Atheism is not a default position

[Thief]

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?

is that a misquote?...looks like it to me...

yeah sure.....I believe in an Almighty.
Someone in hierarchy....top of the line.

atheism.....no god....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is that a misquote?...looks like it to me...

yeah sure.....I believe in an Almighty.
Someone in hierarchy....top of the line.

atheism.....no god....

You believe in one particular version of an "Almighty". What makes your version better than any other version?

 

[Thief]

You believe in one particular version of an "Almighty". What makes your version better than any other version?

I keep it simple....the qualifications are...
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
coupled with the power of creation......Almighty.
stacked deck

I do not rule out lesser gods.....it is written....
ye ARE gods!

 

[Willamena]

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.

Disbelief is incredulity. That is positive, and a state. It's only the "nots" and "nons" that present a problem. The time before belief is simply the time before something is assigned truth value (true or not true).

That we "aren't born believing" isn't a concession of a state that we *are* born in.

"Non-belief" isn't a thing we can be full of. The world, including us, is positive. Allowing reified negation, as you are, allows for non-existent things to exist, which is a contradiction.

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

Generally, just as you did, here. The period of someone's life before faith or knowledge of God.

People who come to God later in life may have been atheist prior to it, but that's not a given. For people with no knowledge of God, belief in God is simply not relevant to what I refer to them by. So I might call those ones "people."

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.

Thank you.

That's one of the kinder things said about it.

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?

Ignorant of an alleged 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.

What allows you to firmly say "no" to the notion of Lempo is that your experience with any number of other gods has left a firm but vague impression of "god," a concept. Rejection of that concept is all that's required for atheism.

Its vagueness is also what allows you to potentially, someday, stumble across a definition for God that pings a truth value.

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?

Here, I would lean on the pragmatism argument. Non-theist is applicable, but its application will depend on my need for it. "Non-theist" is a word that I would use to refer to people by contrasting them to theists. (Similar for "apolitical.") For babies, I generally have no conceivable need to do that, to contrast them to theists, though it's not beyond the realm of literary possibility. To call it "accurate" to use that word on babies is to ignore that babies fall outside that group I would find it useful to use the word for. Words are pragmatic. I have no need to contrast the beliefs of babies with the beliefs of rational adults.

It would be silly of me to insist that words apply universally, despite such limitations. For instance, babies are also "a"-logical. Should I consider their atheism irrational and dismiss it, then, for that reason, since they have no capacity for logic? The silliness compounds.

When I say "atheist," though, I'm referring to people who actually don't believe in God, in the sense that there is a "god" thing for them (a notion) that has inspired disbelief and the rejection of it. Again, there is a group of people I'm referring to, and babies aren't included. They fall outside this set of whom opinions would matter to me.

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.

Thank you for explaining. As I see it, he may not invoke his arguments but does "poke" from a position with a firm burden, whether he knows it or not. Whether you know it or not.

The point, I think, is whether that status quo is default. If it is default simply because it remains standing despite being poked, that fits with how I've used the word. It fits because it doesn't fail to be one of two options, the one that persevered at the expense of the other.

In terms of babies, it doesn't fit. A baby's learning in regards to "god," i.e. no exposure or ignorance, will almost certainly not persevere, in our global cultures at least.

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.

The positive claim is the posit, which is a statement about what the world is, or a way the world is, that is the basis for argument. What came before may be another posit, but it's not necessarily relevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I keep it simple....the qualifications are...
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
coupled with the power of creation......Almighty.
stacked deck

There are plenty of other versions of the Almighty that have those characteristics, too. Try again.

I do not rule out lesser gods.....it is written....
ye ARE gods!

So you consider yourself a polytheist? Interesting.

 

[Thief]

Only one Creator....
does that help?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only one Creator....
does that help?

Not at all. Gods that are the "only one Creator" are a dime a dozen.

Edit: and you're missing the point, anyhow. What I'm trying to ask you is why YOUR god should be considered the "standard" god so that rejecting it - even if you're ignorant of all other gods - would make you an atheist (provided you don't accept some "non-standard" god).

Describing how powerful and awesome your god is doesn't actually answer the question.

 

[Thief]

Not at all. Gods that are the "only one Creator" are a dime a dozen.

Edit: and you're missing the point, anyhow. What I'm trying to ask you is why YOUR god should be considered the "standard" god so that rejecting it - even if you're ignorant of all other gods - would make you an atheist (provided you don't accept some "non-standard" god).

Describing how powerful and awesome your god is doesn't actually answer the question.

I did answer the question....
you just don't like the answer.

and from this rogue theologian.....you wanted a standard?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did answer the question....
you just don't like the answer.

"Why should we consider your god-concept the 'standard' god-concept?"

"Well, my god is really powerful."

Here's the thing: what I'm trying to do is tease a rational explanation out of you. Going off on tangents isn't in your best interest; it's not like I'm going to decide that because you kept the conversation going for some number of pages, you must be right; in fact, the more you try to shift focus onto irrelevant nonsense, the more I'm inclined to believe that you're doing this because you don't have any rational support to offer.

and from this rogue theologian.....you wanted a standard?

Your approach assumes a standard.
I wanted a rational explanation for it. You've yet to provide it.

... but if you've changed your mind, then fine: we'll think of your god as no more important than any other, and all your "atheism is a declaration" nonsense loses any hope of being reasonable.

 

[Thief]

"Why should we consider your god-concept the 'standard' god-concept?"

"Well, my god is really powerful."

Here's the thing: what I'm trying to do is tease a rational explanation out of you. Going off on tangents isn't in your best interest; it's not like I'm going to decide that because you kept the conversation going for some number of pages, you must be right; in fact, the more you try to shift focus onto irrelevant nonsense, the more I'm inclined to believe that you're doing this because you don't have any rational support to offer.



Your approach assumes a standard.
I wanted a rational explanation for it. You've yet to provide it.

... but if you've changed your mind, then fine: we'll think of your god as no more important than any other, and all your "atheism is a declaration" nonsense loses any hope of being reasonable.

tangents?.....have you read this thread?
and if your questions deliberately lead to tangents.....

what if ? your misdirection leads to a line of thought....and you end up.....
believing in an Almighty

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

tangents?.....have you read this thread?
and if your questions deliberately lead to tangents.....

what if ? your misdirection leads to a line of thought....and you end up.....
believing in an Almighty

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Your avoidance doesn't help your arguments seem rational.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I did answer the question....
you just don't like the answer.

and from this rogue theologian.....you wanted a standard?

No man - He asked why your god concept is any more valid or reasonable than any other random god concept. You did, as he stated, literally respond with a dodge of the question by saying that you believe in the Almighty.

That's simply a statement of belief that your god is the super god...

If you want to talk in circles about declarations, then make one.
Which god do you believe in, and why is your god the standard for all the god concepts?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'll be back in a bit, @Willamena

 

[Thief]

No man - He asked why your god concept is any more valid or reasonable than any other random god concept. You did, as he stated, literally respond with a dodge of the question by saying that you believe in the Almighty.

That's simply a statement of belief that your god is the super god...

If you want to talk in circles about declarations, then make one.
Which god do you believe in, and why is your god the standard for all the god concepts?

and now an explanation of hierarchy is required?
Someone would be top of the line.

but I think I said that.

 

[Thief]

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Your avoidance doesn't help your arguments seem rational.

you won't get the answer you want.
your redirect won't work

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you won't get the answer you want.
your redirect won't work

Don't say I didn't give you a chance to address the hypocrisy in your position. If want to let it stand, no skin off my nose.

 

[idav]

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.

For someone who is atheist, which concept of God depends on the one the theists pose.

 

[idav]

After all every single theist concept that is to be taken seriously is posed by theists, not by atheist or we would be taking comic books serious all the time.

 

[Thief]

and so....back to topic....
atheism is a declaration.

the default position is ignorance.

 

[Shad]

I

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.

Nonsense as I included the concept of God which is a metaphysical claim requiring no direct religion but is based on first cause arguments.

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 concept of God in a strictly philosophical context; first cause, teleological, ontological, moral, etc arguments.

Exactly what am I ignoring about theism?

That it covers all concepts of God from philosophical, metaphysical and religious.

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?

See above.