The default position...

[Deathbydefault]

Judgement. Just so.

A person isn't skeptical without something to be skeptical about.

Thus when they are exposed to something that is easy to disbelieve they are skeptical by default.

"I just beat up 10 guys with black belts in Karate while being blindfolded, and with only one hand!"
You gonna tell me you don't automatically think that's a lie?

 

[Willamena]

The default is a judgement, one way or the other, that will depend on each of us.

We each have built up a unique database of information that composes "the world."

 

[Willamena]

Thus when they are exposed to something that is easy to disbelieve they are skeptical by default.

"I just beat up 10 guys with black belts in Karate while being blindfolded, and with only one hand!"
You gonna tell me you don't automatically think that's a lie?

The "default" is what they believed before they were exposed to something that contradicted their beliefs. I.e. it's the "normal."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, an infant has no concept of God, but typically are members of a broader culture. What was your point?

My point was that although the child has no concept of something, we project such a thing onto them.

No, it is the natural default. Implicit atheism.

Ignorance and apathy do not inherently equate to any sort of atheism.

Anyone without a belief in God is by definition atheist. Why doesn't that work?

Actually there are many people, such as agnostics and ignostics, who do not do not believe in god, yet they are not atheists. There are those who are apathetic towards the whole thing, and even those who think theist and atheist have it wrong.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The "default" is what they believed before they were exposed to something that contradicted their beliefs. I.e. it's the "normal."

I have a feeling we aren't going to get anywhere arguing like this, we both think our definitions are right so lets just leave it at this.
I have much more important things going on right now, so we can continue such debates at a later date.

 

[Willamena]

I have a feeling we aren't going to get anywhere arguing like this, we both think our definitions are right so lets just leave it at this.
I have much more important things going on right now, so we can continue such debates at a later date.

Well, okay. Much more important things take precedent.

 

[Bunyip]

My point was that although the child has no concept of something, we project such a thing onto them.

Sure, but so what? How is that relevant?

Ignorance and apathy do not inherently equate to any sort of atheism.

Ignorance of God claims does equate to atheism.

Actually there are many people, such as agnostics and ignostics, who do not do not believe in god, yet they are not atheists. There are those who are apathetic towards the whole thing, and even those who think theist and atheist have it wrong.

No, any agnostic/ignostic who does not believe in God is atheist. If they do not believe in god, they are atheist. That is what atheism means.

Atheism/theism is a simple polarity. A person is either a theist, or not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure, but so what? How is that relevant?

Because you are projecting your atheism onto others, even if they are not atheist.
People may project onto a child that he or she is American, but children are children and do not have the cultural and national ways and behaviors that make them so until they are old enough to learn them.

Ignorance of God claims does equate to atheism.

No. Atheism is the active rejection of god. Ignorance is realizing you are ignorant, and do not have the necessary information to make and informed decision.

No, any agnostic/ignostic who does not believe in God is atheist. If they do not believe in god, they are atheist. That is what atheism means.

If we were atheist, then we would call ourselves atheist. But our views are distinctively different, so we do not call ourselves atheist.
It's rather annoying that so many atheists try and claim us as one of their own, when clearly we are not.

Atheism/theism is a simple polarity. A person is either a theist, or not.

That is no different than trying to say some either a heterosexual, or not. A homosexual or heterosexual, or not.

 

[Bunyip]

Because you are projecting your atheism onto others, even if they are not atheist.

I am not projecting anything onto anyone.

People may project onto a child that he or she is American, but children are children and do not have the cultural and national ways and behaviors that make them so until they are old enough to learn them.

Sure, hence they are implicit atheists.

No. Atheism is the active rejection of god. Ignorance is realizing you are ignorant, and do not have the necessary information to make and informed decision.

No, atheism is the position of not being a theist.

If we were atheist, then we would call ourselves atheist.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. If you are not a theist you are atheist. Are you armed? No? Then you are disarmed. Are you moral? No? Then you are amoral. Adding the prefix 'x' means 'not'.

But our views are distinctively different, so we do not call ourselves atheist.
It's rather annoying that so many atheists try and claim us as one of their own, when clearly we are not.

Do you believe in a theistic god? If no, you are atheist.

That is no different than trying to say some either a heterosexual, or not. A homosexual or heterosexual, or not.

No, sexuality is a continuum, atheism/theism is a polarity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Seeing some good arguments here

Off subject a little but some debate is better than no debate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am not projecting anything onto anyone.

You are projecting it onto those who aren't atheist or theist.

If you are not a theist you are atheist

And you say this even though I just told you I am not an atheist.
Even after I say it's very annoying when people do that, you still do it.
It's as bad as trying to slap the label onto theists because they don't believe in someone else's god.
I am not an atheist. It's foolish for you to insist I am.

Are you armed? No? Then you are disarmed.

Define armed. People wouldn't consider a pencil to be dangerous, but I just sharpened my 2H and I could indeed do a lot of damage with it.

Are you moral? No? Then you are amoral.

Amoral or immoral.

No, sexuality is a continuum, atheism/theism is a polarity.

Religious views are not restricted to a black-and-white, one-or-the-other, either-or type of perspective. To some people they are, but plenty of us have moved beyond such a limited view.

 

[Bunyip]

You are projecting it onto those who aren't atheist or theist.

Nope. I am not.

And you say this even though I just told you I am not an atheist.

Sure, if you are a theist, you are not atheist.

Even after I say it's very annoying when people do that, you still do it.
It's as bad as trying to slap the label onto theists because they don't believe in someone else's god.

No, it is just what words mean.

I am not an atheist. It's foolish for you to insist I am.

I didn't.

Define armed. People wouldn't consider a pencil to be dangerous, but I just sharpened my 2H and I could indeed do a lot of damage with it.

Then you are armed with pencil.

Amoral or immoral.

Religious views are not restricted to a black-and-white, one-or-the-other, either-or type of perspective. To some people they are, but plenty of us have moved beyond such a limited view.

Sure, but atheism/theism is black and white. You can be religious and atheist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure, if you are a theist, you are not atheist.

I am neither. Apparently this is difficult for you to comprehend, but it is not accurate to use either word to describe my views.

Sure, but atheism/theism is black and white. You can be religious and atheist.

And in between black and white is gray.

 

[Bunyip]

I am neither. Apparently this is difficult for you to comprehend, but it is not accurate to use either word to describe my views.

I don't know what your views are, so have no idea what you are even complaining about.

And in between black and white is gray.

It was just an old saying, it means either/or, a polarity.


As to your beliefs, are you a theist?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As to your beliefs, are you a theist?

Why are you asking when I have already said several times in this thread, including my post that you are quoting in that post?

 

[Bunyip]

Why are you asking when I have already said several times in this thread, including my post that you are quoting in that post?

You said you were neither. There is no middle ground, you either are or are not.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how you can neither have nor not have a specific belief. How can you be neither a theist nor not a theist?

 

[Deathbydefault]

For the past while, among other things, I have been trying to find a middle ground for you two...
I can very well see both of your points, and I have kind of a 'let's see if this works' conclusion.

Just because you don't identify as something does not mean you aren't still that thing.
I don't openly identify as a feminists, but by definition I am a feminist.
So by definition, anyone who disbelieves in God(s) is an atheist, in some way or another.

So you can easily be agnostic, but if you aren't an agnostic theist then you would be considered an agnostic atheist.
Not sure if I'm making sense, but I'm trying.

It's almost like a bigot not identifying as a bigot.
The bigot is very clearly a bigot, whether the bigot likes it or not.

So you might be an agnostic that is of the atheist belief when it comes to religion.
You don't have to identify yourself as an atheist, you don't have to write "atheist" on your forehead.
You simply agree with the atheistic side, therefore you are also an atheist.
An agnostic atheist that identifies only as agnostic.

I can't make this make sense the way it does inside my head.
Can I call in a wingman for support?

 

[Bunyip]

For the past while, among other things, I have been trying to find a middle ground for you two...
I can very well see both of your points, and I have kind of a 'let's see if this works' conclusion.

Just because you don't identify as something does not mean you aren't still that thing.
I don't openly identify as a feminists, but by definition I am a feminist.
So by definition, anyone who disbelieves in God(s) is an atheist, in some way or another.

So you can easily be agnostic, but if you aren't an agnostic theist then you would be considered an agnostic atheist.
Not sure if I'm making sense, but I'm trying.

It's almost like a bigot not identifying as a bigot.
The bigot is very clearly a bigot, whether the bigot likes it or not.

So you might be an agnostic that is of the atheist belief when it comes to religion.
You don't have to identify yourself as an atheist, you don't have to write "atheist" on your forehead.
You simply agree with the atheistic side, therefore you are also an atheist.
An agnostic atheist that identifies only as agnostic.

I can't make this make sense the way it does inside my head.
Can I call in a wingman for support?

LOL Well newcomer, you are indeed going to be a lot of fun here. Cheers.
And don't get me wrong, Shadow Wolf is very smart and fun to talk to. There is no bad will on my part - and I 'd bet the farm on there being none on hers either.
Different opinions are much more fun to explore than the things we agree on. Atheism particularly is a term that is very much in flux. Words changein their meaning and these sort of discussions is how that happens.
Originally (as far as I can tell anyway) the term atheists was first used by the Romans to identify Christians.

 

[Bunyip]

Words are defined by their usage, the dictionary records usages - it does not dictate meanings. What words mean is fluid - what God means (and hence what atheism means) is the most fluid word of all.

 

[Deathbydefault]

LOL Well newcomer, you are indeed going to be a lot of fun here. Cheers.
And don't get me wrong, Shadow Wolf is very smart and fun to talk to. There is no bad will on my part - and I 'd bet the farm on there being none on hers either.
Different opinions are much more fun to explore than the things we disagree on. Atheism particularly is a term that is very much in flux. Words changein their meaning and these sort of discussions is how that happens.
Originally (as far as I can tell anyway) the term atheists was first used by the Romans to identify Christians.

Oh, I agree. Both of you are fun to watch comment, hence my followings.
I didn't think either of you had ill will, as I've also seen you agreeing before.
I don't think you could ever expect anyone to believe exactly the same things as you, but understanding is always nice.
My comment was an attempt, no matter how bad it may seem, to help the understanding of 'this is where I'm coming from' in your arguments.
It looks as though I hit more towards your side, maybe because I see more sense in it.

I believe atheism was a term originally used to described those who were not of the same belief as you 'atheistic to my belief' one might say.
Not sure though.