The default position...

[Deathbydefault]

I would assume that it is the id v creation...that both are equally true and therefore need to teach both. If one only has the default position, then I am not sure one can refute such a process...

It certainly allows for the theist or the atheist to say disprove it...but I don't think that a similar system exists where the truth of one of x possibilities is assumed and that person can say "disprove" it while not saying the same for the others.

I think the closest thing we have to that are ideas which are necessarily assumed. For instance the truth of inductive reasoning relies on inductive reasoning for proof and is not logically sound because it begs the question. Similarly, notions of existence "I think therefore I am" must be accepted as true because without these base assumptions we cannot get any further in our inquiry...I assume a similar assumption of God might be put forward, but I don't think any exceptionally persuasive one has.

Exactly the type of response I was looking for.
Thank you for contributing positively to my thread

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think you could ever leap to a belief in magic on the basis of reason.

I don't believe in 'magic' but I'm not even sure how you define it.

 

[Glaurung]

Lack, as in, to be without.
To be without belief is what may classify someone as an atheist.
To lack, be without, a belief in God.
To not to believe is to disbelieve, correct?

Not quite, atheists tend to argue that they don't so much disbelieve in God, so much as they simply lack a belief in it altogether. However, I reject this idea. I see such argumentation as a dishonest evasion designed to win arguments rather than honestly describe the real situation. For all practical purposes every single atheist I have met maintains conscious disbelief in God. Again, I'm not saying this disbelief is a claim to certainty, but it's more than pure agnosticism; it is a definite position and playing with etymology doesn't change that. I mean, none of these same atheists would seriously argue that based on its etymology, the word villain in English means farmworker; so I don't buy it when that try that same argumentation with 'a-theism'.

Look at it this way, alright.
So you and your buddy are in an ocean on earth and you see an island with some trees on it.
Your buddy would say, "there's obviously animals on that island".
You would say, "I'll believe it when I see it".

Your buddy made the claim that "there's obviously animals on that island".
You simply wanted proof for that.

I'm saying that such neutrality is impossible. You're going to lean one way or the other on the animal question, regardless of whether or not you admit it. Your degree of personal certainty regarding the presence of the hypothetical animals may not be very strong; so you'll be open to changing your mind based on the evidence. Likewise, an atheist holds that God does not exist. The degree of conviction may vary from atheist to atheist, but the idea that one can be an atheist while being neutral on the question is nonsense. You're not neutral on the question, you either think God exists or you don't. How strongly you want to assert it is another discussion. The point is that no definite position can be taken as 'default', and my contention is that atheism, when you ignore the sophistic word games, is a definite position.

Well definitions are not dogmatic, it is a science so it may be changed to suit the times.

The definition of words aren't a matter of science, but how they are understood by the users of a word within any given context. Atheists muddle the discussion when they argue that atheism only means agnosticism, and it's obvious why they are doing this, because it allows them to enter any discussion on the topic with the forgone conclusion that their beliefs are 'the default'.

"Oh hey, I don't not believe in God, I just lack a belief. Therefore, I don't need to defend anything."

I will say it again and again to the protestations of the forum atheists, such word games are sophistry and you darn well know it.

Atheists are the followers and practitioners of atheism, but while they may follow that it is not the only thing they do.

And this is where you are inconsistent. You claim that atheism is supposedly the assertion that there's a lack of evidence for God, but now it's also something that can be adhered to. You're trying to have it both ways.

I say that such atheists that had become atheist after some time being religious did so due to skepticism and their want for a "proof" you could say.

Possibly, although said scepticism could also be nothing but a post hoc rationalisation. I'd argue that most who reject religion do so not out of some inherent rationality, but because they suffered an emotional conflict over some idea of God. When you experience the rage that of some atheists will throw at you for even the slightest hint of religious sentiment, I think any honest person will accept that there's more going on than a mere 'rational' rejection.

not gonna spell check just gonna yolo it or whatever idiots in social media say)

I did this time. But I've probably still missed a few things.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't believe in 'magic' but I'm not even sure how you define it.

As the supernatural, beings with magical powers and so on. The sort of entity posited by theism, that atheism responds to.
The point is that reasoning can not lead to such entities, when we assume such an entity we have abandoned reason.

Think of it this way, long ago people believed that thunder was the work of the gods - science happens when we question such an assumption and apply reason to it. That is how we learned how thunder really works.
Once we assume magic, we stop looking for a rational explanation.

 

[Bunyip]

Not quite, atheists tend to argue that they don't so much disbelieve in God, so much as they simply lack a belief in it altogether. However, I reject this idea. I see such argumentation as a dishonest evasion designed to win arguments rather than honestly describe the real situation. For all practical purposes every single atheist I have met maintains conscious disbelief in God. Again, I'm not saying this disbelief is a claim to certainty, but it's more than pure agnosticism; it is a definite position and playing with etymology doesn't change that. I mean, none of these same atheists would seriously argue that based on its etymology, the word villain in English means farmworker; so I don't buy it when that try that same argumentation with 'a-theism'.

What is the difference? What exactly do you think atheists are evading here? How is disbelieving in God any different (apart from semantically) to a conscious disbelief? When I say that I do not belief something - that is a conscious position - how could it not be?
That is just two different ways to write the exact same thing.

I'm saying that such neutrality is impossible. You're going to lean one way or the other on the animal question, regardless of whether or not you admit it. Your degree of personal certainty regarding the presence of the hypothetical animals may not be very strong; so you'll be open to changing your mind based on the evidence. Likewise, an atheist holds that God does not exist. The degree of conviction may vary from atheist to atheist, but the idea that one can be an atheist while being neutral on the question is nonsense. You're not neutral on the question, you either think God exists or you don't. How strongly you want to assert it is another discussion. The point is that no definite position can be taken as 'default', and my contention is that atheism, when you ignore the sophistic word games, is a definite position.

The default position in regard to belief in any entity is disbelief.

The definition of words aren't a matter of science, but how they are understood by the users of a word within any given context. Atheists muddle the discussion when they argue that atheism only means agnosticism, and it's obvious why they are doing this, because it allows them to enter any discussion on the topic with the forgone conclusion that their beliefs are 'the default'.

No, not at all - atheism and agnosticism are simply not exclusive categories. One speaks to belief and the other to knowledge. Like most atheists, I am agnostic.

"Oh hey, I don't not believe in God, I just lack a belief. Therefore, I don't need to defend anything."

But that is the same thing. Not believing MEANS disbelieving.

I will say it again and again to the protestations of the forum atheists, such word games are sophistry and you darn well know it.

What word game? You seem to be the one playing word games.

And this is where you are inconsistent. You claim that atheism is supposedly the assertion that there's a lack of evidence for God, but now it's also something that can be adhered to. You're trying to have it both ways.


Possibly, although said scepticism could also be nothing but a post hoc rationalisation. I'd argue that most who reject religion do so not out of some inherent rationality, but because they suffered an emotional conflict over some idea of God. When you experience the rage that of some atheists will throw at you for even the slightest hint of religious sentiment, I think any honest person will accept that there's more going on than a mere 'rational' rejection.


I did this time. But I've probably still missed a few things.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What is the difference? What exactly do you think atheists are evading here? How is disbelieving in God any different (apart from semantically) to a conscious disbelief?
That is just two different ways to write the exact same thing. The default position in regard to belief in any entity is disbelief. No, not at all - atheism and agnosticism are simply not exclusive categories. One speaks to belief and the other to knowledge. Like most atheists, I am agnostic. But that is the same thing. Not believing MEANS disbelieving. What word game? You seem to be the one playing word games.

You said what I was planning on saying, .

But I still want to argue one point in respect of myself

Not quite, atheists tend to argue that they don't so much disbelieve in God, so much as they simply lack a belief in it altogether. However, I reject this idea. I see such argumentation as a dishonest evasion designed to win arguments rather than honestly describe the real situation. For all practical purposes every single atheist I have met maintains conscious disbelief in God. Again, I'm not saying this disbelief is a claim to certainty, but it's more than pure agnosticism; it is a definite position and playing with etymology doesn't change that. I mean, none of these same atheists would seriously argue that based on its etymology, the word villain in English means farmworker; so I don't buy it when that try that same argumentation with 'a-theism'.

Well I am an apatheist, a more advanced form of atheism in my opinion.
My belief system comes with a 'just in case' scenario, and it details what I believe personally.
That would be why I identify with it.

I would say that atheists don't believe in God.
And the 'lack of a belief' is the same as a 'disbelief'.
That would be correct, to me.

But I'm also saying that if a God could be proven they may transfer to his worship.
I would not, however; as I disregard Gods no matter how real they may be.

So even if they disbelieve in your God or whatever God they do not do it out of biased.
They aren't going to just come out and say, "that God is false because I said so!"
It's more along the lines of, "I disbelieve due to insufficient evidence".
They might believe if they did have that evidence, some might come to the apatheist side though.

That is why I include atheism in the default position.

I said I would argue this point but I also kind of agree with what you had to say.
So I suppose I did less arguing and more justifying.

Take it as you may.

 

[Glaurung]

What is the difference? What exactly do you think atheists are evading here? How is disbelieving in God any different (apart from semantically) to a conscious disbelief? When I say that I do not belief something - that is a conscious position - how could it not be?

If I state the atheistic position as - the view that God does not exist, why is it that a large segment of atheists will fight it tooth and nail? It's true isn't it? God does not exist is your practical assumption in regards to your day to day life? So why is it many will insist that the proper definition is - the lack of belief in God? We both know why, the distinction is made, so that the atheistic position is always framed as non-committal. They want to do this so that the discourse with theists is always defined under their own terms. It's a cleaver argumentative tactic, but it is dishonest.

No, not at all - atheism and agnosticism are simply not exclusive categories. One speaks to belief and the other to knowledge. Like most atheists, I am agnostic

I'm saying there's no such thing as agnosticism. There are only degrees of certainty. The mere acknowledgement that you cannot have complete certainty does not take away from the fact that your position is committal. That is what this whole argument is about. Atheists want to have their cake and eat it too. They, on the one hand, want to say that God does not exist, yet at the same time they define their words so that their position is always non-committal by definition. - "We do not say that God doesn't exist, so we don't have any BoP."

I have stated several times that I get that few atheists would assert complete certainty in their views. That doesn't make them 'agnostic'. It just means that they're not silly enough to claim a certainty they can't possibly have.

But that is the same thing. Not believing MEANS disbelieving.

Yet many atheists will disagree with you. Google - atheism, lack of belief and you'll see many pages and blogs by atheists, arguing the difference.

 

[ArtieE]

Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com
Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

By those definitions it fits perfectly, the difference is that atheist disbelieve in God while agnostics just claim to not believe in one due to lack of info.
They both classify as skeptics, so maybe I should have only put skeptics?

Theism/Atheism only deals with belief, gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge. Apples and oranges.

 

[ArtieE]

The atheist belief, definition wise anyways, is simply the statement of "if you can prove it I'll believe it" to a religion.

No it isn't. That is the definition of an agnostic.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm saying that such neutrality is impossible. You're going to lean one way or the other on the animal question, regardless of whether or not you admit it. Your degree of personal certainty regarding the presence of the hypothetical animals may not be very strong; so you'll be open to changing your mind based on the evidence. Likewise, an atheist holds that God does not exist. The degree of conviction may vary from atheist to atheist, but the idea that one can be an atheist while being neutral on the question is nonsense. You're not neutral on the question, you either think God exists or you don't. How strongly you want to assert it is another discussion. The point is that no definite position can be taken as 'default', and my contention is that atheism, when you ignore the sophistic word games, is a definite position.

Why couldn't a weak atheist simply say: "I don't believe God exists and I don't believe God doesn't exist either I have no beliefs either way I'm neutral. I don't care. I have no opinions on that. It's irrelevant to me."

The default is not being a theist (weak atheist). You have to move away from the default to become a theist or strong atheist. Everybody are not theist (default weak atheist) until they have heard about God and can decide whether to become a theist, stay default weak atheist or become a strong atheist.

 

[Curious George]

If I state the atheistic position as - the view that God does not exist, why is it that a large segment of atheists will fight it tooth and nail? It's true isn't it? God does not exist is your practical assumption in regards to your day to day life? So why is it many will insist that the proper definition is - the lack of belief in God? We both know why, the distinction is made, so that the atheistic position is always framed as non-committal. They want to do this so that the discourse with theists is always defined under their own terms. It's a cleaver argumentative tactic, but it is dishonest.


I'm saying there's no such thing as agnosticism. There are only degrees of certainty. The mere acknowledgement that you cannot have complete certainty does not take away from the fact that your position is committal. That is what this whole argument is about. Atheists want to have their cake and eat it too. They, on the one hand, want to say that God does not exist, yet at the same time they define their words so that their position is always non-committal by definition. - "We do not say that God doesn't exist, so we don't have any BoP."

I have stated several times that I get that few atheists would assert complete certainty in their views. That doesn't make them 'agnostic'. It just means that they're not silly enough to claim a certainty they can't possibly have.


Yet many atheists will disagree with you. Google - atheism, lack of belief and you'll see many pages and blogs by atheists, arguing the difference.

I disagree that agnosticism is not a possible position. I agree that atheists do not hold a default position. This is so because I see a difference between agnosticism and atheism such that the two are exclusive. I base this on the historical development of agnosticism. Under agnosticism whether we accept no god exists or a god exists is irrelevant. That is we can deny both or accept both but ultimately agnostics do not get to belief because they make the claim that we cannot, at least at this time, have knowledge to prove or disprove either assertion. Agnostics then remove themselves from the question. To understand agnostics all we have to do is play with cats in a box...is the cat alive or dead...most may extrapolate an answer based on acquiring knowledge of the situation. But given no other information, we are all agnostics. So too this is true with gods existence or lack thereof. We pile on evidences and make extrapolations however some believe that these evidences are not evidences at all. Some choose to disregard factors that might tip the scale one way or the other and simply say that we cannot know whether that cat is alive or dead. Whether they take the default position of non-committance or they assume the cat is both alive and dead, doesn't matter. The claim they make is that the knowledge we have about the subject has no bearing on the truth. With such a belief about our knowledge, the agnostics never rise to make a claim or exclude a claim. Understanding this, agnostics should not care whether they are considered to be at the "default position" or whether they are considered to believe both positions, because either form is descriptive of their views. Atheism however makes a claim that what theism claims is untrue.

I differentiate myself from agnostics because while I entertain the possibility of any god, I believe that theistic notions of a god are untrue. If however, we abstract the God concept in such a way that for all intent and purposes obliterated the theistic notions of god, gods, or God- then I would concede that such has a equal chance of truth as the materialistic or natural models of the universe. Or that we have no way of knowing, at this time, anything that belies the truth behind such notions. This however is irrelevant to the discussion about theistic gods and my beliefs about those theistic gods.

But, I can completely understand how one could, with a strong skeptic nature, not commit to any belief. Such a person however would be distinguished from atheists because they do not believe theistic claims untrue, but rather accept that a theistic god's existence is equally as true (or false) as its nonexistence.

 

[Curious George]

Why couldn't a weak atheist simply say: "I don't believe God exists and I don't believe God doesn't exist either I have no beliefs either way I'm neutral. I don't care. I have no opinions on that. It's irrelevant to me."

The default is not being a theist (weak atheist). You have to move away from the default to become a theist or strong atheist. Everybody are not theist (default weak atheist) until they have heard about God and can decide whether to become a theist, stay default weak atheist or become a strong atheist.

You are not talking about weak atheism but implicit atheism here...

If you are asking rhetorical questions, ignore my answer.

But if you want to know other opinions-

I reject the idea of a implicit atheist because it makes little sense. Why would we discuss something in a context to which it irrelevant. Rocks cannot have belief so to label a rock as having a non belief is not helpful or informative. It adds nothing to the discussion. In order to have a belief in or on a matter we must have some knowledge of that matter. Once we have some knowledge of that matter and the ability to have belief, we can talk about the movement of our beliefs. However, prior to that point, discussion and classification of such belief or lack of belief is pointless.

 

[ArtieE]

If I state the atheistic position as - the view that God does not exist, why is it that a large segment of atheists will fight it tooth and nail?

You are so confused it's hard to know where to begin to correct you.
(Weak) Atheists don't have a position. Atheism is the absence of a position. It's the absence of the belief that god exists, and it's the absence of the belief that god does not exist. A subset of atheists are "strong atheists" who in addition to having an absence of belief in god also believes actively that god doesn't exist. You should start to respect people and the fact that people who are just not theists may not appreciate being lumped in with strong atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens by people like you and asked why they believe god doesn't exist when they have no such beliefs!

 

[ArtieE]

I disagree that agnosticism is not a possible position. I agree that atheists do not hold a default position. This is so because I see a difference between agnosticism and atheism such that the two are exclusive.

Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s). Agnostics don't know whether gods exist or not. Of course you can be an agnostic atheist both not knowing and not believing.

Atheism however makes a claim that what theism claims is untrue.

No it doesn't. A weak atheist saying "I don't believe in god and I don't believe god doesn't exist either" makes no claims.

 

[Curious George]

Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s). Agnostics don't know whether gods exist or not. Of course you can be an agnostic atheist both not knowing and not believing.No it doesn't. A weak atheist saying "I don't believe in god and I don't believe god doesn't exist either" makes no claims.

Lol, so I guess that was rhetoric...

It's cool. We could very well argue definitions in any number of threads. You claim these definitions...I claim that mine make more sense. But had you wanted to know why...my answer would have solved your question for you.

 

[Valjean]

The default position is relative. The default position changes. In some cultures the default position is to believe in God. In other cultures it's not. In both cases it is the most logically accepted, the most stable, and objectively provable within those relative systems of thought.

No. The default position isn't cultural.The default position is the position you're born with, an empty set, a lack of belief.

The essence of atheism is simply a lack of belief, usually called weak atheism. It holds no beliefs and makes no assertions. Ants, baby's and cats are weak atheists.

It's only strong atheism that makes any assertions or requires any theological awareness. Only strong atheism has any burden of proof. Only strong atheism makes any assertions that would require proof.

 

[ArtieE]

You are not talking about weak atheism but implicit atheism here...

All implicit atheists are (weak) atheists.

If you are asking rhetorical questions, ignore my answer.

But if you want to know other opinions-

I reject the idea of a implicit atheist because it makes little sense. Why would we discuss something in a context to which it irrelevant. Rocks cannot have belief so to label a rock as having a non belief is not helpful or informative.

I agree. That is why rational people don't bring rocks into the discussion. If we talk about stamp collectors and non-stamp collectors we don't cite rocks as non-stamp collectors either. That would just be silly. But it doesn't chance the simple fact that all are non-stamp collectors until they take up the hobby.

In order to have a belief in or on a matter we must have some knowledge of that matter.

Correct.

Once we have some knowledge of that matter and the ability to have belief, we can talk about the movement of our beliefs. However, prior to that point, discussion and classification of such belief or lack of belief is pointless.

If you remove all theists from the planet all you have left are atheists by definition no matter age or race or sex or geographical placement or political inclination. If you don't find it useful to have a name for them all that's just your opinion. If nobody had started believing in gods we wouldn't need a special word for people who don't.

 

[Curious George]

No. The default position isn't cultural.The default position is the position you're born with, an empty set, a lack of belief.

The essence of atheism is simply a lack of belief, usually called weak atheism. It holds no beliefs and makes no assertions. Ants, baby's and cats are weak atheists.

It's only strong atheism that makes any assertions or requires any theological awareness. Only strong atheism has any burden of proof. Only strong atheism makes any assertions that would require proof.

The default position refers to a specific indeterminate position. It is not a product of an inability for belief but rather an inability to discriminate between beliefs such that one BELIEVES either option is equally capable of being true or false.

 

[Curious George]

All implicit atheists are (weak) atheists.
I agree. That is why rational people don't bring rocks into the discussion. If we talk about stamp collectors and non-stamp collectors we don't cite rocks as non-stamp collectors either. That would just be silly. But it doesn't chance the simple fact that all are non-stamp collectors until they take up the hobby.Correct.If you remove all theists from the planet all you have left are atheists by definition no matter age or race or sex or geographical placement or political inclination. If you don't find it useful to have a name for them all that's just your opinion. If nobody had started believing in gods we wouldn't need a special word for people who don't.

And per your definition, if you remove all atheists from the planet you would be left with nothing but theists...not even a planet...hopefully you can see the problem with defining atheism as any "not theist" now.

 

[ArtieE]

And per your definition, if you remove all atheists from the planet you would be left with nothing but theists...not even a planet...hopefully you can see the problem with defining atheism as any "not theist" now.

LOL. Any rational logical person would of course be able to understand that we are talking about only human beings here and not inanimate objects. Unless of course there are animals who believe in gods.