Lack of belief...?

[King Mob]

I was reading the below article recently..
Infants and Uninformed Children are Atheists: Atheism is the Default Position; Theism Must Be Indoctrinated

The reason for reading this was because I realised 2 things recently: (1) the vast majority of people I know are not Christians, and (2) the vast majority of people that I know who are not Christians are also not atheists

What are they then?

Humans! Simply human beings living THEIR life as they see fit.

Do we have to label everything?

 

[theFijian]

I agree.

So apparently the default position is atheism because they lack belief in God, but since they also lack belief in no god the default position is also theism.

 

[theFijian]

It's simply illustrative of the fact that atheists consider religion to be a human construct. We're not born religious, we're taught it.

We're not discussing religion or religious behaviour.

You appear to have tangled yourself up in a double negative.

Which is the logical conclusion of trying to claim atheism is the default position.

 

[theFijian]

It would be nice to get some sort of consensus of what a God is, however there seems to be none. A way of testing whether it exists would be even better, but again there appears to be nothing that stands up to any kind of scrutiny. Even worse is that you are told not to test whether a God exists, but to just believe it.

Not that all that has anything to do with the current discussion, but what kind of test would you be expecting? What kind of evidence would you be expecting to see?

 

[Paradoxum]

So apparently the default position is atheism because they lack belief in God, but since they also lack belief in no god the default position is also theism.

No, because lacking a belief in no god isn't theism... is it. Theism is belief in a God. It requires a positive belief.

Atheism is a lack of a belief, and so beings with a lack of belief would be atheist.

 

[theFijian]

No, because lacking a belief in no god isn't theism... is it. Theism is belief in a God. It requires a positive belief.

No it isn't, lack of belief in no god, is a neutral position, just like lack of belief in God as you claim. If you lack belief in no God then you lack belief that there is no God. Default position and pretty self explanatory.

 

[tonybeer]

1. The default position on the "A god exists" claim is disbelief. This makes you an Atheist. If you believe it you are a Theist.

2. The default position on the "No god exists" claim is disbelief. This claim has nothing to do with the Atheism definition.

You have the following options

1. Believe, 2 Disbelieve. You are a Theist
1 Disbelieve, 2 Believe. You are an Atheist.
1 Disbelieve, 2 Disbelieve. You are an Atheist.
You cannot believe both claims.

 

[tonybeer]

Not that all that has anything to do with the current discussion, but what kind of test would you be expecting? What kind of evidence would you be expecting to see?

It has everything to do with lack of belief - Why would you believe something if you can't test whether it is true?

The evidence required and test would depend on the God claim. I'd need to know what about the God hypothesis is testable, before coming up with a test.

As an aside, a god would know how much evidence it would take to convince me, and it would also know that it had not yet met this threshold.

 

[Paradoxum]

No it isn't, lack of belief in no god, is a neutral position, just like lack of belief in God as you claim. If you lack belief in no God then you lack belief that there is no God. Default position and pretty self explanatory.

That neutral position, of lacking belief, is called atheism.

My point is that atheism isn't a belief that 'there is no God'.

 

[ebia]

Atheism definitely is the default position. Fetus'/ Babies don't believe in anything at first.

Would you describe a baby as an a-parentist, because it doesn't believe in parents?

A, there is a difference between age appropriate awareness and relationship, and being able to hold and articulate an abstract idea.
B, there is a difference between having thought about the question and saying "I don't believe...", and never having considered the question.

Atheists like to pretend all sorts of things are the default position by definition - when in fact they are manipulating the definitions to achieve it.

 

[tonybeer]

There is a difference between someone who has never heard a claim, and those that have heard a claim and felt it hasn't me the burden of proof.

However, in both cases the person doesn't believe the claim, so is labelled as such. An Atheist is anyone who is not a Theist.

There are many labels for people who are not Theists:
Atheist
Non-believer
Non-Theist
etc

People who don't use this terminology might describe themselves as Agnostics.

None of them believe the statement "A God/Gods exists" ( apart from Agnostic Theists).


Lack of belief in any claim is the default position. Most Atheists lack belief in both of the following claims:

"A God exists"
"No Gods exist"

 

[ebia]

There is a difference between someone who has never heard a claim, and those that have heard a claim and felt it hasn't me the burden of proof. However, in both cases the person doesn't believe the claim, so is labelled as such.

You can apply a label to whatever you want, but they aren't really like things.

An Atheist is anyone who is not a Theist.

An atheists is a person with a non-theist view.
It's a category error to employ it to someone not capable of a view or who hasn't considered the question just as much as it's a category error to apply it to a piece of fruit.

 

[Paradoxum]

Would you describe a baby as an a-parentist, because it doesn't believe in parents?

I don't know what babies think about parents, but fetus' could be called a-parentist. They also don't believe in chairs, Santa, or Brahma.

A, there is a difference between age appropriate awareness and relationship, and being able to hold and articulate an abstract idea.
B, there is a difference between having thought about the question and saying "I don't believe...", and never having considered the question.

Atheists like to pretend all sorts of things are the default position by definition - when in fact they are manipulating the definitions to achieve it.

It doesn't matter if a question has been considered or not. If there isn't a belief in God, then that being is an atheist. They are not-theist, a-theist.

Atheism is definitely the default position. Why do you disagree? Do you think fetus' or babies believe in China? They don't believe in God or China because they can't. That makes them atheists, because they don't believe in God.

 

[ebia]

I don't know what babies think about parents, but fetus' could be called a-parentist. They also don't believe in chairs, Santa, or Brahma. It doesn't matter if a question has been considered or not. If there isn't a belief in God, then that being is an atheist. They are not-theist, a-theist. Atheism is definitely the default position. Why do you disagree? Do you think fetus' or babies believe in China? They don't believe in God or China because they can't. That makes them atheists, because they don't believe in God.

Because it's an artifact of applying a definition beyond its reasonable domain. It's a category error. Like saying cupboards don't like the taste of chocolate, or love isn't orange. Those are grammatically correct, but meaningless.

FWIW, I think a newborn has a corresponding awareness of God equivalent to their awareness of mum. I wouldn't call either of those states belief or disbelief since they lack the characteristics necessary to meaningfully put them on that scale.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because it's an artifact of applying a definition beyond its reasonable domain. It's a category error. Like saying cupboards don't like the taste of chocolate, or love isn't orange. Those are grammatically correct, but meaningless.

Babies don't completely lack thought though.

FWIW, I think a newborn has a corresponding awareness of God equivalent to their awareness of mum. I wouldn't call either of those states belief or disbelief since they lack the characteristics necessary to meaningfully put them on that scale.

I don't have an awareness of God, so why would a newborn?

If babies lack a belief in God, then that makes them atheists.

 

[ebia]

Babies don't completely lack thought though.

They don't do the abstraction I would hear implied in belief/not belief

I don't have an awareness of God, so why would a newborn?

I do, so why wouldn't a newborn.

If babies lack a belief in God, then that makes them atheists.

Intelligence doesn't reflect light, but I wouldn't call it black; that would be a category error.

 

[Paradoxum]

They don't do the abstraction I would hear implied in belief/not belief

I'm not sure they have to, for the word to apply.

I do, so why wouldn't a newborn.

Because that would seem to claim that an awareness of God is the natural state. That should mean that I feel it too. I don't feel it, so why think humans naturally have an awareness of God?

Intelligence doesn't reflect light, but I wouldn't call it black; that would be a category error.

We understand what it would mean for a baby to have beliefs about God though. It's not an incomprehensible idea, like black intelligence.

Maybe you're right... it just makes sense to me to talk about a conscious thinking being lacking a particular belief.

 

[ebia]

I'm not sure they have to, for the word to apply.

It seems clear to me when the word is looked at closely it doesn't.

Because that would seem to claim that an awareness of God is the natural state. That should mean that I feel it too.

That does not follow.

I don't feel it, so why think humans naturally have an awareness of God?

We are just as capable of culturally training ourselves out of things as training ourselves into things.

If the Christian God exists its reasonable to assume that a newborn has as much awareness of their creator as they do of their mother.
If God doesn't exist then obviously she wouldn't.

One's conclusion follows from ones starting assumptions about God, not from the data because we simply have no data.

We understand what it would mean for a baby to have beliefs about God though. It's not an incomprehensible idea, like black intelligence. Maybe you're right... it just makes sense to me to talk about a conscious thinking being lacking a particular belief.

Belief is a level of abstraction. Newborn babies dont abstract.

 

[Paradoxum]

It seems clear to me when the word is looked at closely it doesn't.

Okay.

That does not follow.

Well why don't I feel it? Can you ask God to make his awareness known to me?

We are just as capable of culturally training ourselves out of things as training ourselves into things.

But are things we can so easily, and accidently, fall out of awareness of, real? Why isn't an awareness of God as obvious as seeing colour... something you can't easily lose by thinking the wrong way?

Such a vague awareness seems rather close to just making it up, rather than a sense like sight.

If the Christian God exists its reasonable to assume that a newborn has as much awareness of their creator as they do of their mother.
If God doesn't exist then obviously she wouldn't.

Why is that reasonable? Wouldn't it then be just as reasonable for me to have an awareness of God, like I have an awareness of the room I'm in?

Belief is a level of abstraction. Newborn babies dont abstract.

Which means they lack a belief in God.

I see your point, I'm just not sure if it makes a difference or not. I know I might be annoying that I'm not agreeing with your point. I can see how you might be right though.

 

[ebia]

Okay. Well why don't I feel it? Can you ask God to make his awareness known to me?

That's a separate question.

But are things we can so easily, and accidently, fall out of awareness of, real? Why isn't an awareness of God as obvious as seeing colour...

Seeing colour is only obvious if you haven't been blinded.
I don't see why a real awareness can't be lost.
A child raised in a disfunctional family can lose their awareness of love and affection.
Our school systems train the creativity out of children on mass very efficiently.