "said it first." Anyone who supports the positive world carries that burden proudly (i.e. they know the rightness of their words and ideas).

How does that not align with the way that I'm using the word default?

Since we are talking about how humans attain faith, or belief, or knowledge in anything at all, how does that not coincide with my use of default? The default position of the argument between theism and atheism is, we have to agree, not theism or atheism... (Again, we've both said as much)

Your example aligns with the way you are using "default." I'm asserting that that's not a proper use of the term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong as it dismissed any/all gods as theism represent monotheism, polytheism, deism, etc.

I'm just covering all bases.

Nope, just rejection of various religions claims or even the concept of god itself

If all you reject is "various religion claims", then this is the other option I described (rejecting only some gods), which you said isn't enough for atheism.

When you say "the concept of god itself", what exactly do you mean? Can you describe this concept? According to your concept, what qualifies as a god and what doesn't?

Only in your flawed idea which have no merit in regards to the word itself. You need to ignore what theism is for your idea to work thus it fails.

Exactly what am I ignoring about theism?

To reject gods as a category, you need to define criteria for the category, and these criteria need to be in line with how we use the word "god". What are your criteria?

 

[Willamena]

When you say "the concept of god itself", what exactly do you mean? Can you describe this concept? According to your concept, what qualifies as a god and what doesn't?

The answer to that might depend on which notion of "concept" you are asking for.

 

[Thief]

still no line drawn...
good thing you people don't work for Outlook Handbook.
or Webster's
or any encyclopedia companies...

any of you contribute to Wikipedia?

atheism is a line drawn....a declaration.

someone please step forward and declare....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

ITo reject gods as a category, you need to define criteria for the category

All concepts are categories, and it is not far off to say that all cognition involves categorization. More to the point, if I am to deny that elves exist, must I continually check every newly released books on the supernatural or fantasy in order to be able to list all elves I don't believe in? Or can we abandon this ridiculous notion that in order to reject a concept (which is inherently and fundamentally a category), I must imagine all the examples of members for this category I don't believe exists rather than do what is done all the time: deny that I believe it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The answer to that might depend on which notion of "concept" you are asking for.

Whichever one Shad intended.

He's the one who referred to "the concept of god"; I'm just trying to find out what we're supposed to take that to mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

atheism is a line drawn....a declaration.

You were wrong the first time you said this. You aren't making yourself any more right by repeating yourself.

This idea that atheism is some sort of declaration or rejection is rooted in chauvinism: the idea that monotheism (or sometimes a particular brand of monotheism) is "standard" god-belief and all the other god-concepts out there are secondary.

Truth is, your god is just one of the countless many gods that humanity believes in, so giving "God-with-a-capital-G" (as if that was one single god-concept anyway) some sort of primacy is completely unjustified.

"Atheism as a declaration" would not just be a matter of declaring *your* beliefs wrong; it would be a matter of declaring the beliefs of every theist wrong in turn.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All concepts are categories, and it is not far off to say that all cognition involves categorization. More to the point, if I am to deny that elves exist, must I continually check every newly released books on the supernatural or fantasy in order to be able to list all elves I don't believe in? Or can we abandon this ridiculous notion that in order to reject a concept (which is inherently and fundamentally a category), I must imagine all the examples of members for this category I don't believe exists rather than do what is done all the time: deny that I believe it.

Some categories are defined in terms of sets. There's probably no way to define the category "employees of Acme, Inc." besides going to the personnel files.

When we talk about people who believe in elves, we usually aren't too worried about the line between elves and gnomes or elves and sprites. In that situation, we don't really care about having a really crisp line between elves and "non-elves".

We don't have a concept like monotheism when we talk about elves. There are billions of people on Earth who believe in *exactly one* god, despite often also believing in all sorts of other supernatural entities like angels, demons, and ghosts. If your definition of "god" is so broad that it includes, say, angels, then you're wrong billions of times over.

... and if your definition is too narrow, you're declaring all sorts of polytheists as atheists, which is wrong as well.

Until someone comes up with criteria to define the category "god", the only way we have to define it is as a list of gods.

... but if you've figured out the common characteristics of all the members of that list - that respects all the ways that "god" is used and doesn't create absurd implications - please share.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's the problem I have with it, and excuse me for getting pedantic again: not believing isn't a state, it's a negation of the state of believing.

We seem to agree that it's impossible to "not believe" in something until we are aware of it being a belief, yet we disagree that the state of disbelieving is how one would refer to the period of time before belief... I'm not sure how else to word that and I'm sorry that it's not more concise.

You say not believing is not a state, but rather a negation of the state of believing.
But earlier you did admit that we aren't born believing and we agree, I think, that we must be taught those things.

I just don't see how you cannot recognize that before one has attained a belief in anything, their life before faith was full of non-belief in the thing that they would later come to believe in.

That's the problem I have with it, and excuse me for getting pedantic again: not believing isn't a state, it's a negation of the state of believing. Negations don't exist, they have no identity of their own--they are the positive negated. The world is positive. Not believing isn't basic, it isn't fundamental, and it isn't an ontologically real part of the world (as calling it a "state" would suggest). It's just a negation of believing.

Right, but how do you refer to the period of someone's life prior to faith or knowledge?

"There is a ball..." is all I was given, the rest of the story left blank. It summons something like this. I'm pretty discrete when it comes to what I'm being asked to imagine. But that's just me. I don't feel a great need to add story, especially if it's someone else's story.

Well, to save you some time, most people would add information to the concept of an existing ball and recognize it in a static state.

Your pedantic nature is frustratingly accurate.

The atheist, as the person who doesn't believe, specifically takes the stance against believing in god/gods, i.e. rejection. More broadly, the atheist takes a stance that contrasts with believing, such as naturalism. But there is no "state of not believing." That's a reification of negation (or, perhaps, sloppy grammar). The allowance of the reified negation allows for the fallacious idea of "non-belief" that "non-believers" "non-practice." But the world is positive.

Do you believe in the Finnish god Lempo?
Have you ever even heard of the Finnish god Lempo?
In terms of faith, how would you describe the period of your life before I wrote the name of the Finnish god Lempo?

I have no idea who that god is or what he means socially or culturally to the ancient Finns - but I can still accurately state that I did not believe in the Finnish god Lempo before today. From this point forward, I actively disbelieve in the Finnish god Lempo - but that's entirely independent from the fact that I also did not believe in Lempo before I looked him up.

Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim - yes.
But it's factually still accurate to say that we disbelieve because we can't believe prior to the introduction of concept.

If you could argue that non-theist is a more meaningful term than atheist in this regard, I'd consider it. But my arguments hold for non-theist as well as atheist.

Before we are either theist or non-theist, we are just ignorant of god/gods. Non-theist would only kick in when "god" enters the picture. In the instance of atheism that is of the implicit type, for example, "god" is very much in the picture, since the picture in question is the one viewed by a third-hand party labelling so-and-so to be an atheist.

I don't understand... If you agree that we aren't born as theists, then why is non-theist an inaccurate way to describe us as infants?

You admitted that infants are born apolitical, right? What's the difference?

The circumstances that make us apolitical don't really matter - we are factually apolitical as infants - who cares if it's through ignorance?
The circumstances that make us non-theists don't really matter - we are factually non-theists as infants - who cares if it's through ignorance?

I'm not familiar with a debate structure that allows one side to refrain from argument. It's always been my experience that both sides must present arguments: one for, and one against. But that could be a failing in my education.

You can't make any argument "against" without there first being a proposed "for" argument.

It's not a refraining from argument, but to simply defend the status quo by punching holes in the positive argument. There's a big different between defending against the positive and defending the negative stance.

Just look at the conversation between Shad and myself - he's not positing anything positive at all and yet technically he's winning this conversation. I'm merely making logical arguments and loosely referencing some supporting concepts. He's winning because all he has to do is poke a few holes in my positive argument that babies are atheists and he can walk away with his chest bowed out. He's not actually defending the negative or opposite stance.

Defense is so incredibly easy because all you have to do is challenge the positive assertion.

The theist's (alleged) claims shoulder the burden of proof because that burden is shouldered by all positive (affirmative) claims, not just because they "said it first." Anyone who supports the positive world carries that burden proudly (i.e. they know the rightness of their words and ideas).

When I used the word claimant I didn't simply mean "said it first". Claimant refers to the person making the positive claim.

Point being, positive from what?
What state exists before the positive claim is ably presented and supported?
It's not the opposite of the positive - but it's certainly not the positive.

 

[Thief]

You were wrong the first time you said this. You aren't making yourself any more right by repeating yourself.

This idea that atheism is some sort of declaration or rejection is rooted in chauvinism: the idea that monotheism (or sometimes a particular brand of monotheism) is "standard" god-belief and all the other god-concepts out there are secondary.

Truth is, your god is just one of the countless many gods that humanity believes in, so giving "God-with-a-capital-G" (as if that was one single god-concept anyway) some sort of primacy is completely unjustified.

"Atheism as a declaration" would not just be a matter of declaring *your* beliefs wrong; it would be a matter of declaring the beliefs of every theist wrong in turn.

saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so.....

I don't care how many gods you claim.....don't exist.
ANY declaration ....no god.....is a declaration.

you have made a choice....and a pronouncement.

your previous state of mind would not have the word 'god' to consider.
you would be ignorant.
and unable to make the declaration.

now if you want to say an atheist doesn't understand the word....god......

I might nod my head to that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so.....

I don't care how many gods you claim.....don't exist.
ANY declaration ....no god.....is a declaration.

Billions of theists who believe in other gods declare that your god doesn't exist. Are they atheists too?

you have made a choice....and a pronouncement.

I've made plenty of choices. None of my choices are what made me an atheist.

your previous state of mind would not have the word 'god' to consider.
you would be ignorant.
and unable to make the declaration.

... but still an atheist.

now if you want to say an atheist doesn't understand the word....god......

I might nod my head to that.

Do you think YOU understand the word "god"? Why don't you tell us what you think it means?

 

[Thief]

Billions of theists who believe in other gods declare that your god doesn't exist. Are they atheists too?


I've made plenty of choices. None of my choices are what made me an atheist.


... but still an atheist.


Do you think YOU understand the word "god"? Why don't you tell us what you think it means?

a ploy of words on your part.
anyone can say my god does not exist.
if they believe in some other god ...fine....
if they believe....no god...that's an atheist.

and atheists make declaration

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

a ploy of words on your part.
anyone can say my god does not exist.
if they believe in some other god ...fine....
if they believe....no god...that's an atheist.

and atheists make declaration

There's that chauvinism I mentioned earlier: your god is the main god and everyone else's gods are secondary. To you, a person doesn't have to consider those lesser gods at all to be an atheist; all they need is a declaration against YOUR god (with the concession that they're exempt from being atheists if they believe in one of those "lesser" gods).

Why should we give primacy to your god? What makes YOUR god anything more than just one more god in the seemingly endless line of humanity's gods, on equal footing with all the rest of them?