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

...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.

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.

snip

What I mean is that it isn't "I'm not sure".

YOU called it a dichotomy. YOUR words, not mine.

See, no. You say "person who doesn't believe either claim", I would refer to it as "person who isn't sure". But even if we go with your assertion, it still doesn't work. If disbelief in religion, then disbelief in disbelief in religion is also true. Which is why don't refer to an uncertain person as someone "who doesn't believe in either claim".

There's really a lot here about hypotheticals, not answering questions, and not understanding viewpoints. See, here's the thing: I understand YOUR stance, because you've repeated it at least 3 times. You say that because whether or not god exists is a dichotomy, that human opinion must also fall within such.

I say that humans are by nature fickle and uncertain, and therefore can actually have their opinion exist in a state of uncertainty.

You -sort of- address this by saying "that's not answering the question", which honestly is a refusal to accept -- a "that's not an acceptable answer" rather than the question not being answered.

I'm not going to go and find proof that people can say "I'm not sure" and mean it. It boggles me that you cannot understand or reject the idea that humans can be piddling and indeterminate, but if that's the case no amount of persuasion will get you to think otherwise.

To be atheist means you CLAIM God does not exist.

It means you do not believe in religion.[/quote[

Nope. It means you are not convinced a god exists. There are religious atheists out there. Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, etc.

[quote] It means you do not accept religion. You present two answers but, there should be three. "I don't believe in God", "I believe in God", "I don't know".

Those who are neutral are neither atheist nor religious.

They can not decide who to side with. This may be because they can not make up their mind on which religion they should side with.

Or they want a reason as to why they should or should not believe there is God. Being neutral doesn't make you atheist.

You're not embracing uncertainty at all. You're saying, "they're uncertain, I'm ok with this", then lumping them into a category they didn't necessarily want to be a part of.

Read this thread.
www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.252546-Poll-agnostic-is-not-the-same-as-theist-and-atheist
No, it's not an official source, nor from an authoritative figure. It is, however, a progressive discussion which you may understand better than my explanation. Thread OP is you, essentially. Practically everyone else in the thread is me. Have a good read.

Clearly you didn't even read the thread.

Same to you. You claim I haven't given a single valid point, I can claim the same. The world is not black and white, I'm sorry. Good day.

So in essence, your argument is to deny the very existence of true dichotomies.

Good luck with denying basic logical laws.

Actually. I'll make this easy for you. Name and define what the in between is between atheism and theism. Make sure the definition is mutually exclusive with atheism and theism.

Looking at the "purely logical" approach, if you say that you reject both claims, then you are simply in contradiction.

"God does not exist" can only be false if God does exist, so by rejecting this claim, one implies that God does exist.

"God does exist" can only be false is God does not exist, so by rejecting this claim, one implies that God does not exist(you accurately claim this half of the statement).

It is true generally that the rejection of A being false does not imply A is true, but in this case God can only either exist or not exist.[quote]

You forgot another systemic point. If the situation is "A, or B." Rejecting A does not necessitate accepting B. which is what you're saying is necessarily the case, this is simply not true.

[quote] There are no other options. And these options are mutually exclusive, so rejecting one implies acceptance of the other(your use of the word dichotomy would seem to imply that you accept what I am suggesting here, as that is how a dichotomy is defined: jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive).

That seems to be the generally accepted parameter of how existence works. Now, you could put forth an argument that there is some other possibility as to how something can simultaneously both exist and not exist or neither exist nor not exist. However, you have to convince me as to why this is a better premise than the one I am using. And then the crux of your argument does not rest on logic, but rather on your definition and model of existence.

Your definition of atheism is also questionable. Atheism is sometimes defined the way you say, but it is also sometimes defined as "the belief that there are no deities." If one uses the latter definition, one can prove that "the rejection of the belief that there are no deities" is actually the default position, according to the logic you posit. Which I guess means that some twisted negatively stated form of theism is actually the default position.[quote]

Nope, you're making the same error consistently throughout the post. When it comes to a dichotomy, it is either A, or /A, not A, or B. This is a consistent problem with the logc you've been using, or at the very least accusing me of using, which I am not.

[quote] So you need to somehow justify why your definition of atheism is the appropriate choice, or else your entire argument is inverted even if we accept your contradiction as logic.

(Thought experiment. Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. Negative Theism is defined as the rejection of the idea that there are no deities.

Claim 1: There are no deities
Claim 2: There are not no deities

Now repeat what you did in your OP

Negative Theism is now the default position)

Not to mention, the worst part of your argument is that your choice to apply pure binary logic in this situation just happens to be a poor one.

As Tegumi has repeatedly pointed out, a purely logical approach does not reflect how people do or should address this question.[quote]

Explain why one ought not approach this question with logic.

[quote] There is definitely a place for uncertainty. [quote]

Which, as I've told Tegumi, and am telling you, I've already allowed for uncertainty in my example. Certainty isn't the question, that's the thing. You and Tegumi are guilty of Equivocation with the words Certainty and Belief. they are not the same thing, and are not a part of the same scale. One is either convinced of a position, or not. The question of certainty comes AFTER belief is established, not at the same time.

[quote] Your insistence on trying to address this issue with poorly reasoned pure logic is absurd. As I pointed out in your thread on logic, in most cases, pure logic alone is not a useful approach to the situations we encounter and the questions we try to answer. It is one of many tools that we can use in conjunction.

This guy's logic is retarded. I stopped paying attention to him when he said there was such a thing as objective morality and used slavery as an example. /facepalm.

Do us all a favour and watch these videos then stfu. Hopefully you'll start realizing how much of a fucking idiot you are sounding like.

Do yourself a favor and actually pay attention to what I'm saying, neither one of those videos disagrees with a thing that I've been saying.

Edit: Really? -1 rep for pointing out that neither one of those goes against my points when he claimed I needed to watch them to find out how much of an idiot I am?

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.

ROFL are you serious?

Everytime someone makes a valid remark at insulting your 'intelligence' or reasoning, you say 'that isn't what i was saying!'. So not only is your logic is massively flawed and retareded, but you're ignorant to the fact.

People like you are the worst kind of human being. You think you're smarter than the average joe but in reality your close-mindedness makes you seem as smart as a caterpillar. The worst thing is it's made you arrogant to the fact, so do us a kind favour and get off that high horse attitude because you're not fooling anyone.

I didn't look over your point, your point is that you think that the stance in the belief in God is a dichotomy and that being agnostic is not a default state and makes you automatically atheist.

You see you're the one that should watch the videos again retard. The videos clearly explain why the question "do you believe in God" is NOT a dichotomy like you speak of and why you're retarded for thinking that it is. That's why you got a neg rep, because you're fucking ignorant as fuck because the videos clearly explained ALL points you addressed in this topic and why you are wrong. FUcking look up the definition of skepticism. That's of course if you even watched the entirety of those videos, which you probably didn't judging on how retarded your reply sounds if you did.

BigLundi, the first video critical thinking was never suppose to be relavent to this topic, but relevant to show you how the logic you think as reason is massively flawed. You've got this massive black and white syndrome going on that not only inhibits your capacity of learning new things and ideologies but makes you ignorant to everything else also. This is a evident trend not only in this thread but your other ones too and is why i choose to disregard you as a capable thinker and debater and akin you to more of a retard stuck in a loop. Until you're ready to accept the fact that you're logic is a flawed way of thinking then don't expect me to change my opinion. If you're looking for a thread in SD that is more your 'level', then i suggest you have a look at that thread "ignorance is bliss" because you'd sure fit right in there for sure.

Yes, if one is rejecting the claim as a true fact completely. However I've been trying to explain to Tegumi, and now you've missed the point, that I'm asking a particular question. Do you BELIEVE that God exists? You can possibly not be convinced that either truth statement is indeed true.

Nope, you're making the same error consistently throughout the post. When it comes to a dichotomy, it is either A, or /A, not A, or B. This is a consistent problem with the logc you've been using, or at the very least accusing me of using, which I am not.

Which I have, by going to it's etymology, which is usually the accepted way to define a word. A- "without" Theism - "Belief in God or Gods" So in essence, simply not having the belief in gods makes someone an atheist, according to etymology.

Logic is regularly one of the best ways to aproach a situation, and in fact is systemically the best way to approach a situation. Logic dictates many of the things we find out to be facts. Science, logic, and reasoning using both, consistently demonstrate themselves to be the very best ways to understand reality.

Alright, I think I understand what you are trying to say here. Your inconsistent diction didn't help your case. However, if one accepts neither claims, then the truth value of the statement "God exists" is simply unknown. If you believe that constitutes atheism, you definition of atheism is not the one that is commonly used.

We distinguish between atheists, who believe there is no God, and agnostics, who believe the truth value of the statement "God exists" is unknown. If you want to claim the default position is agnosticism, alright. That's what Tegumi has been saying all along. And even if you claim it is "atheism" as you define it, you basically defined atheism in a way that includes agnostics.

And then if you extend your argument, it also excludes actual atheists, because your default position would also include not believing that God does not exist. So any atheists who believe that God does not exist are not holding the default position.

Apparently you don't know what a dichotomy is. The whole point of a dichotomy is that if A and B form a dichotomy, then !A=B and !B=A. So yes, it actually is A or B in the case of a dichotomy.

I would argue that words are most commonly defined by their functional definition. There are plenty of words whose etymological origins don't line up that well with what we use them to mean today. A word's meaning is determined by the meaning that people generally give it. The associated meaning, not the syllabic content, is what matters.

No no no, that is what logicians and philosophers call a FALSE dichotomy.

That's similar to saying, "Either evolution is true, or the literal biblical creationism is true."

It is 100% true that both of these are diametrically opposed mutually exclusive claims. But rejecting one does not mean you accept the other. This isn't a true dichotomy. As most people will tell you a dichotomy is simply an extension of the mathematical law of identity-"A=A" It simply states "A=A and A(=/=)=/= A" or to put it in words, A does not equal not A. Which means one of the two is true, either the thing being discussed is A, or the thing being discussed is NOT A. That is a dichotomy.

Alright. Let's be clear. I am an agnostic atheist. You do believe that's possible, don't you?

I would submit to you the taxonomical naming and classification of animals so that everyone in the world can identify them. Austrolepthicus Afarensis. This is a universally accepted word with a universaly accepted definition, because of its etymology. That's why latin words are used in such a way. Atheism is a word that has been around for thousands of years, and it hasn't changed in speling in the entire time. What about when logic used words like "Ex post facto" or something like that? The only counter you can give to this that I can think of is that "Well, those words aren't being argued about." But see, then that introduces the poroblem of why atheism ought be argued about. And if you're going to continue to argue "It's not used that way by a lot of people" I would ask you to explain to me why 1/3rd of the world's population is considered "atheist" Do you think all those people define atheism the way you do?