What is...a Default Position? And am I an Atheist?

I posted a Logic post that people can read to get a basic understanding of how logic works before coming to this topic, so that they can understand what I'm about to say.

In logic, we have premises and conclusions, all of which follow from a claim.

What is a claim? Well, say I say something like...God doesn't exist. I would have to back up this claim with sound logical and rational reasoning, or there would be no good reason to accept it as true.

When I reference the "Default position" what I reference is, what do you believe, once a claim is put forth, without the logic, and rational reasoning given with it? What do you do prior to hearing a claim's reasoning? Do you believe it? Or do you not believe it?

The answer, you don't believe it. One does not believe a claim until enough reason has been put forth(and indeed this can also be BAD reasoning unfortunately) to accept the claim as true.

Going back to whether God exists or not, if I make the claim, "God doesn't exist." and I don't back it up, then that means you can easily reject my claim. However, by rejecting that claim, does that mean you must then accept the OPPOSITE claim? That God DOES exist? Actually no, you don't. Because that is yet ANOTHER claim being made, that needs to be backed up with reason and evidence, and logic...unless it doesn't take evidence to convince you, as many would proudly proclaim.

So let's look at this a moment. What is the default position here?

Claim 1. God does not exist.
Claim 2. God does exist.

Well...if neither have been satisfactorily answered to a reasonable degree...then the default position is...to reject BOTH of these claims.

OIn a seperate issue, you might ask, "Well what does that make me then?" IF you reject both claims? Atheist. The simple act of rejecting the claim "God exists" makes you an atheist. Atheism is the default position, concerning God's existence, because it is simply, "Not believinng in god, or gods."

Why does it matter? Does this heavy-handed attempt of trying to twist logic until it's broken really make you feel better about things?

And what is even more ridiculous, is you don't seem to understand how science actually goes above proving things. Which makes this exercise even more amusing. When you test something, it's done by failing to reject it even when put to the test.

So based on your logic, everything Science is trying to prove shouldn't be believed because that's the method they are using.

Good job.

Not trying to be off topic, but I think we have enough Religion/Atheism Threads here in SD.

Umadbro?

But in all seriousness, science doesn't go above proving things. They don't even go about proving things. Not to 100% certainty anyway. see, proof only applies to mathematics and logic. Science just provides evidence, and whatever conclusion it supports, is the conclusion that's noted as "The best explanation of all the given evidence."

Therefore, reasoning is indeed given towards scientific conclusions, and is not to be rejected. Good job, you don't understand yet even more of basic logic. :)

It doesnt have to be God. It could be anything that you have no prior knowledge about. Like asking someone if they supported the PATRIOT Act in 1999. The "default position" is neither.



I wouldn't call you "Atheist" under this condition:

You dont know what a God or religion is.

I would say you cant make a "this or that" choice on the matter because you lack the knowledge (or evidence in your reference to scientific reasoning). Anything you say then would only be a blind guess.

For someone in the position of not knowing anything about the available options I would call "undecided" or "neutral".

So for someone who knows all the details, or at least enough to make an informed intelligent decision, rejecting the claims you made in your first post would make them "neutral" in my mind.

I said "enough to make an informed intelligent decision" there because a newborn most of the time is told what the parent(s) think and doesn't get to make a decision for him/herself.

(This part could make a whole other thread) Its pretty amazing how kids never learn about sex until middle or high school and up until the first discover it they are totally indifferent towards it. When they do learn about it they are given all the details and left to make to choice when the time seems fit to do so. Annnd on the other hand religion is taught from before the kids can speak, and they aren't presented alot of info on the topic yet views on sex and religion make a big impact on how society judges the child. I find that amazingly unfair to the child.

Totally unrelated to this topic: I read your first post in the objective morality thread and thought "this is going to be a massive thread".

Um what? Have you ever done an actual experiment before? Do you not understand that this evidence you seem to talk about, the support for theories, is gained from trying to prove things wrong. That is what the scientific method is. It's a method used to test hypothesizes, trying to prove it one way or another.

Except you can't prove something right, so you have to either prove it wrong, or fail to prove it wrong. Failing to prove it wrong is where the evidence, the support, comes from.

Congratulations on failing to understand basic scientific procedure. But I already expected this from you so I'm not astonished considering there have been plenty of scientific ideals you do not fully understand but think you do.

It doesn't matter.

The simple act of not accepting the claim that god exists defines you as an atheist. Not knowing the real claim does not mean you're not one or the other. Theism and atheism is what's known as a True Dichotomy. You're either one or the other. I know, many people have a problem wit hthat because whe nyou hear "atheist" you think it means a claim that God in fact does not exist, when actually it doesn't imply that at all. That's a furthur claim made that an atheist MAY or may not take. Atheism means, quite simply, Not accepting the claimm that god exists. If you don't accept the claim, whether you know it's wrong or not, you're an atheist.



On the contrary, you don't know what A True Dichotamy is. I understand that religion is a set of beliefs that usually prescribe to a worship of some sort, or a supernatural belief that governs how one should act in the world, and in reality. I also understand several different kinds of Gods that have been explained to me, I find them all to be undemonstrated, or useless(I.e. "God is love!" Then just call it love, jeez.)

Being an atheist doesn't mean you've made a choice to not believe in gods, it just means you're not convinced there ARE gods. You don't have to go any steps furthur than that. The simple act of not being convinced makes you an atheist.



Right, and in this situation, an undecided person for both sides would be an atheist. Literally being a 'non theist'



Ok, that still doesn't mean they don't match the definition of atheist perfectly. So it doesn't matter.



Well that's a good thing isn't it? We ought be discussing morality if we wish to have a more clear and concise and coherent way of defining what is right and what is wrong, shouldn't we? I meant that towards your last point, not the whole religion sex thing.

Here's something that might help you understand a little better. I define myself to be an agnostic atheist. This means I do not know whether or not there is or is not a god, however, I am unconvinced that there is one, as not enough, or no evidence has been presented to me that would convince me of such a thing's existence. Since I do not believe in gods,which directly follows from not being convinced of one's existence, it makes me an atheist. However I'm still an agnostic, because I also don't claimm to KNOW whether or not Gods do or do not in fact exist.

That's actually agnosticism.

I actually explained that in a post above. Being an agnostic doesn't answer the question of atheism/theism, it simply asks the question of knowledge.

Let me see if I can make this a bit clearer. There are 2 scales, for 2 different questions, and the answer of both questions defines your belief/claim to knowledge about god.

The first question is "Do you believe in god?" The answer to that is either atheism, or theism. You believe, or you don't.

The second question is, "Do you KNOW there is, or is not a god?" The answer to that is gnosticism, and agnosticism. Literally "I know, or I don't know."

So after answering both questions, I claim myself to be an agnostic atheist. And, depending on how God is defined, I might bump that agnosticism up to gnostic, if the god is...say...logically self refuting in its properties.



The funny thing is, you're right on just about everything except leaving out the fundamental premise of every scientific experiment, "If this experiment succeeds, it serves as evidence for the conclusion being tested." MEaning, it's reasoning towards accepting the premise that's being tested, meaning, science is exactly the reasoning behind accepting a premise in the first place, meaning science is in perfect alignment with everything I've been saying.

I feel like "I'm not sure" is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Do you believe in god", also, your second question in reality has three answers: "I know there is a god", "I know there isn't a god", and "I don't know"

Labeling everything as either-or is a really close-minded way of viewing things.

...Ok see the thing is "I don't know" IS a valid answer under everything I've explained.

And no, the reason the second question doesn't have 2 answers is because it comes after the first question, when we've established where one's belief is. So it follows that one of the first two is a given choice, and the other is eliminated depending on your answer to the first question.

If I ask you the question, "Do you believe in god?" and you answer, "I'm not sure." Then that's fine. Be aware though, that that isn't what I asked. I didn't ask what you're sure of, I asked what you believe. Belief just means you've been convinced of something, it doesn't mean you have to be sure about it. But still, if you answer "I'm not sure" you're still putting forth the hidden premise of, "I'm not sure, I don't accept that god does or does not exist quite yet." And that's also fine, and still falls under the definition of atheism.

Atheism - Not believing in God


Again, I want to make this perfectly clear, you don't have to believe there is no god, you don't have to say, "No no no, see, all gods are nonexistent" you don't have to say ANY of that, you're an atheist, by definition, simply by answering the question of whether you believe there is a god with anything short of "yes".


If you still don't get it, I'll try to make it a bit clearer by attempting to show you what a True Dichotamy is. a True Dichotamy in Logic is called "A, /A" Meaning something is either "A" or something ISN'T "A". So let's apply this.

I put a chocolate cake in front of you. A is defined as eating the cake. Do you eat the cake, or not eat the cake?

There is no "in between" to eating the cake. Even if you just lick the frosting, that's still eating the cake. Even if you lick the frosting, and then spit it out, you're still not eating the cake. Get it yet?

Your argument has a loooooooooot of cracks in it, buddy. But I think the biggest one is that "Atheism" is generally defined as solid rejection of higher powers, putting it in the realm of "NO" rather than "maybe, maybe not" or "YES".

Also, your analogy isn't really a good fit to this argument either, you might want to find another.

My analogy only doesn't fit because you don't accept that theism and atheism is a true dichotamy.

Here are a few sources that don't use your definition of atheism, or use BOTH of our definitions.

Wiki - Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

That matches everything I've said exactly.

Dictionary.com has 2 definitions, both yours AND mine...so it becomes a question of which to use.

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

1 matches yours, 2 matches mine...on what grounds do you submit number 1 is the correct definition? I submit that the literal etymology of atheism translates from the Latin prefix "A" which means "without" and "Theism" meaning "Belief in God".

Here's Webster

atheism n 1 a:disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity

Convinced yet? Now if not, I'd like to know on what grounds you say atheism must be the assurant belief that there is in fact no god.

No atheist I know defines themselves this way, the etymology of the word does not match that definition, and indeed the only people who aply that definition that I've ever seen are self described non-atheists.


BUT WAIT! There's more! ;)

Wiki comes through for me in citing Austin Cline concerning atheism and agnosticism, and actually gives this little fun number.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I don't believe in a dichotomy on this subject. Practically any broad subject which is reliant on human opinion will not be one or the other, in almost every situation there are shades of gray.

Now- wiki supports my assertion rather than yours, as it says REJECTION, which is as assurant as an opinion can be. Disbelief is still relatively strong - how would you describe that on a personal level? You would say, "I don't believe", which is quite the conviction.

Your article is interesting and all, bringing in knowledge as a "z-axis", but I humbly disagree. Humans are not computers, set to states of 0 or 1. Our opinions are not boolean values. If someone has not made up their mind about their beliefs, they are not ascribing to either or, and I'd doubt they'd appreciate being told they are.

Wrong on one count. I will admit Reject is a pretty big word, but the problem is, I don't accept Rejection to be anything more than attempt to make atheism seem like more of a definitive statement than it is. Again, etymology is on my side here.

However, you're completely wrong on "Disbelief" since it literally translates to "Not believe." That's not strong at all.



If you keep researching this, I can almost gaurantee you'll come to the same conclusion I did. Trust me, I used to be in your position, I used to actually come to this very forum and post that atheism is a rleigion, and that I was an agnostic that was being intellectually honest. Rbz shut me RIGHT the fuck up about that.

Again, being an atheist in no way means that you believe there are in fact no gods, unless you define yourself to be that way when you become an atheist. Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground between atheism and theism, because it addreesses a completely different question.

So many people have gone over this, it's not even funny. Watch these vids, and see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Py1Bz8XOo

In action you would say that you "do not believe", which is what I mentioned earlier.



Of course he did. Atheism isn't a religion. Which part did he shut you up on?



I'll agree that I had the definition (via etymology) of 'agnostic' wrong, but I still cannot agree with you that religious belief is a dichotomy -- for reasons I stated earlier.

Which, as I said already, is in no way a 'strong' thing. It's simply not believing. It doesn't mean anything else. I fail to see how darkness is being a "Strong non color." If you understand what I mean.



Pretty much all of it. Including the misconception(edit) that agnosticism was some sort of 'middle ground' between theism and atheism.



Ok, how about this? We'll do this one step at a time.

Do you agree with the following statement:

There either is a god(or gods) or there aren't.

Strong or not, it is a certain statement.



That you're asking me this is proof you don't understand or are willfully ignoring what I said. Just because there only exists a state of 0 or 1 does not mean that people can only believe in one or the other. Uncertainty is a state that exists within the human psyche.

...Not really. I nfact it says next to nothing about the person that says it. If you mean it's a statement that means something...well sure, in the same way that all statements mean something. Other than that though...I fail to see the efficacy of pointing out disbelief, it does nothing more than restate my own definition of atheism.





The fact that you continue to go on about uncertainty is proof you still don't understand the question presented to you. And the fact that you said, "Does not mean that people can only believe on or the other" is ALSO a complete misunderstanding of me, as well as shows you didn't watch the videos that I gave you as examples of people far more articulate than me explaining the concept.


I will say this one more time. There are two claims.

1. there is a god.
2. There is not a god.

An uncertain person is a person who doesn't believe either claim. That person is an atheist, due to the faqct that the etymology of the word says as much, some dictionaries say as much, and the vast majroity of atheists say as much, and I BELIEVE we have the right to define our own label how we wish, and your opinion on what atheism means doesn't in any way effect how we atheists identify ourselves.

And yet there is even a simpler comparison to this that is almost a complete mirror to what we're talking about.

Maybe this is a more fair analogy, even with your objections.

Say you're part of a jury. You just witnessed a trial, and you, as well as the other people in the jury are told to come to a decision as to whther the defendent is guilty, or not guilty. The levels of beliefs you and the others have as to the guilty or not guilty answers are irrelevant. Some of you might believe that the defendent is more than just not guilty, but is completely innocent of the crime. But that's irrelevant, because whether or not you believe he's innocent, as long as you do not accept that he is guilty, you are a part of the "not guilty" camp. It's a true dichotamy, just like whether or not one believes in god. You can say, "I don't know" but you're not answering the question, and if you say, "I dn't accept that god exists, or doesn't exist" you're STILL an atheist, because of the first part of that question.


Your entire objection mirrors an argument from personal incredulity. You don't LIKE the idea that one is either a theist or an atheist. You don't LIKE that sort of "one or the other" idea of theological epistomology. So you reject it outright, because you se it as narrow minded. Tegumi...you're going to have to be more forgving of some of us who look at what you're saying, and say, "...Just because you don't like it...doesn't mean you're in any way right."

Can you GIVE me a reason why "God" "No god" ISN'T a true dichotamy? I severely doubt you can, and in fact will bet my life on the fact that you can't, because it IS a dichotomy, despite you not wanting to believe it is. You haven't demonstrated why it's not, you've only demonstrated you don't understand what the question is, what the answers entail, and have your own bias that atheism must indeed mean what your preconception of it means.


I really do hate to sound like I'm angry with you, and I hate to sound like I'm being prickish, but I've explained this over and over to you, and you've just demonstrated you have NO idea what I've been saying, or have outright denied it completely. and that...is incessantly frustrating.

The question, is very simple. Are you convinced, that there is a god? I don't care how sure you are that there's a god or not a god. It doesn't matter. I don't care that you wish there was a neutral position that WASN'T atheistic, because there's not. you reject both claims until one of them convinces you, and you ALWAYS do that, EVERYONE always does that, with NO exception. This is basic logic. Either you accept claims, and they must be disproven first, or you don't accept claims, and they must be proven first. The latter is logical, the former is not, and self refuting, because Belief until Disproof is given leads one to believe absolutely everything, INCLUDING mutually exclusive ideas. therefore it is NOT intellectually viable. The only choice left, is to NOT believe things, until you're convinced. Which, as I've stated before, can indeed be, for horrible reasons, INCLUDING, "I believe cause I have faith." or "I don't believe because I don't like it."


Please...please...jujst give me a coherent argument AGAINSt the idea that theism...and atheism...is a true dichotamy, besides "People are uncertain by nature" because that does not hurt my position whatsoever.