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

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?

Just because you are blind and do not see the color red does not mean that color red does not exist. It only means you cannot see it.

It is not my fault that you do not have the ability to see the color red and I realize that all efforts to explain the color red will be fruitless because you are blind and lack the necessary equipment to process it.

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.

Theism and atheism is what's known as a True Dichotomy. You're either one or the other

You're contradicting what you said.



when you answered my question, you said you're unconvinced/uncertain that God exists, and you're unconvinced/uncertain that God does not exist. obviously, your not "either one or the other".

also, do you agree with what I quoted from "the unknown"?

Your arguement would make so much more sense if you didn't add the part about "rejecting that God does not exist". If you just said "if you reject that God exists, you're an atheist", most of us would probably understand that.

I will add this though: If you are uncertain about your belief in God, you are uncertain about being an atheist.

then the default position is...to reject BOTH of these claims.

Besides, using the word 'reject' is not only overly strong, but completely unnecessary. Many people take the word reject to be something larger than it is, and while I accept that rejecting the claim that god exists matches atheism, for most people I prefer the terms "remain unconvinced".

(from your original post)


you're the one who first used the word "reject".

Besides, using the word 'reject' is not only overly strong, but completely unnecessary. Many people take the word reject to be something larger than it is, and while I accept that rejecting the claim that god exists matches atheism, for most people I prefer the terms "remain unconvinced".

please be consistent with your word usage. If you're going to be inconsistent, at least admit it

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."

In this case the default position is a superposition of both states, belief and disbelief. Like Schrodinger's cat which can be dead and alive at the same time, you can be in both states and that is not against the logic of nature. It is only by finding out the truth (or opening the box in the cat's case) that forces the two superposed states to collapse into a single identity.

I think you're closer to agnosticism than atheism. From wiki, "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God." It doesn't fit exactly because of the knowing/unknowing issue is not part of this stance so you'll just have to find/make up some other term. How about Schrodinger Agnostic?

As far as "Schroedinger's Cat" That's actually a position of being, not a position of belief of a subject. These are two different things.

Disbelief in the claim that there is a god, and disbelief in the claimm that there is no god, is a position of A-theism, or rather, "Non theism." or rather "Not having the belief in a god."

The conclusion I've got is you don't believe or not sure whether God exist or not.
So,let me give you an anology.
I slapped you on the face.
Does it painful?
If it's hurt, then tell me
where is the pain?
Can you show it to me?
Don't show me the bruise.It's just the effect of being slapped.
But the result is... you're in pain.
And you sure even you cannot see the pain,
you feel it?
If you cannot show to me that pain exist
in its physical form but you sure that there is pain.
Same goes here.
God exist.But you need to believe and sure.
Just like you believe and sure in pain.

To the guy aqbove you, agnostic theists arent bs, they are theists, people who believe in a god, but acknowledge that they don't know at all whether or not the od exists.

Default Position is Agnostic (I'm not sure Agnostic is the right term though).
Not being sure whether God does or doesn't exist, but leaves room for the possibility of it's existence.

Unless I'm understanding "Default" as "Middle" position.

Agnostics believe that the truth of god is unknowable. That is not a default position because it assumes it is unknowable without evidence.

For the last time, it doesn't matter what you call the default position, it's definition is what is important and that is, "_____ is a position that does not hold the existence of a deity to be either true or false until sufficient evidence is given."