The default position...

[ArtieE]

What does that have to do with anything I explained in great detail? Why don't you address how the atheist mind is the default position comparable to that of an infant in light of what I posted? Can you? Did you comprehend what I explained in great detail? You didn't address any of my objections, and went straight into simply repeating yourself. I explained why it cannot be what you say, and you just repeat yourself. That's not a rational discussion. I think maybe I should conclude it's just all over your head, and we can leave it at that.

I think maybe we should conclude that you can't explain why if we remove all theists from the planet the rest wouldn't be atheists (not theists) and leave it at that. Or is it over your head that if you remove all theists from the planet the rest must necessarily logically be "not theists" that is atheists?

 

[Windwalker]

I think maybe we should conclude that you can't explain why if we remove all theists from the planet the rest wouldn't be atheists (not theists) and leave it at that. Or is it over your head that if you remove all theists from the planet the rest must necessarily logically be "not theists" that is atheists?

This is a stupid argument. If remove all atheists from the world the default it's theism. So can you art least attempt to address my points? You're deflecting here.

 

[Valjean]

No, Windwalker. I do understand your argument. I've seen variations of it in various threads for years, but it's simply not how we're defining weak atheism. Weak atheism is not a point of view.

Perhaps "position" is the stumbling block. The default position, in this case, isn't really a position at all. It's a lack of position, a null set, a tabula rasa. We're defining weak atheism simply as lack of belief. Cognitive development is irrelevant. Lack of belief presupposes no cognition. Infants and gerbils are non-theists/a-theists.

What was your 'position' on the herds of rhinoceroses grazing on Titan five minutes ago (before I planted the idea)?
I'll wager you were an a-rhinoist.

 

[outhouse]

This is a stupid argument.

That may be.

But it is what it is, and you don't get to define or redefine anything here.

 

[outhouse]

but it's simply not how we're defining weak atheism.

Which is only part of implicit atheism.

I've seen variations of it in various threads for years

Many threads each year blow up over peoples ignorance to the definitions.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

This is a stupid argument. If remove all atheists from the world the default it's theism. So can you art least attempt to address my points? You're deflecting here.

No. That doesn't change the default position.
It would make the minimum evidence for people most likely very low, but it doesn't change the default position.
Default position =/= the popular position.

 

[Windwalker]

No, Windwalker. I do understand your argument. I've seen variations of it in various threads for years, but it's simply not how we're defining weak atheism. Weak atheism is not a point of view.

Let's do this. I don't believe you do understand my argument. Rather than me repeat it, can you explain it back to me what you believe I am saying and we can take it from there? I believe if you can explain it back to me, then I can point to where my point is unavoidable. If you are defining something with a word such as atheism, weak or strong, it is specific point of view regarding the question of the existence or not of God. It's not a default position, or point of view, or opinion at all. The default position is whatever culture teaches you is true. The default position depends on the context. It's relative, not absolute.

Perhaps "position" is the stumbling block. The default position, in this case, isn't really a position at all. It's a lack of position, a null set, a tabula rasa. We're defining weak atheism simply as lack of belief. Cognitive development is irrelevant. Lack of belief presupposes no cognition. Infants and gerbils are non-theists/a-theists.

No, they are not. And infant and a gerbil neither have a belief or a lack of belief. They don't form any cognition in order to believe or not belief. To say it's a "lack of belief" and point to the mind of an infant as comparable to the "lack of belief" of an adult "weak atheist" is a false analogy. The minds don't think the same at all, so the default "tabula rasa" of an infant to be applied to an adult would be a lobotomized adult whose mind is incapable of conceptual thought. It's not "clean slate". It is impossible for any adult to have clean slate mind, on any topic. Everything that is perceived or thought about in an adult is affected by everything they have been taught. Again, it is not comparable to the infant mind.

What was your 'position' on the herds of rhinoceroses grazing on Titan five minutes ago (before I planted the idea)?
I'll wager you were an a-rhinoist.

Nope, I was simply ignorant of the idea. That's not a "weak a-rhinosit", it's just a lack of any awareness of such a thing. To say I am a weak a-rhinoist means I applied to thought to the idea and assumed a position on the question. No infant does that. So if you really want to speak of someone who has no idea of God (which as far as I can tell is impossible being part of this culture), that person is not a weak atheist, they are simply unaware. There is a difference between simple ignorance, and how someone assumes a point of view about it.

 

[Windwalker]

No. That doesn't change the default position.
It would make the minimum evidence for people most likely very low, but it doesn't change the default position.
Default position =/= the popular position.

How on earth is a point of view determined for individuals without other's points of view being a part of it. As I've said before, comparing an "agnostic" point of view with that of the infant mind is an absurdity. There is not positive, negative, or neutral point of view in an infant. There's no cognitive thought at all that can rationally be recognized as "agnostic" You may as well say your point of view is that of a tree, unless you wish to remove your mind from the pool of sentient adult humans. In which case then, you're not capable of any opinion on any matter of discussion. The extent of your thoughts are breast or no breast. That's hardly comparable to those what call themselves agnostics.

 

[outhouse]

The default position depends on the context. It's relative, not absolute.

Is it? No sir, that is your unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.

It very well could be absolute. Faith does not dictate reality.

To date no god exist scientifically, so the default position is one without theism. Theism is factually a learned concept often based on geographic location that dictates which mythology one follows.

There's no cognitive thought at all that can rationally be recognized as "agnostic"

One would have to know the definition of implicit atheism to understand the error in this statement

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Infants and gerbils are non-theists/a-theists.

How can an infant be either an atheist or theist when they do not even have a concept of self-awareness until about 18 months? And then they become busy trying to learn about their world. They are probably the most apathetic people when it comes to religion.

 

[outhouse]

How can an infant be either an atheist or theist when they do not even have a concept of self-awareness until about 18 months?

One can be an implicit atheist without a conscious rejection of theism.

Example.

Man on island raised by natives with no religion, and has no concept of theism, is factually an atheist. Goes for babies to. You don't have to reject mythology to be an implicit atheist

 

[Willamena]

See that lines up with the default position though, we do not accept anything without sufficient reasoning and evidence.
So when someone tries to add something without both of those to what we believe they have to fill in the blanks.

Except for those people who do accept anything at all without sufficient reasoning and evidence. They defy your so-called "default."

 

[outhouse]

they do not even have a concept of self-awareness until about 18 months?

I don't know where you got that but it is incorrect.

Babies Have Self-Awareness From The Minute They're Born (STUDY)

Babies Have Self-Awareness From The Minute They're Born (STUDY)

 

[Awkward Fingers]

How on earth is a point of view determined for individuals without other's points of view being a part of it. As I've said before, comparing an "agnostic" point of view with that of the infant mind is an absurdity. There is not positive, negative, or neutral point of view in an infant. There's no cognitive thought at all that can rationally be recognized as "agnostic" You may as well say your point of view is that of a tree, unless you wish to remove your mind from the pool of sentient adult humans. In which case then, you're not capable of any opinion on any matter of discussion. The extent of your thoughts are breast or no breast. That's hardly comparable to those what call themselves agnostics.

And regardless of all that... first, I'm not talking about infants, that would be the whole "implicit atheism" discussion.. You are talking about default position.
And nothing you said there is in regards to that.. The default position is to reject any claim until some evidence is shown.
The default position to "God exists" is Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed... The default position to "No gods exist" is.. Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed..
The default position to, God is a tree! =Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed...
God is nature = Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed...
God is evil and the bible is wrong = Show me, I'll believe once I've been swayed...
This is always the default position. Regardless of the views of the population.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Man on island raised by natives with no religion, and has no concept of theism, is factually an atheist. Goes for babies to. You don't have to reject mythology to be an implicit atheist

You apparently missed when I said infants most likely are not at all concerned with it.
Your reasoning would apply the label of atheism to me, but I am not an atheist.

I don't know where you got that but it is incorrect.

Self-Awareness | Psychology Today
The Developmental of Self-Awareness The neurobiological and psychological triggers for self-awareness have not yet been clarified. What we do know is that this occurs around 1 – 3 years.
When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies? - Scientific American
It is well recognized that infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions and motivations. Even older children who can speak have very limited insight into their own actions.
...
Although a newborn lacks self-awareness...
Self-awareness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the time an average toddler reaches 18 months they will discover themselves and recognize their own reflection in the mirror. By the age of 24 months the toddler will observe and relate their own actions to those actions of other people and the surrounding environment.[24]

 

[Willamena]

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

Yeah, that's incorrect. If I hold up an apple to you, and you've never yet had an apple but I've now shown it to you, and you take it out of my hand and admire it in all its appley goodness, that's hardly disbelief. That's belief.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah, that's incorrect. If I hold up an apple to you, and you've never yet had an apple but I've now shown it to you, and you take it out of my hand and admire it in all its appley goodness, that's hardly disbelief. That's belief.

Yes, so that is hardly a relevant example is it? Nobody has ever shown anyone ever a god.

 

[Willamena]

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!

There is no absence of a position. No position is not having a position.

 

[Bunyip]

Except for those people who do accept anything at all without sufficient reasoning and evidence. They defy your so-called "default."

Willamena, not sure how you could possibly have thought so, but nobody is obliged to take a default position. That some people do not take the default position does not 'defy' it. It is still the default.

 

[Willamena]

The default position isn't anything specific. It's just the factory setting -- a blank slate. The default position doesn't discriminate between anything. It isn't even aware of any options to discriminate between. The default position has no beliefs at all.

How can no position be a default position?