Atheism or atheisms?

[JoStories]

In this sense I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I lack belief, but I could change my mind given proof.

That is it exactly, IMO. You are not stuck in the mindset or so adamantly opposed to the idea that if you did find proof, you would not write it off as something scientific.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Respectfully, you can prove your mother is your biological mother with DNA testing, available now OTC. If you don't wish to, that is on you but it can be done ...quite easily actually.

 

[leibowde84]

I would say that atheism as 'lack of belief' is a deficiency of evidence and reasoning to substanciate a rational belief in god rather than the absence of any belief at all. I've toyed with the idea that atheism and deism are opposite ends of the same spectrum of attempting to establish rational grounds for belief or non-belief in god. As theism is based on revelation it falls somewhat outside this spectrum.

Deism, technically, falls under theism, though, as deists believe that God exists.

 

[Laika]

Deism, technically, falls under theism, though, as deists believe that God exists.

Deism and (strong/explicit) Atheism use the same methods of reason and science to establish contary points of view and both of them are products of the Enlightenment. Deists think god exists whereas atheists do not. That's why I sort of think of it as a spectrum [and to be honest would be the debate on god's existence I'd most want to see], but I agree with deists that 'revelation' does not count as rational grounds for religious belief (at least on its own anyway).

So in that sense deism affirms gods existence whilst atheism rejects it. I admit that implictly sidelines "lack of belief" as grounds for atheism as it becomes a for or against position with weak agnostics who are undecided in the middle.

Do you think its possible strong and weak atheism are paralell belief systems because so far we haven't found much overlap?

 

[leibowde84]

Deism and (strong/explicit) Atheism use the same methods of reason and science to establish contary points of view and both of them are products of the Enlightenment. Deists think god exists whereas atheists do not. That's why I sort of think of it as a spectrum [and to be honest would be the debate on god's existence I'd most want to see], but I agree with deists that 'revelation' does not count as rational grounds for religious belief (at least on its own anyway).

So in that sense deism affirms gods existence whilst atheism rejects it. I admit that implictly sidelines "lack of belief" as grounds for atheism as it becomes a for or against position with weak agnostics who are undecided in the middle.

Do you think its possible strong and weak atheism are paralell belief systems because so far we haven't found much overlap?

Sure, that could be the case. I would say that they are subcategories of "atheism" for sure, though. This would be the same as how Christiantiy/Judaism and Islam are parallel beliefs under theism.

 

[Jumi]

As part of a broader body of research, it is useful for questioning whether or not atheism or 'religious type beliefs' are (more) natural.

I disagree that the research says anything about theism and atheism as a position of children. Religion... maybe.

If I was a religious person, instead of welcoming this research as "proving religion is natural" I would find it slightly insulting to think false pattern recognition equals religious belief. It doesn't seem to bother religious folks I've talked to about this however.

When I was younger if someone had asked me 'Is atheism the default position?' I would have said yes.

Has your own belief changed on the theism-atheism scale?

If someone asked me now, I would say that for numerous reasons, it is inherently problematic to consider anything regarding this as 'default'. Both 'religious type beliefs' and atheism can be described as natural though.

Atheists or thinking that excludes gods isn't immune to religion though. I see some positives in religion myself.

I certainly don't buy into the 'if it wasn't for indoctrination, we'd all be atheists' type arguments.

And there are some that have been immune to that indoctrination such as myself.

This is a problem in many academic disciplines, and will certainly also apply to this one. I'm not going to say, one 'scientific' article claimed this so it's true, within the context of this discussion I'm aiming for the incredibly low bar of refuting the statement atheism is axiomatically the default position based on 'common sense'.

My common sense doesn't agree with yours and I don't think either of us can convince the other.

In the end, religiosity and atheism represent entrenched cognitive–cultural habits where the conclusions drawn from sensory input and the output of cognitive systems bifurcate in supernatural and naturalistic directions. The habit of atheism may need more scaffolding to be acquired, and its religious counterpart may need more effort to kick, but even so, that does not, ipso facto, make the latter more natural than the former.
Religion is natural, atheism is not: On why everybody is both right and wrong http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048721X09001298 (requires database access)

I would be more convinced if the study wasn't done by people from religious study departments. These people find religion in hockey fans, the way people work and eat at McDonalds, the way telemarketing firms are organized and all other kinds of places. It's in their training to search for expressions of religion as natural part of human mind. It's like putting a creationist to see if natural laws could have come by accident.

 

[Laika]

Sure, that could be the case. I would say that they are subcategories of "atheism" for sure, though. This would be the same as how Christiantiy/Judaism and Islam are parallel beliefs under theism.

I can't get my head around how "lack of belief" could ever constitute a position honestly. I sort of think weak/implicit atheism implies a strong agnosticism in which we simply cannot know that god does not exist and so are confined only to "lacking belief" in god. it seems unable to go beyond simply a lack of belief in god to another stronger. a strong agnostic position is one that is incompatable with materialism and so is ruled out by default.

As materialism and strong atheism are closely associated, that might be the reason why. that would give grounds to think implicit and explicit atheism are parelell and possibily opposed positions.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you think its possible strong and weak atheism are paralell belief systems because so far we haven't found much overlap?

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. Weak atheists have an absence of belief in gods, strong atheists have an absence of belief in gods plus they take it a step further and say they actively believe gods don't exist. Strong atheists are a subset of all atheists.

 

[`mud]

There is no parallel to the lack of belief !
As there is no 'system' to overlap !

~
'mud

 

[leibowde84]

I can't get my head around how "lack of belief" could ever constitute a position honestly. I sort of think weak/implicit atheism implies a strong agnosticism in which we simply cannot know that god does not exist and so are confined only to "lacking belief" in god. it seems unable to go beyond simply a lack of belief in god to another stronger. a strong agnostic position is one that is incompatable with materialism and so is ruled out by default.

As materialism and strong atheism are closely associated, that might be the reason why. that would give grounds to think implicit and explicit atheism are parelell and possibily opposed positions.

I would argue that atheism is not necessarily a held position.

 

[Laika]

I would argue that atheism is not necessarily a held position.

I would. so there must be multiple "atheisms".

 

[leibowde84]

I would. so there must be multiple "atheisms".

There are different subcategories under the parent term "atheism", just as there is with "theism". I can't see any way around that.

 

[Jumi]

I would. so there must be multiple "atheisms".

Do you think atheism as a position is part of something greater(such as an ideology) or something you've chosen? What would you consider yourself defaulting to, if you didn't adopt atheism as a position?

 

[ArtieE]

Do you think atheism as a position is part of something greater(such as an ideology) or something you've chosen? What would you consider yourself defaulting to, if you didn't adopt atheism as a position?

(Weak) atheism is the absence of the position that one or more gods exist. Strong atheism is the absence of the position that one or more gods exist plus the presence of the position that gods don't exist.

 

[Laika]

Do you think atheism as a position is part of something greater(such as an ideology) or something you've chosen? What would you consider yourself defaulting to, if you didn't adopt atheism as a position?

I would consider atheism as a position consistent with materialism. After going through this thread I'm not entirely sure how I'd define atheism to be honest. if I wasn't an atheist, I'd be a deist because to me that is the opposite position in terms of the belief in the non-existence of god, but is still based on reason, science and evidence, etc. In order to reject atheism as a position, I would have to change an aweful lot of my beliefs to the point of rejecting materialism. rejecting materialism would make god's existence not only possible but a necessary explanation for a logically consistent account of how the universe works.

 

[ArtieE]

I would consider atheism as a position consistent with materialism.

Atheism is the absence of the position that gods exist. There's no requirement for an atheist to be a materialist.

After going through this thread I'm not entirely sure how I'd define atheism to be honest.

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of gods.

 

[Laika]

Do you think atheism as a position is part of something greater(such as an ideology) or something you've chosen? What would you consider yourself defaulting to, if you didn't adopt atheism as a position?

p.s. If I became a Deist, I'd also be a creationist. the shift would have to be that big in terms of re-interpreting the evidence for logical consistency.

Atheism is the absence of the position that gods exist. There's no requirement for an atheist to be a materialist.Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of gods.

I am a materialist first and an atheist second, and that's why I don't quite fit into that definiton.

 

[Koldo]

Why is the default set at birth? The default at birth is that people can't walk, we don't consider that people in wheelchairs have 'reverted to the default'. We consider the default is that people can walk.

We don't take 'at birth' as meaning 'natural' for most things, why then should it be for atheism?

There are many scientists who suggest that humans are predisposed towards believing in 'god(s)', and that if a child grew up on a desert island then they would most likely believe in god(s) (obviously not any specific Religion's god(s) though)

An example:

"These results suggest that the tendency to view nature as designed is rooted in evolved cognitive biases as well as cultural socialization... Results from Study 1 revealed that even though religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher than non-religious participants’ tendency to do so, non-religious participants also increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made in the being-made group when they did not have time to censor their thinking."
The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults, Cognition, Issue 140, 2015

http://www.bu.edu/cdl/files/2015/04/Creator-online-publication1.pdf

This suggests that it takes cognitive effort to view the world atheistically, rather than the other way round. Why must people accept, with no evidence, that the default must be atheism?

The scientific consensus on 'whether or not humans are predisposed to believe in god(s)' would be that it is an interesting area that warrants further research.

The fact that almost all societies in human history have developed gods/religious concept is also pretty decent evidence that religious beliefs may be the default.


So we get the arbitrary statement that the 'default' is set at birth, and that atheism therefore remains the default for the rest of someone's life, even though there is scientific debate as to whether or not religious beliefs are hardwired into us.

This view is presented by people who consider themselves 'rational', yet they consider it axiomatic that atheism must be the default because 'it just is, ok' and deny that they are making any value judgements amidst numerous unsupported assumptions.

Saying atheism is the default requires assumptions about babies minds, what constitutes a default and whether or not 'god' is hardwired into us (amongst others).

Whether or not atheism is the default is something I personally lack the evidence to support, so I'll not profess any judgement on it.

Let me explain my view:
I don't think anyone has proposed that theism is unnatural.
I disagree with the notion that atheism is the default position for an adult living in a religious environment.
I agree that many of us have a predisposition towards finding agency even where there is none, which might result in theism.

EDIT: Everyone is, however, born without a belief in god(s), and in this sense, everyone is born an atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

I would consider atheism as a position consistent with materialism. After going through this thread I'm not entirely sure how I'd define atheism to be honest. if I wasn't an atheist, I'd be a deist because to me that is the opposite position in terms of the belief in the non-existence of god, but is still based on reason, science and evidence, etc. In order to reject atheism as a position, I would have to change an aweful lot of my beliefs to the point of rejecting materialism. rejecting materialism would make god's existence not only possible but a necessary explanation for a logically consistent account of how the universe works.

I would say that, while materialism is consistent with atheism, atheism doesn't require or necessitate materialism in any way.

 

[ArtieE]

I am a materialist first and an atheist second, and that's why I don't quite fit into that definiton.

If you are a materialist it automatically follows that you are also an atheist unless you believe in a purely physical god.