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

To me, there is one single solution for this problem:
Believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, while respecting each other's belief.
Freedom to choose faith is one of the basic human right, and we can't force our ideals to anyone for any reason.
You don't want to believe in God? Fine by me. Believe in God? Fine by me either.

Oh, on the note to the original topic.

The default position on the subject would be nothing. As in having no preference for any side of the issue. Beliefs are not an innate part of people and only develop with gained knowledge. Until you are introduced to the position you have no beliefs meaning the default is none.

This is different than any of the positions mentioned as each one is declaring something.

So again, OP is still wrong and is still just trying to push his misguided ideals onto others as "knowledge".

You didn't disagree with me at all, yet you concluded the post with, "So again, the OP is still wrong."

How about DISAGREEING with me when you claim I'm wrong? It would make more sense.

I did disagree with you.

Shh! You're talking sense and that is antithetical to this thread.

No you didn't. You said "The default position would be nothing, as in having no preference any side on the issue." Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying. Consistently, every time. So no, you didn't disagree with me.

That's not what you're saying.

What you're saying is the default position is to reject everything. Rejection is a form of action and showing preference with a hint of knowledge.

This is quite different than what I said.

So yeah, still disagreeing with you. If you want to change your point to a better one that's quite alright. But don't act like it was your original point and try and make it like I'm agreeing with you. It's pitiful.

It's easy to tell that you're saying a different point than that because you're trying to define atheism as the default position. That would not coincide with what I'm saying which means they are two different points.

I beg to differ. And it's really nice how you can simply tell me what it is that I'm saying, as if I don't have the right to say what it is I mean, and your interpretation matters more than what I feel my mesage is. Awesome.



No, rejection is what happens when one isn't convinced a claim is correct. If I'm not convinced that anyone's correct, I reject their claims as being sufficiently believable, and I'm still in the default position. Play semantics wit hthe words "disbelieve" "reject" or "Unconvinced" all you want, but the exact same principal is still in play.



The fact is, you are agreeing with me, as I've said from the OP on, the default position is not accepting EITHER claim, when two truth claims are made, as being true. That IS what you're saying, that IS what I'm saying. The problem is, you were confused with how I used the default position point before, so I CAN'T be right, because to you, you thought the default position meant I was right, when I didn't say that at all.

You're not actually seeing what I'm saying, you're operating from a bias that I'm just some asshole with a differing view than you, so what you believe to be correct ISN'T what I believe to be correct, due to de facto standards you've set for reading any post I make.



...As if what he's saying disagrees with anything that's been discussed in the thread whatsoever.

God you're dumb.

I know what you're trying to say. It's not actually what you're saying because you are misguided about what certain words mean and you are desperately twisting definitions of others to try and make a stretched point but I get what you're trying to say.

And I know what you think I'm saying and why you think it's the same thing.

But it's not kid.

When you first begin asking a question about something, you also first start to make a stance on it. Accepting neither claim just means you made the distinction to do so, that is different than not having a stance.

But you can only have no stance as long as you don't have knowledge about the subject and do not ask the question. As soon as you do you take some sort of stance and it is no longer nothing.

Oh? So you're the one that truly understands what the words employed mean, and I'm the one who's just plain wrong. I swear, the arrogance you have is just plain astounding. Explain why your definitions are correct, and why mine are wrong. Oh wait, you can't do that, because there's no objective right or wrong way to define words.



Kid? Ok then, please enlighten me pops.



Wrong from the get go. Good job. Asking a question about something isn't a stance.



So you think people decide what they believe. Interesting. Well, horrible semantics arguments aside, can you explain to me the difference between someone who doesn't have a position on claims, and one that's simply unconvinced by claims? Neither one are giving a position, and both believe basically the same thing, which is that they don't know, or have any inclination towards either side, of who is right.



That's such a nonsensical statement, "As soon as you have knowledge of a subject, you have a stance on it" That's utter bs.

I automatically disbelieve all things until they're demonstrated to be true, as does everyone, because that is the default. We don't assume anything to be true until it's demonstrated to be, until then, we disbelieve. People who wee around before religion were atheists, because they disbelieved.

Now think about what YOU said for a moment, that one takes a stance on something the moment they have knowledge on it, and you CAN'T have a stance on something, until you have knowledge on it, and tel me if that still holds true in this sentence:

"You can't disbelieve in English Speaking planets unless you already have some knowledge about English Speaking Planets"

And besides that, what if the person isn't asking the question, but is BEING asked the question? You've presupposed the person in question is the one asking, "Do I believe in god?" What if someone else comes over to you and asked, "Do you believe in god?" Are you literally sitting there saying that as soon as someone has the bad luck to get asked a question, they CANNOT have a position that isn't default? That they MUISt take a stance on the question? I'm sorry, but everyone I've been talking with in this topic would disagree with you, I would disagree with you, and basic logic disagrees with you.

There must necessarily be a position that one has by default when asked a question, or presented with claims. That position is disbelief until sufficient demonstration has been given, because the oppoosite is impossible, and anywhere in between is a matter of special pleading.

I'm just going to pinch my nose and shake my head at you because it's obvious you do not have critical thinking skills needed to discuss anything.

In other words, you have no actual rebuttal, and will simply be compliant to turn up your nose and still think you're in some way superior to me intelectually because...well...you say so.

And you're calling me a kid. Tsk tsk, if this is the maturity level of an adult you certainly don't do the rest of society any justice.

If I bothered to express a more serious response to someone who can't even analyze anything and instead just regurgitates what he's heard it'll just be a pointless effort.

I can already see that you can't process information correctly because you are constantly missing crucial points and misunderstanding terms and ideas.

That's fine, your constant denial of agreeing with me despite your semantic word games shows you're not only intentionally missing the point, but intentionally being obtuse and argumentative for the purpose of being argumentative. But don't condescendingly call me 'kid' in the process, as it just shows your extravagant arrogance.

The fact that you honestly think I agreed with you is a big reason I'm telling you fail at critical thinking.

You cannot process simple information and trying to say anything to you would be a hapless adventure because you do not retain the facilities to properly understand what it is being said to you and instead you are only capable of trying to push them into categories you barely understand even when they do not fit into them.

You seem to be only at the level of concrete thinking. If that. Which is kind of a sad thought because you should have already developed beyond that stage.

You also seem like the type that would worship Freud as a prime example as how to behave as thinker.

Thje fact that you can't tell how monumentally arrogant that statement is, tells me far more about you than you know.



Punctuation motherfucker, use it! But seriously, it's faculties, not facilities, and one doesn't retain faculties to understand, one retains information by using one's faculties. Seriously, if youre going to be an arrogant ass that thinks he knows more than me, you might want to be...I don't know...coherent? I'm not going to be told I don't have the ability to retain information by someone who would fail high school English.



...I don't worship...anyone...so good job trying to psychoanalyze me with a surprisingly ironic statement, given the conclusion.

Sorry, but not once in our entire back and forth in any of our conversations have you given a valid and sound, coherent disagreement to anything I've ever said, yet when I point out your errors, instead of expounding on why they're not errors, or why I'm wrong, you simply TELL me I'm wrong, and add more silly insults to make yourself feel like you're doing some sort of...ownage, I suppose?

My guess, you have no ability to argue with people without it devolving into a shouting match. I can imagine you arguing with your 5 year old on why you won't buy them a large chocolate shake at McDonalds.

wow, this thread was obnoxious to read

Biglundi, please answer this very simple question:

If you reject that God exists, and you reject that God does not exist, what do you believe about God?

Two things kid.

1. I meant facilities. If I wanted to say faculties I would have used it.

2. Are you really trying to give me a grammar lesson when you don't use ellipses properly?

I've answered this question before. I'm simply unconvinced God exists, and I have no concrete level of certainty that god does not exist.

This is of course assuming the Judeo-Christian idea of God. I certainly cannot say this for ALL defined gods, as that would be silly to attempt.

I dunno, are you going to learn to use a colon?

Honestly, you're better off stopping now. The point of what I wrote is that you're writing as if you're in some way intellectually superior to me, and ironically displayed a complete inability to type coherently in the post where you were attempting to do just that.

Unlike you, I hold no illusions that I am some sort of intellectual heavyweight. Honestly thoughm, do you feel one's shortcomings(and no, this isn't an admission that you've pointed any out on me) in one area in any way diminishes their ability to explain another area? You constantly repeat yourself, "You lack critical thinking skills!" or something to that effect, and you offer no actual content other than personal attacks on me. Is it because...say...perhaps you lack the ability to PRODUCE any actual content to your posts beyond ad hom attacks?