Atheism or atheisms?

[Koldo]

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.

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?

Hence, atheism/lack of belief cannot be the default position; belief is the default position. it just isn't necessarily religious.

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

 

[leibowde84]

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

I agree. If one is a materialist, it follows that they must be an atheist as well. However, it doesn't work the other way around. Just because someone is an atheist (even strong and explicitly), in no way requires them to be a materialist.

 

[Koldo]

Where did those religions come from? And the ones before that? And the first religions, where did they come from? From the early humans (maybe even Australopithecus?), who were atheists. They barely could communicate. Language hadn't evolved much yet. They didn't believe in God, but yet they invented God to believe in so they could indoctrinate their children about it. What was the reason do you think these atheists invented God?

I don't think anyone can tell how it all began. However, I don't think it began with 'God' either. I think 'God' was a much latter development in a long line of misplacing agency.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't think anyone can tell how it all began. However, I don't think it began with 'God' either. I think 'God' was a much latter development in a long line of misplacing agency.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

This doesn't work. 'Atheism', cannot have a coherent meaning without a , single, definition, of theism. Atheism as a word is literally defined by the meaning of ''theism''; if theism is not defined, besides an extremely vague and broad definition, then we don't know what the 'a' part of atheism is representing. It becomes a useless term, ie, if ''theism'', means to one person, some very specific idea of deity, and the person does not believe in that specific idea of deity, they would then be a defacto atheist. The word itself, /ie theism/, rather, become useless without somewhat precise definitions.
Basically, you can't have an ''a'', to a meaningless label.
/meaningless/label/-->not meaningless/label/. that doesn't work.

 

[leibowde84]

This doesn't work. 'Atheism', cannot have a coherent meaning without a , single, definition, of theism. Atheism as a word is literally defined by the meaning of ''theism''; if theism is not defined, besides an extremely vague and broad definition, then we don't know what the 'a' part of atheism is representing. It becomes a useless term, ie, if ''theism'', means to one person, some very specific idea of deity, and the person does not believe in that specific idea of deity, they would then be a defacto atheist. The word itself, /ie theism/, rather, become useless without somewhat precise definitions.
Basically, you can't have an ''a'', to a meaningless label.
/meaningless/label/-->not meaningless/label/. that doesn't work.

This is blatantly false, as "theism" has a defined meaning ... "belief in the existence of God or gods". So, if you believe in any deity, you fit into the "theism" category ... and, I say category because it is a very general term. This is easily seen by the vast amount of subcategories underneath it (deism, polytheism, monotheism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.). Thus, "atheism" or "without theism" simply refers to those who do not believe in God or gods.

 

[Desert Snake]

I would enjoy that. Cheers.

Because of the complexity of the question, as there are many aspects to it, I'm going to try to present an answer within a specific context. We can discuss this topic further, but I believe that it really needs it's own thread.
//specific context
All gods are considered gods in the same manner. Ie, because they are 'real', to the worshipper; we can simply use the same word to describe them all.
//
The god may or may not remain a god.
The concept of god being worshipped, by the worshipper, is actually, theoretically, outside of the possibility , of the god remaining a god. We are simply stating our own opinion, or idea, of whether we consider this proposed deity, to be a 'god'.

This begins to get complicated as we try to define 'god', and that bears importance to how the original question is answered. We essentially have to agree on a definition of 'god', before we can examine whether a deity is still in that category or not.



anyways, it's far more complex than this, but like I stated earlier, it needs it's own thread, as there are different contexts to the same question.
cheers

 

[Desert Snake]

This is blatantly false, as "theism" has a defined meaning ... "belief in the existence of God or gods". So, if you believe in any deity, you fit into the "theism" category ... and, I say category because it is a very general term. This is easily seen by the vast amount of subcategories underneath it (deism, polytheism, monotheism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.). Thus, "atheism" or "without theism" simply refers to those who do not believe in God or gods.

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?

 

[Augustus]

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

I use the (not very good) expression 'religious type beliefs' just to try to be as general as possible and don't have the energy to think of anything better.

I think that such research doesn't exclude, at least, primitive god concepts though.

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

My conception of atheism has possibly changed, but I'm certainly no more of a theist, so no.

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

Me too, but I wouldn't really call what I learned as a child indoctrination despite it coming from a church figure, more awareness than indoctrination. No one presented me with any ideas regarding atheism either other than being aware that some people believe, others don't.

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.

The article covers a wide range of scientific research from various fields of cognitive science, much of it that makes a far more forceful case regarding the naturalness of belief in god(s) vis-a-vis atheism. It is very much 'middle of the road' (not that this makes it necessarily correct).

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

Probably not. But if its just common sense, what makes it possible to simply dismiss all of the research that, at minimum, suggests its a bit of an opaque area worthy of further study.

 

[Ouroboros]

Keep in mind, it wasn't nearly as hard back then to convince people of the supernatural due to their severely lack of understanding of the physical world.

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

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't think anyone can tell how it all began. However, I don't think it began with 'God' either. I think 'God' was a much latter development in a long line of misplacing agency.

Well, if the argument is 1) everyone is an atheist by default, and 2) you only become a theist if you are indoctrinated to become one, then it follows that the first indoctrination must have been done by atheists.

 

[Augustus]

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

Hooray! Athiesm 'simply is...'

We can all go home now.

 

[Koldo]

Well, if the argument is 1) everyone is an atheist by default, and 2) you only become a theist if you are indoctrinated to become one, then it follows that the first indoctrination must have been done by atheists.

Which means that such is either not really the entirety of the argument, or that the argument is inherently flawed, or that atheists had some reason to create gods to deceive others. I think the first option is most likely.

 

[Ouroboros]

Which means that such is either not really the entirety of the argument, or that the argument is inherently flawed, or that atheists had some reason to create gods to deceive others. I think the first option is most likely.

"Which means" suggests that there's something in the conclusion that you don't like. Why does the conclusion bother you?

 

[Koldo]

"Which means" suggests that there's something in the conclusion that you don't like. Why does the conclusion bother you?

My problem is not with the conclusion itself, but rather with the premises. They don't seem to fully and accurately represent the point of view being expressed.

 

[Ouroboros]

My problem is not with the conclusion itself, but rather with the premises. They don't seem to fully and accurately represent the point of view being expressed.

Which one? Can expand on the one that's not properly represented?

 

[Bunyip]

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.

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.

 

[Bunyip]

If the default position of what people believe is religion, how can someone claim the default position be atheism?

What? Can you re-write that please?

Atheism is not the rejection of all religion. Shinto, Tao, Confuscianism, Buddism and many other religions are not theistic.
The belief in question is that of belief in Yahweh, or whichever other God is being discussed. To be atheist is to lack that belief. That is why it is the default.
It has nothing to do with the popularity of the idea.

 

[Koldo]

Which one? Can expand on the one that's not properly represented?

Your second premise. It isn't accurate to say that one only becomes a theist through indoctrination.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your second premise. It isn't accurate to say that one only becomes a theist through indoctrination.

Ah.

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