Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Atheism/Theism default positon?

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position since no brain is needed and even newborns, rocks and trees are Atheists says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.
http://www.debate.org...

They usually have no brain, but they have a higher IQ.
Now that is funny, I don"t care who you are.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 3:14:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are three positions. Those who believe its impossible for a God to exist, those who believe its impossible for us to exist without God and those who believe its possible for God to exist. These beliefs are based on our subjective views on what God is. So if you give God attributes that make it impossible for him to exist you are choosing to make God impossible to exist. Likewise if you give life improbable odds of existing without God you make it impossible for God not to exist. The fact is there is no proof either way and until such time as proof presents itself subjectively and irrefutably, we should each keep an open mind and remain Agnostics. This way we can view any proof objectively and without bias.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 4:32:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

So... then beyond ignorance, what exactly is the reason for a belief in a deity? An "age of reason" should surely have a reason, and I genuinely hope that reason is not that "well.... it had to come from some where...."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 4:51:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fear of death. Inability to accept a purposeless life. Perhaps a tangible sense that perceives God. Misunderstanding such a sense, if it exists. You pick.

At 5/8/2015 4:32:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.


So... then beyond ignorance, what exactly is the reason for a belief in a deity? An "age of reason" should surely have a reason, and I genuinely hope that reason is not that "well.... it had to come from some where...."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 5:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:51:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Fear of death. Inability to accept a purposeless life. Perhaps a tangible sense that perceives God. Misunderstanding such a sense, if it exists. You pick.

The first two are self imposed restraints, which then lead to a psychological construct. Essentially all we will have done is demonstrate that the mind requires a soothing technique, not a deity, and that those constraints were the prompt for a need for a deity, not reasoning TO the belief that a deity exists.

The second two.... well, you got me there, but again "reasoning" sort of requires a system in which a logical follow will occur when repeated. One person feeling God and another not, or another person feeling some other deity, or another person feeling the breath of the cosmos, and another person feeling light headed from some 'Tussin... it all sounds rather arbitrary rather than reasonable.


At 5/8/2015 4:32:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.


So... then beyond ignorance, what exactly is the reason for a belief in a deity? An "age of reason" should surely have a reason, and I genuinely hope that reason is not that "well.... it had to come from some where...."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 5:20:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 4:32:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.


So... then beyond ignorance, what exactly is the reason for a belief in a deity? An "age of reason" should surely have a reason, and I genuinely hope that reason is not that "well.... it had to come from some where...."

Well, too bad Albert E. is no longer with us, he could benefit from your superior knowledge.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 5:23:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree. that's why my belief is based on exactly that, it has to come from somewhere. Either a creator or random luck. I don't believe in luck.

At 5/8/2015 5:06:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/8/2015 4:51:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
Fear of death. Inability to accept a purposeless life. Perhaps a tangible sense that perceives God. Misunderstanding such a sense, if it exists. You pick.

The first two are self imposed restraints, which then lead to a psychological construct. Essentially all we will have done is demonstrate that the mind requires a soothing technique, not a deity, and that those constraints were the prompt for a need for a deity, not reasoning TO the belief that a deity exists.

The second two.... well, you got me there, but again "reasoning" sort of requires a system in which a logical follow will occur when repeated. One person feeling God and another not, or another person feeling some other deity, or another person feeling the breath of the cosmos, and another person feeling light headed from some 'Tussin... it all sounds rather arbitrary rather than reasonable.


At 5/8/2015 4:32:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.


So... then beyond ignorance, what exactly is the reason for a belief in a deity? An "age of reason" should surely have a reason, and I genuinely hope that reason is not that "well.... it had to come from some where...."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

Misstatement. Non-sentient life does not think, consider, or perform other cognitive function. It can neither believe nor disbelieve. Atheism is the default position because it carries no assertions of existence and has no philosophical underpinnings. A child raised free of the indoctrination into any theistic belief system will be an atheist. When the child had matured and can reason for him or herself is when an actual, reasoned decision can be made. This is hampered by the insistence by religious groups on indoctrinating children into their system before children can critically examine what they are told. This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. They have been given no real choice.

~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position since no brain is needed and even newborns, rocks and trees are Atheists says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.
http://www.debate.org...

They usually have no brain, but they have a higher IQ.
Now that is funny, I don"t care who you are.

No, it's foolish and inane.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 5:20:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

Misstatement. Non-sentient life does not think, consider, or perform other cognitive :function. It can neither believe nor disbelieve.

As should be obvious from my usage I use the definition most favored by Atheists for this position. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).
This is common across the web.
Any existence that lacks belief in god, is Atheistic.

Here is the way an atheist puts it:
"Rocks don't believe in god. Ergo, they are atheist. Notice I'm using it as an adjective here and not the noun "atheists". Babies, kittens and meatballs are also atheists.
Atheism is a descriptor. It describes the state of a belief, in this case the lack of a belief in god. Now, rocks aren't strong atheists. As I understand the term, "strong atheism" requires an active belief. So I guess rocks et. al. would be weak atheists. But they're still atheists.
The only thing you need to be an atheist is a lack of belief in god. That's it."

So, what is your definition?

Atheism is the default position because it carries no assertions of existence and has no philosophical underpinnings. A child raised free of the indoctrination into any theistic belief system will be an atheist.
When the child had matured and can reason for him or herself is when an actual, reasoned decision can be made. This is hampered by the insistence by religious groups on indoctrinating children into their system before children can critically examine what they are told. This is why 85% of the youth of America, according :to :your statistics, become theistic and religious. They have been given no real choice.

Sports fanatic parents have sports fanatic children.
Couch potato parents have couch potato children.
Professional ivy league parents have professional ivy league children.
That dose not mean they were all indoctrinated, except with some very lax meaning of the word.
I have friends who were raised by agnostic parents, and are now Fundamentalist Christians.
I have friends who were raised strict Catholic, and are now agnostic, atheists, and 'You don't have to go to church to go to heaven' Christians.

My reference did not say 85% are Theistic and religious.
Many of the Theists I know never go to church, except weddings and funerals, never read the bible, do not know the OT from the NT. All they know is they believe in god, and they think if they do good things they will go to heaven.
Most Theists are NOT religious.

I agree in a general way people grow up like their parents, but there are many, many exceptions.

Someone who has considered the issue and has a belief in no-god, makes an assertion of no-god, and has philosophical beliefs about this as part of their belief system.

As far as I know anthropologists have never encountered a culture anywhere that did not have a god belief.
Every culture since the beginning of recorded history has come up with the idea of god. And yet, somehow, this is not the default position of mankind.
It really defies logic. That is not an argument there really is a god. That is an argument that left to themselves, humans will have a belief in god, regardless of indoctrination influences.


~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position since no brain is needed and even newborns, rocks and trees are Atheists says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.
http://www.debate.org...

They usually have no brain, but they have a higher IQ.
Now that is funny, I don"t care who you are.

No, it's foolish and inane.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Speculation. A child growing up with no preconceived ideas of god and no indoctrination of god won't believe in god?
Then explain where religion came from? It developed seprately in all parts of the globe. Every nation, every culture, every race has a religion. Even athiests believe in something. Their god is called logic. So your statement is flawed fundimentally. Likewise your beliefs.

At 5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

Misstatement. Non-sentient life does not think, consider, or perform other cognitive function. It can neither believe nor disbelieve. Atheism is the default position because it carries no assertions of existence and has no philosophical underpinnings. A child raised free of the indoctrination into any theistic belief system will be an atheist. When the child had matured and can reason for him or herself is when an actual, reasoned decision can be made. This is hampered by the insistence by religious groups on indoctrinating children into their system before children can critically examine what they are told. This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. They have been given no real choice.

~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position since no brain is needed and even newborns, rocks and trees are Atheists says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.
http://www.debate.org...

They usually have no brain, but they have a higher IQ.
Now that is funny, I don"t care who you are.

No, it's foolish and inane.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:43:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 5:20:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

Misstatement. Non-sentient life does not think, consider, or perform other cognitive :function. It can neither believe nor disbelieve.

As should be obvious from my usage I use the definition most favored by Atheists for this position. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).
This is common across the web.
Any existence that lacks belief in god, is Atheistic.

To equate lack of belief with lack of consciousness is, again, foolish and inane.

Here is the way an atheist puts it:
"Rocks don't believe in god. Ergo, they are atheist. Notice I'm using it as an adjective here and not the noun "atheists". Babies, kittens and meatballs are also atheists.
Atheism is a descriptor. It describes the state of a belief, in this case the lack of a belief in god. Now, rocks aren't strong atheists. As I understand the term, "strong atheism" requires an active belief. So I guess rocks et. al. would be weak atheists. But they're still atheists.
The only thing you need to be an atheist is a lack of belief in god. That's it."

So, what is your definition?

No argument with your definition, just the way you applied it.


Atheism is the default position because it carries no assertions of existence and has no philosophical underpinnings. A child raised free of the indoctrination into any theistic belief system will be an atheist.
When the child had matured and can reason for him or herself is when an actual, reasoned decision can be made. This is hampered by the insistence by religious groups on indoctrinating children into their system before children can critically examine what they are told. This is why 85% of the youth of America, according :to :your statistics, become theistic and religious. They have been given no real choice.

Sports fanatic parents have sports fanatic children.
Couch potato parents have couch potato children.
Professional ivy league parents have professional ivy league children.
That dose not mean they were all indoctrinated, except with some very lax meaning of the word.

When they are forced to go to religious ceremonies and training from the time before they can even speak, that religion surrounds them every day and their most influential authority figures tell them their religion is true no matter what anyone else says, that's indoctrination. I'm not sure if it's true but I have heard that it is common among the Catholic church to say 'Give us a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be ours for the rest.' Childhood indoctrination is how you build a loyal following. Just ask Mao and Hitler.

I have friends who were raised by agnostic parents, and are now Fundamentalist Christians.

No rule is without exception.

I have friends who were raised strict Catholic, and are now agnostic, atheists, and 'You don't have to go to church to go to heaven' Christians.

My reference did not say 85% are Theistic and religious.
Many of the Theists I know never go to church, except weddings and funerals, never read the bible, do not know the OT from the NT. All they know is they believe in god, and they think if they do good things they will go to heaven.
Most Theists are NOT religious.

Unproven assertion. Show me where you got those numbers, please?

I agree in a general way people grow up like their parents, but there are many, many exceptions.

Someone who has considered the issue and has a belief in no-god, makes an assertion of no-god, and has philosophical beliefs about this as part of their belief system.

No, they simply reject the positive assertion that there is a god. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It's a conclusion based on available evidence or, in this case, the lack thereof. It's not a philosophy.

As far as I know anthropologists have never encountered a culture anywhere that did not have a god belief.

And they are all different, most were polytheistic, and all have primitive origins conceived well before any real knowledge of how the world worked was common. Belief in the supernatural is common among uneducated, primitive societies and it has managed to survive because people are indoctrinated into it during childhood.

Every culture since the beginning of recorded history has come up with the idea of god. And yet, somehow, this is not the default position of mankind.

It's not the default position of a human being raised without the need to find and explanation for things like lightning, wind, other natural events, etc. Religion is a primitive reaction to fear of the unknown and an attempt to control what is really uncontrollable.

It really defies logic. That is not an argument there really is a god. That is an argument that left to themselves, humans will have a belief in god, regardless of indoctrination influences.

Not if they have sufficient knowledge of the way the world works, as evidenced by the lower religiosity occurring and education becomes more common.




~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.

Here's your "85%" that I used in my earlier reply.

What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain

Your position, not mine.

, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.

Why don't you read the literature? You'll find that the evidence supports the assertion.

http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:47:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:23:26 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Speculation. A child growing up with no preconceived ideas of god and no indoctrination of god won't believe in god?
Then explain where religion came from? It developed seprately in all parts of the globe. Every nation, every culture, every race has a religion. Even athiests believe in something. Their god is called logic. So your statement is flawed fundimentally. Likewise your beliefs.

Religion is a reaction to the primitive fear of the unknown and attempts to control what was fearsome and inherently uncontrollable, such as lightning and solar eclipses. It was a way to explain things that they could not understand and did not have the means to investigate properly. Let a child be raised in a technologically advanced civilization with a high level of education and knowledge of the way the world works and there will be no need for religion or any other fear-induced belief system. The most secular nations in the world have the lowest crime rates and the lowest per capita population in prison. In contrast the highly religious US has one of the highest per capita prison populations. Does that not at least make you wonder?

At 5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

Misstatement. Non-sentient life does not think, consider, or perform other cognitive function. It can neither believe nor disbelieve. Atheism is the default position because it carries no assertions of existence and has no philosophical underpinnings. A child raised free of the indoctrination into any theistic belief system will be an atheist. When the child had matured and can reason for him or herself is when an actual, reasoned decision can be made. This is hampered by the insistence by religious groups on indoctrinating children into their system before children can critically examine what they are told. This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. They have been given no real choice.

~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.
What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position since no brain is needed and even newborns, rocks and trees are Atheists says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.
http://www.debate.org...

They usually have no brain, but they have a higher IQ.
Now that is funny, I don"t care who you are.

No, it's foolish and inane.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 9:50:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
He can't. He's one of the 85% who already decided everything they believe is true. So any evidence to the contrary is wrong.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 7:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:43:20 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/8/2015 5:20:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the Atheism/Theism Default position?
There are at least two perspectives on what the default position is, one from the Theistic side, and one from the Atheistic side.
There may be others.

Those who say the default positon is Atheism, develop their position like this:
Starting with nothing, there is Atheism.
Newborns, have no concern with god, so are Atheists.
Cats and dogs are, by definition, Atheists.
Worms and insects are also Atheists, as are trees, flowers, rocks, and sand.

Any existence, sentient or not, life or otherwise, that has no firm belief in god, represents Atheism.

Misstatement. Non-sentient life does not think, consider, or perform other cognitive :function. It can neither believe nor disbelieve.

As should be obvious from my usage I use the definition most favored by Atheists for this position. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).
This is common across the web.
Any existence that lacks belief in god, is Atheistic.

To equate lack of belief with lack of consciousness is, again, foolish and inane.

I have no idea where you think this is implied in my post.
I never said that, do not believe that.

Here is the way an atheist puts it:
"Rocks don't believe in god. Ergo, they are atheist. Notice I'm using it as an adjective here and not the noun "atheists". Babies, kittens and meatballs are also atheists.
Atheism is a descriptor. It describes the state of a belief, in this case the lack of a belief in god. Now, rocks aren't strong atheists. As I understand the term, "strong atheism" requires an active belief. So I guess rocks et. al. would be weak atheists. But they're still atheists.
The only thing you need to be an atheist is a lack of belief in god. That's it."

So, what is your definition?

No argument with your definition, just the way you applied it.

I did not apply it.
I quoted an Atheist, and nothing unusual about his words.
I do not agree with their position, but I present it, as they present it. I quote an Atheist, but you do not get it.

Atheism is the default position because it carries no assertions of existence and has no philosophical underpinnings. A child raised free of the indoctrination into any theistic belief system will be an atheist.
When the child had matured and can reason for him or herself is when an actual, reasoned decision can be made. This is hampered by the insistence by religious groups on indoctrinating children into their system before children can critically examine what they are told. This is why 85% of the youth of America, according :to :your statistics, become theistic and religious. They have been given no real choice.

Sports fanatic parents have sports fanatic children.
Couch potato parents have couch potato children.
Professional ivy league parents have professional ivy league children.
That dose not mean they were all indoctrinated, except with some very lax meaning of the word.

When they are forced to go to religious ceremonies and training from the time before they can even speak, that religion surrounds them every day and their most influential authority figures tell them their religion is true no matter what anyone else says, that's indoctrination. I'm not sure if it's true but I have heard that it is common among the Catholic church to say 'Give us a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be ours for the rest.' Childhood indoctrination is how you build a loyal following. Just ask Mao and Hitler.

I have friends who were raised by agnostic parents, and are now Fundamentalist Christians.

No rule is without exception.

Exception?
Not even close.

I have friends who were raised strict Catholic, and are now agnostic, atheists, and 'You don't have to go to church to go to heaven' Christians.

My reference did not say 85% are Theistic and religious.
Many of the Theists I know never go to church, except weddings and funerals, never read the bible, do not know the OT from the NT. All they know is they believe in god, and they think if they do good things they will go to heaven.
Most Theists are NOT religious.

Unproven assertion. Show me where you got those numbers, please?

Why don't you read the literature? You'll find that the evidence supports the assertion.
Sound familiar?

How about this:
In the UK- A 2014 YouGov poll found that 77% of the population did not consider themselves to be religious, including the 40% who said they were not religious at all.
https://humanism.org.uk...

Although church involvement was once a cornerstone of American life, U.S. adults today are evenly divided on the importance of attending church. While half (49%) say it is "somewhat" or "very" important, the other 51% say it is "not too" or "not at all" important.
https://www.barna.org...

for an unknowable statistic, I think that is pretty good evidence to support my claims.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 7:09:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/11/2015 9:43:20 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/8/2015 5:20:54 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/8/2015 9:42:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/6/2015 2:13:04 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I agree in a general way people grow up like their parents, but there are many, many exceptions.

Someone who has considered the issue and has a belief in no-god, makes an assertion of no-god, and has philosophical beliefs about this as part of their belief system.

No, they simply reject the positive assertion that there is a god. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It's a conclusion based on available evidence or, in this case, the lack thereof. It's not a philosophy.

If Atheism is a 'lack of belief' - then any existence that lack belief in god is atheistic, just as Atheists claim.
Many Atheists make the positive claim - 'I believe in no-god'. Firm belief.

As far as I know anthropologists have never encountered a culture anywhere that did not have a god belief.

And they are all different, most were polytheistic, and all have primitive origins conceived well before any real knowledge of how the world worked was common. Belief in the supernatural is common among uneducated, primitive societies and it has managed to survive because people are indoctrinated into it during childhood.

All societies have had a belief in god, and yet you think Atheism is a default position.
Your red herring means nothing. The discussion is Theism vs Atheism.
A global minority of less than 15%, yet you think a lack of belief in god is default.
If it dwindles to less than 1%, you would still claim it is the default position.
If there were only one Atheist on the face of the earth, your position would be that is the default position. That is just totally irrational.

Every culture since the beginning of recorded history has come up with the idea of god. And yet, somehow, this is not the default position of mankind.

It's not the default position of a human being raised without the need to find and explanation for things like lightning, wind, other natural events, etc. Religion is a primitive reaction to fear of the unknown and an attempt to control what is really uncontrollable.

Please give evidence of one cultural or society that is Atheistic - today.
Or, if you prefer, make your claim that all cultures and societies today are primitive.
Your claims do not have any evidence in today's world. It is what we call a 'cheap shot'.
Religions have been since before recorded history, that means they started in primitive cultures, so we are to disregard such beliefs as, not modern.
Do you say the same for all other endeavors that started I prehistoric societies - like art?

It really defies logic. That is not an argument there really is a god. That is an argument that left to themselves, humans will have a belief in god, regardless of indoctrination influences.

Not if they have sufficient knowledge of the way the world works, as evidenced by the lower religiosity occurring and education becomes more common.

Yea, except 85% of the world remains Theistic.
Cell phones, internet, and still Theistic-.
Do you honestly think it will be any different in 500 years? I have never heard that suggested.



~

Those who say the default position is Theism, develop their position like this:
Individuals who have a firm belief in god, or in no-god, generally have this as a core part of their belief system, an axiom. An axiom is self evidently true to the holder, and needs no justification.

Individuals who do not have a firm belief in god or no-god, are generally not Theists, or Atheists (they can be if they want themselves to be considered one or the other).
They will often be Agnostics, if they have attained the age of reason.

Since by this usage Theism and Atheism require an opinion, infants would be "no opinion", although some people would say that babies who have been baptized or dedicated are Christians and Theists in the eyes of god, even if not in the opinion of mankind.
They have taken the first step on their path to god, and are under the care and protection of their parents, who have made a promise to god to raise them as Christians. Other religions have similar beliefs.

So, by the time human minds have reached the age of reason, what have most of them chosen, no-god, or god?
85% have chosen the god position.

Here's your "85%" that I used in my earlier reply.

We call this a leap of faith.
I say 85% have a belief in god, you say "This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. "
God and religion are two separate issues.
You equate them, and to equate belief in god with a religious nature is, foolish and inane.

What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain

Your position, not mine.

Not my position, this a common Atheist position, and I recount it, as their position.

, and rocks and trees are Atheists as well as infants, you may believe that is the default position.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.

Why don't you read the literature? You'll find that the evidence supports the assertion.
;
I have read the literature.
No beliefs required to be a part of Atheism.
Dogs are Atheistic, and have a low IQ.


Religion is a reaction to the primitive fear of the unknown and attempts to control what was fearsome and inherently uncontrollable, such as lightning and solar eclipses. It was a way to explain things that they could not understand and did not have the means to investigate properly. Let a child be raised in a technologically advanced civilization with a high level of education and knowledge of the way the world works and there will be no need for religion or any other fear-induced belief system. The most secular nations in the world have the lowest crime rates and the lowest per capita population in prison. In contrast the highly religious US has one of :the highest per capita prison populations. Does that not at least make you wonder?

Wonder what?
No need to wonder.
Albert Einstein was no member of a primitive society.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages."~~~ Albert Einstein, interview with George Sylvester Viereck shortly after Einstein turned age 50. Per Time Magizine
http://www.time.com...

He had strong objections to being associated as having Atheistic beliefs.
Does that not at least make you wonder?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Someone who has considered the issue and has a belief in no-god, makes an assertion of no-god, and has philosophical beliefs about this as part of their belief system.

If Atheism is a 'lack of belief' - then any existence that lack belief in god is atheistic, just as Atheists claim.
Many Atheists make the positive claim - 'I believe in no-god'. Firm belief.

One cannot make 'not believe' mean 'believe in something'. It's a ploy on the part of religious theists to somehow equate atheism with a religion, which it is not.

As far as I know anthropologists have never encountered a culture anywhere that did not have a god belief.

And as noted, there were as many different god beliefs as there are ancient cultures. Do you equate the polytheistic systems of the Babylonians, the Norse, the Egyptians, and the Greek and Roman cultures to the Christian system?

And they are all different, most were polytheistic, and all have primitive origins conceived well before any real knowledge of how the world worked was common. Belief in the supernatural is common among uneducated, primitive societies and it has managed to survive because people are indoctrinated into it during childhood.

Every culture since the beginning of recorded history has come up with the idea of god. And yet, somehow, this is not the default position of mankind.

It's not the default position of a human being raised without the need to find and explanation for things like lightning, wind, other natural events, etc. Religion is a primitive reaction to fear of the unknown and an attempt to control what is really uncontrollable.

Please give evidence of one cultural or society that is Atheistic - today.

I can't, although Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are among the most secular and have the lowest crime rates among the developed countries. Oh, just because a belief is wide spread does not make it true. Everyone once believed the world to be flat and the stars just lanterns fixed to the dome of the sky.

Or, if you prefer, make your claim that all cultures and societies today are primitive.

I said religion began with primitive societies. They have become self-sustaining organizations that live by taking money from believers and working hard to insure a steady stream of believers. Show me a church that doesn't take offerings?

Your claims do not have any evidence in today's world. It is what we call a 'cheap shot'.

Religions have been since before recorded history, that means they started in primitive cultures, so we are to disregard such beliefs as, not modern.

Do you say the same for all other endeavors that started I prehistoric societies - like art?

Art began as a means to record history, after oral traditions and before writing.

It really defies logic. That is not an argument there really is a god. That is an argument that left to themselves, humans will have a belief in god, regardless of indoctrination influences.

Again, not if the humans have the kind of knowledge available today. Religion is to society what a thrown rock is to a modern Army. A useless predecessor to what exists now.

Not if they have sufficient knowledge of the way the world works, as evidenced by the lower religiosity occurring and education becomes more common.

Yea, except 85% of the world remains Theistic.

And that number is falling in the US among other developed countries. It's the so-called third world for the most part where the religious still believe in witches, black magic, curses and such things and they cut the heads off of so-called witches and execute homosexuals. Being Theistic is nothing to brag about.

I hope so. I believe knowledge will spread and the useless, antiquated religious hierarchies will fall into oblivion, a historical oddity noted and then forgotten.



~

85% have chosen the god position.

Here's your "85%" that I used in my earlier reply.

We call this a leap of faith.
I say 85% have a belief in god, you say "This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. "

God and religion are two separate issues.

Uh, no, since Religion by definition requires a god and most of the religion in this country, at least, claims to be speaking the word of God.

You equate them, and to equate belief in god with a religious nature is, foolish and inane.

See above.

What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.

~ ~ ~

So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain

Your position, not mine.

Not my position, this a common Atheist position, and I recount it, as their position.

You intentionally misstate the position in order to make your point seem more valid. That's a tactic of both deceit and fear.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.

Why don't you read the literature? You'll find that the evidence supports the assertion.
;
I have read the literature.
No beliefs required to be a part of Atheism.
Dogs are Atheistic, and have a low IQ.

Yet another straw man, intentionally misstating facts.

Religion is a reaction to the primitive fear of the unknown and attempts to control what was fearsome and inherently uncontrollable, such as lightning and solar eclipses. It was a way to explain things that they could not understand and did not have the means to investigate properly. Let a child be raised in a technologically advanced civilization with a high level of education and knowledge of the way the world works and there will be no need for religion or any other fear-induced belief system. The most secular nations in the world have the lowest crime rates and the lowest per capita population in prison. In contrast the highly religious US has one of :the highest per capita prison populations. Does that not at least make you wonder?

Wonder what?
No need to wonder.
Albert Einstein was no member of a primitive society.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages."~~~ Albert Einstein, interview with George Sylvester Viereck shortly after Einstein turned age 50. Per Time Magizine
http://www.time.com...

He had strong objections to being associated as having Atheistic beliefs.
Does that not at least make you wonder?

No, it just means he was honest enough to say 'I don't know'. That's something theism and religion don't have, the humility and honesty to admit they don't know, replacing that with blind assertions originating with primitive people, mostly gathered, arranged, and redacted to support their particular belief system.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:55:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
Someone who has considered the issue and has a belief in no-god, makes an assertion of no-god, and has philosophical beliefs about this as part of their belief system.

If Atheism is a 'lack of belief' - then any existence that lack belief in god is atheistic, just as Atheists claim.
Many Atheists make the positive claim - 'I believe in no-god'. Firm belief.

One cannot make 'not believe' mean 'believe in something'. It's a ploy on the part of religious theists to somehow equate atheism with a religion, which it is not.

Ridicules.
I can have the belief there are no sharks in the water, dive in, get eaten, and my friends will say I was a fool to believe such a thing, because of the warning signs.


As far as I know anthropologists have never encountered a culture anywhere that did not have a god belief.

And as noted, there were as many different god beliefs as there are ancient cultures. Do you equate the polytheistic systems of the Babylonians, the Norse, the Egyptians, and the Greek and Roman cultures to the Christian system?

Theism is theism.


It's not the default position of a human being raised without the need to find and explanation for things like lightning, wind, other natural events, etc. Religion is a primitive reaction to fear of the unknown and an attempt to control what is really uncontrollable.

Please give evidence of one cultural or society that is Atheistic - today.

I can't, although Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are among the most secular and have the lowest crime rates among the developed countries. Oh, just because a belief is wide spread does not make it true. Everyone once believed the world to be flat and the stars just lanterns fixed to the dome of the sky.

Not widespread - universal. Large difference.
Every society has god beliefs, yet you claim that is not a normal state of affairs.
It has nothing to do with your red herrings of 'true', 'crime', or a flat earth.

Or, if you prefer, make your claim that all cultures and societies today are primitive.

I said religion began with primitive societies. They have become self-sustaining organizations that live by taking money from believers and working hard to insure a steady stream of believers. Show me a church that doesn't take offerings?

More red herrings.
The point is, universal belief in god, all societies, all centuries, since before recorded history, since before collection plates.

Your claims do not have any evidence in today's world. It is what we call a 'cheap shot'.

Religions have been since before recorded history, that means they started in primitive cultures, so we are to disregard such beliefs as, not modern.

Do you say the same for all other endeavors that started I prehistoric societies - like art?

Art began as a means to record history, after oral traditions and before writing.

So?
It is no longer 'needed' - do you say advanced civilizations will have no art?
Of course not.
Starting with primitives societies is to be expected, for just about everything. You try to make that a weak point of religion, it fails.

It really defies logic. That is not an argument there really is a god. That is an argument that left to themselves, humans will have a belief in god, regardless of indoctrination influences.

Again, not if the humans have the kind of knowledge available today. Religion is to society what a thrown rock is to a modern Army. A useless predecessor to what exists now.

So, now you are implying Americans do not have the availability of current knowledge.
If we had it, religion would disappear - and yet it hasn't, ergo.....

Not if they have sufficient knowledge of the way the world works, as evidenced by the lower religiosity occurring and education becomes more common.

Yea, except 85% of the world remains Theistic.

And that number is falling in the US among other developed countries. It's the so-called third world for the most part where the religious still believe in witches, black magic, curses and such things and they cut the heads off of so-called witches and execute homosexuals. Being Theistic is nothing to brag about.

I hope so. I believe knowledge will spread and the useless, antiquated religious hierarchies will fall into oblivion, a historical oddity noted and then forgotten.

The numbers are falling?
No substantiation.
Still the vast majority - even if you could show numbers are falling - which you have not.
No absence of god beliefs anywhere.

85% have chosen the god position.

Here's your "85%" that I used in my earlier reply.

We call this a leap of faith.
I say 85% have a belief in god, you say "This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. "

God and religion are two separate issues.

Uh, no, since Religion by definition requires a god and most of the religion in this country, at least, claims to be speaking the word of God.

God does not require a religion.
You do not know that?
And for the record, Buddhism has no god, but is often considered a religion.
So no, a god is not requird for religion,
Wrong on two points.
You equate them, and to equate belief in god with a religious nature is, foolish and inane.

See above.

What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.
So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain

Your position, not mine.

Not my position, this a common Atheist position, and I recount it, as their position.

You intentionally misstate the position in order to make your point seem more valid. That's a tactic of both deceit and fear.

I quote an Atheist, I present a common Athestic position, you provide nothing to show otherwise, except your uninformed opinion.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.

Why don't you read the literature? You'll find that the evidence supports the assertion.
;
I have read the literature.
No beliefs required to be a part of Atheism.
Dogs are Atheistic, and have a low IQ.

Yet another straw man, intentionally misstating facts.

No belief required for Atheism - how can you possibly disagree with that?

More Atheists speak:
At a book talk last night, I mentioned that my definition of an atheist was someone who didn"t believe in a god.
That prompted the following (paraphrased) question from an audience member:
Is a dog an atheist?
I think the questioner wanted to discredit my definition. But I thought it made perfect sense to say a dog was an atheist. (It"s not going to pray anytime soon, after all.)

http://www.patheos.com...

~ ~
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:55:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
~ ~
Some people have attempted to re-defined atheism to mean a mere "lack of belief in God or gods", but this is an incomplete definition.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "Atheism is the view that there is no God" and "It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God."[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as,"The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God".[2]

While it is true that an atheist is a person who lacks belief in God, it"s also someone who affirms the non-existence of God above the probability of 50%. A person (or animal) who merely lacks belief in the supernatural " the indifferent, unconcerned or apathetic " does not fit with how most people define atheist.

When atheism is re-defined as a mere lack of belief, it ceases to be a view. It becomes a psychological state of mind shared by people (and animals) who hold various views or none at all. This means babies who hold no opinion on the matter are "atheists", as well as cats and dogs, and the birds outside my window. But this is absurd, and it doesn"t fit with how most people define the word. Atheism is a belief about a metaphysical state of existence containing no God or gods. The term does not refer to a mere psychological state of mind, but rather a metaphysical state outside of our heads.

It is clear to me why people who affirm the non-existence of God want to re-define atheism as a mere "lack of belief" " it"s their way of avoiding their burden of justification. They want to claim that since a "lack of belief" is the default position, the "atheist" therefore isn"t making a positive claim and doesn"t have a burden. But this is fallacious for two reasons: First, a default position is not necessarily true. Second, to deny or disbelieve something takes reasons, however good or bad. If a person has reasons for denying (or affirming) theism, they have taken a philosophical position. People don"t always recognize that the belief that God doesn"t exist (or probably doesn"t exist) is a belief about reality, and claims about reality require justification if they are to warrant anyone"s attention.

As Christopher Hitchens said, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Well this is true of the claim that God probably doesn"t exist.
http://unbelieversradio.com...
~ ~

At 5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
Albert Einstein was no member of a primitive society.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages."~~~ Albert Einstein, interview with George Sylvester Viereck shortly after Einstein turned age 50. Per Time Magizine
http://www.time.com...

He had strong objections to being associated as having Atheistic beliefs.
Does that not at least make you wonder?

No, it just means he was honest enough to say 'I don't know'. That's something theism and religion don't have, the humility and honesty to admit they don't know, replacing that with blind assertions originating with primitive people, mostly gathered, arranged, and redacted to support their particular belief system.

Well, again you miss the point.
He had no firm belief in god, and did not want to be called an Atheist.
Not an Atheist by your usage, and not a Theist either.
And not a primitive mind unable to know his own mind.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:11:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:55:45 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
Someone who has considered the issue and has a belief in no-god, makes an assertion of no-god, and has philosophical beliefs about this as part of their belief system.

If Atheism is a 'lack of belief' - then any existence that lack belief in god is atheistic, just as Atheists claim.
Many Atheists make the positive claim - 'I believe in no-god'. Firm belief.

One cannot make 'not believe' mean 'believe in something'. It's a ploy on the part of religious theists to somehow equate atheism with a religion, which it is not.

Ridicules.
I can have the belief there are no sharks in the water, dive in, get eaten, and my friends will say I was a fool to believe such a thing, because of the warning signs.

If you chose to ignore evidence that is different from seeing no evidence. False analogy.


As far as I know anthropologists have never encountered a culture anywhere that did not have a god belief.

And as noted, there were as many different god beliefs as there are ancient cultures. Do you equate the polytheistic systems of the Babylonians, the Norse, the Egyptians, and the Greek and Roman cultures to the Christian system?

Theism is theism.

Tell that to any devout Christian, that his belief is no different or more correct than those mentioned.


It's not the default position of a human being raised without the need to find and explanation for things like lightning, wind, other natural events, etc. Religion is a primitive reaction to fear of the unknown and an attempt to control what is really uncontrollable.

Please give evidence of one cultural or society that is Atheistic - today.

I can't, although Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands are among the most secular and have the lowest crime rates among the developed countries. Oh, just because a belief is wide spread does not make it true. Everyone once believed the world to be flat and the stars just lanterns fixed to the dome of the sky.

Not widespread - universal. Large difference.
Every society has god beliefs, yet you claim that is not a normal state of affairs.
It has nothing to do with your red herrings of 'true', 'crime', or a flat earth.

Or, if you prefer, make your claim that all cultures and societies today are primitive.

I said religion began with primitive societies. They have become self-sustaining organizations that live by taking money from believers and working hard to insure a steady stream of believers. Show me a church that doesn't take offerings?

More red herrings.
The point is, universal belief in god, all societies, all centuries, since before recorded history, since before collection plates.

Fear is the origin of religion, as mentioned. Collection plates came later, although tribal shamans were also supported by gifts and tributes from the tribe.

Your claims do not have any evidence in today's world. It is what we call a 'cheap shot'.

Religions have been since before recorded history, that means they started in primitive cultures, so we are to disregard such beliefs as, not modern.

Do you say the same for all other endeavors that started I prehistoric societies - like art?

Art began as a means to record history, after oral traditions and before writing.

So?
It is no longer 'needed' - do you say advanced civilizations will have no art?

Art fulfills a human desire to express oneself. It is useful to the species.
Again, not if the humans have the kind of knowledge available today. Religion is to society what a thrown rock is to a modern Army. A useless predecessor to what exists now.

So, now you are implying Americans do not have the availability of current knowledge.

No, I'm saying that knowledge is slowly replacing religion but the religious hierarchies will continue to fight for survival.

If we had it, religion would disappear - and yet it hasn't, ergo.....

It's working on it. http://www.msn.com...

Not if they have sufficient knowledge of the way the world works, as evidenced by the lower religiosity occurring and education becomes more common.

Yea, except 85% of the world remains Theistic.

And that number is falling in the US among other developed countries. It's the so-called third world for the most part where the religious still believe in witches, black magic, curses and such things and they cut the heads off of so-called witches and execute homosexuals. Being Theistic is nothing to brag about.

I hope so. I believe knowledge will spread and the useless, antiquated religious hierarchies will fall into oblivion, a historical oddity noted and then forgotten.

The numbers are falling?
No substantiation.

See the Pew study above.

Still the vast majority - even if you could show numbers are falling - which you have not.
No absence of god beliefs anywhere.

85% have chosen the god position.

Here's your "85%" that I used in my earlier reply.

We call this a leap of faith.
I say 85% have a belief in god, you say "This is why 85% of the youth of America, according to your statistics, become theistic and religious. "

God and religion are two separate issues.

Uh, no, since Religion by definition requires a god and most of the religion in this country, at least, claims to be speaking the word of God.

God does not require a religion.
You do not know that?
And for the record, Buddhism has no god, but is often considered a religion.

Buddhism is a philosophy. It does not worship and there are Buddhists who are also theists so they are not mutually exclusive.
So no, a god is not requird for religion,
Wrong on two points.
You equate them, and to equate belief in god with a religious nature is, foolish and inane.

See above.

What is considered "normal" for the mature human mind, god, or no-god?
Normal or typical is god, atypical is no-god.
So if you believe that Atheism does not require a brain

Your position, not mine.

Not my position, this a common Atheist position, and I recount it, as their position.

You intentionally misstate the position in order to make your point seem more valid. That's a tactic of both deceit and fear.

I quote an Atheist, I present a common Athestic position, you provide nothing to show otherwise, except your uninformed opinion.

Here is one of those quirky things I find interesting.
One of those who believes Atheism is the default position says that although Atheists are in a minority, studies "effectively correlate a high IQ with atheism", compared to Theism.

Why don't you read the literature? You'll find that the evidence supports the assertion.
;
Yet another straw man, intentionally misstating facts.

No belief required for Atheism - how can you possibly disagree with that?

More Atheists speak:
At a book talk last night, I mentioned that my definition of an atheist was someone who didn"t believe in a god.
That prompted the following (paraphrased) question from an audience member:
Is a dog an atheist?
I think the questioner wanted to discredit my definition. But I thought it made perfect sense to say a dog was an atheist. (It"s not going to pray anytime soon, after all.)

http://www.patheos.com...

A blog post from a single individual with no
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:34:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:55:50 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
~ ~
Some people have attempted to re-defined atheism to mean a mere "lack of belief in God or gods", but this is an incomplete definition.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "Atheism is the view that there is no God" and "It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God."[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as,"The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God".[2]

Same reference, first line. "The term "atheist" describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult."

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Once again you accept that which supports your bias.

While it is true that an atheist is a person who lacks belief in God, it"s also someone who affirms the non-existence of God above the probability of 50%. A person (or animal) who merely lacks belief in the supernatural " the indifferent, unconcerned or apathetic " does not fit with how most people define atheist.

When atheism is re-defined as a mere lack of belief, it ceases to be a view. It becomes a psychological state of mind shared by people (and animals) who hold various views or none at all. This means babies who hold no opinion on the matter are "atheists", as well as cats and dogs, and the birds outside my window. But this is absurd, and it doesn"t fit with how most people define the word. Atheism is a belief about a metaphysical state of existence containing no God or gods. The term does not refer to a mere psychological state of mind, but rather a metaphysical state outside of our heads.

It only entails a conclusion that there is no evidence to support the assertion that there is a deity or deities.

It is clear to me why people who affirm the non-existence of God want to re-define atheism as a mere "lack of belief" " it"s their way of avoiding their burden of justification.

No, it's just a clear statement of the term.

They want to claim that since a "lack of belief" is the default position, the "atheist" therefore isn"t making a positive claim and doesn"t have a burden. But this is fallacious for two reasons: First, a default position is not necessarily true.

Perhaps not, but it is the base condition that can be accepted with lack of evidence.

Second, to deny or disbelieve something takes reasons, however good or bad.

Again, wrong. Denial and disbelief are two different things. I don't believe there's a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard due to a complete lack of evidence. I don't need to deny something that has no evidence of existence. You cannot conflate the two.

In contrast, it takes a reason to believe something exists. If it told you there was a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard but you could only see him if you believed and if you made a wish he might grant it to you, would you believe me with no evidence, just that claim? A simple yes or now answer is requested here.

If a person has reasons for denying (or affirming) theism, they have taken a philosophical position.

Again, no. It's not a philosophical position. It's purely a conclusion about an assertion based on a lack of any kind of empirical or physical evidence.

People don"t always recognize that the belief that God doesn"t exist (or probably doesn"t exist) is a belief about reality, and claims about reality require justification if they are to warrant anyone"s attention.

As Christopher Hitchens said, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Yep, and the assertion of the existence of a god or gods has no evidence.

Well this is true of the claim that God probably doesn"t exist.

That's not an assertion, that is a statement of the probable correctness of an assertion.

http://unbelieversradio.com...

The view of one commentator is not the view of every atheist. I note also that most of his comments were couched as 'we ought' to define it this way. If that is his choice then he can decide to redefine it as meaning other than it means.
~ ~



At 5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
Albert Einstein was no member of a primitive society.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages."~~~ Albert Einstein, interview with George Sylvester Viereck shortly after Einstein turned age 50. Per Time Magizine
http://www.time.com...

He had strong objections to being associated as having Atheistic beliefs.
Does that not at least make you wonder?

No, it just means he was honest enough to say 'I don't know'. That's something theism and religion don't have, the humility and honesty to admit they don't know, replacing that with blind assertions originating with primitive people, mostly gathered, arranged, and redacted to support their particular belief system.

Well, again you miss the point.
He had no firm belief in god, and did not want to be called an Atheist.
Not an Atheist by your usage, and not a Theist either.
And not a primitive mind unable to know his own mind.

No, you miss the point. Einstein had no belief in God and could be called and agnostic. That's his standpoint. He did not support your theistic beliefs with his statements. Why do you feel his statement is in any way relevant?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:59:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:34:20 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:55:50 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
~ ~
Some people have attempted to re-defined atheism to mean a mere "lack of belief in God or gods", but this is an incomplete definition.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "Atheism is the view that there is no God" and "It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God."[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as,"The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God".[2]

Same reference, first line. "The term "atheist" describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult."

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Once again you accept that which supports your bias.

While it is true that an atheist is a person who lacks belief in God, it"s also someone who affirms the non-existence of God above the probability of 50%. A person (or animal) who merely lacks belief in the supernatural " the indifferent, unconcerned or apathetic " does not fit with how most people define atheist.

When atheism is re-defined as a mere lack of belief, it ceases to be a view. It becomes a psychological state of mind shared by people (and animals) who hold various views or none at all. This means babies who hold no opinion on the matter are "atheists", as well as cats and dogs, and the birds outside my window. But this is absurd, and it doesn"t fit with how most people define the word. Atheism is a belief about a metaphysical state of existence containing no God or gods. The term does not refer to a mere psychological state of mind, but rather a metaphysical state outside of our heads.

It only entails a conclusion that there is no evidence to support the assertion that there is a deity or deities.

It is clear to me why people who affirm the non-existence of God want to re-define atheism as a mere "lack of belief" " it"s their way of avoiding their burden of justification.

No, it's just a clear statement of the term.

They want to claim that since a "lack of belief" is the default position, the "atheist" therefore isn"t making a positive claim and doesn"t have a burden. But this is fallacious for two reasons: First, a default position is not necessarily true.

Perhaps not, but it is the base condition that can be accepted with lack of evidence.

Second, to deny or disbelieve something takes reasons, however good or bad.

Again, wrong. Denial and disbelief are two different things. I don't believe there's a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard due to a complete lack of evidence. I don't need to deny something that has no evidence of existence. You cannot conflate the two.

In contrast, it takes a reason to believe something exists. If it told you there was a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard but you could only see him if you believed and if you made a wish he might grant it to you, would you believe me with no evidence, just that claim? A simple yes or now answer is requested here.

If a person has reasons for denying (or affirming) theism, they have taken a philosophical position.

Again, no. It's not a philosophical position. It's purely a conclusion about an assertion based on a lack of any kind of empirical or physical evidence.

People don"t always recognize that the belief that God doesn"t exist (or probably doesn"t exist) is a belief about reality, and claims about reality require justification if they are to warrant anyone"s attention.

As Christopher Hitchens said, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Yep, and the assertion of the existence of a god or gods has no evidence.

Well this is true of the claim that God probably doesn"t exist.

That's not an assertion, that is a statement of the probable correctness of an assertion.

http://unbelieversradio.com...

The view of one commentator is not the view of every atheist. I note also that most of his comments were couched as 'we ought' to define it this way. If that is his choice then he can decide to redefine it as meaning other than it means.
~ ~



At 5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
Albert Einstein was no member of a primitive society.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages."~~~ Albert Einstein, interview with George Sylvester Viereck shortly after Einstein turned age 50. Per Time Magizine
http://www.time.com...

He had strong objections to being associated as having Atheistic beliefs.
Does that not at least make you wonder?

No, it just means he was honest enough to say 'I don't know'. That's something theism and religion don't have, the humility and honesty to admit they don't know, replacing that with blind assertions originating with primitive people, mostly gathered, arranged, and redacted to support their particular belief system.

Well, again you miss the point.
He had no firm belief in god, and did not want to be called an Atheist.
Not an Atheist by your usage, and not a Theist either.
And not a primitive mind unable to know his own mind.

No, you miss the point. Einstein had no belief in God and could be called and agnostic. That's his standpoint. He did not support your theistic beliefs with his statements. Why do you feel his statement is in any way relevant?

If you want a convincing rebuttal, it should be easy enough.
It is well known that a lot of sources say Atheists define Atheism as a lack of belief in god. Most of the Atheists sites do, there may be exceptions.
The response to that is, 'That would include dogs.'
Some Atheists are comfortable with that, and agree. I have quoted some of them.

The point is, this is common across the web:
'If Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, then that would mean dogs are Atheistic.'
If the Atheist sites did not agree with it, surely they would speak up.
They would make the claim that you do - 'No, that is not so. Yes, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, but that does not mean dogs are Atheistic because........'
I have never seen such a denial in an Atheist blog, or site.
Only from mavericks like yourself, in discussion forums.
It is a joke among Theists, and Atheists are not known for accepting undeserving criticism. Their silence speaks volumes, and so does your lack of substantiation of your claims.

The 'official word', is exactly as I say.
Those who claim to speak for a sizable portion of the Atheist community do not deny it.
I made the offer to you to admit that you are a maverick, and you would not do it.
I asked you to substantiate your claims that you are mainstream in your views on Atheism, and you do not do it.

You make these weak arguments, red herrings, play dodge and run.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 1:32:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm curious how they reached the conclusion dogs dnt believe in god? Is there any scientific proof to validate such a statement?

At 5/12/2015 11:59:19 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:34:20 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:55:50 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
~ ~
Some people have attempted to re-defined atheism to mean a mere "lack of belief in God or gods", but this is an incomplete definition.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "Atheism is the view that there is no God" and "It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God."[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as,"The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God".[2]

Same reference, first line. "The term "atheist" describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult."

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Once again you accept that which supports your bias.

While it is true that an atheist is a person who lacks belief in God, it"s also someone who affirms the non-existence of God above the probability of 50%. A person (or animal) who merely lacks belief in the supernatural " the indifferent, unconcerned or apathetic " does not fit with how most people define atheist.

When atheism is re-defined as a mere lack of belief, it ceases to be a view. It becomes a psychological state of mind shared by people (and animals) who hold various views or none at all. This means babies who hold no opinion on the matter are "atheists", as well as cats and dogs, and the birds outside my window. But this is absurd, and it doesn"t fit with how most people define the word. Atheism is a belief about a metaphysical state of existence containing no God or gods. The term does not refer to a mere psychological state of mind, but rather a metaphysical state outside of our heads.

It only entails a conclusion that there is no evidence to support the assertion that there is a deity or deities.

It is clear to me why people who affirm the non-existence of God want to re-define atheism as a mere "lack of belief" " it"s their way of avoiding their burden of justification.

No, it's just a clear statement of the term.

They want to claim that since a "lack of belief" is the default position, the "atheist" therefore isn"t making a positive claim and doesn"t have a burden. But this is fallacious for two reasons: First, a default position is not necessarily true.

Perhaps not, but it is the base condition that can be accepted with lack of evidence.

Second, to deny or disbelieve something takes reasons, however good or bad.

Again, wrong. Denial and disbelief are two different things. I don't believe there's a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard due to a complete lack of evidence. I don't need to deny something that has no evidence of existence. You cannot conflate the two.

In contrast, it takes a reason to believe something exists. If it told you there was a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard but you could only see him if you believed and if you made a wish he might grant it to you, would you believe me with no evidence, just that claim? A simple yes or now answer is requested here.

If a person has reasons for denying (or affirming) theism, they have taken a philosophical position.

Again, no. It's not a philosophical position. It's purely a conclusion about an assertion based on a lack of any kind of empirical or physical evidence.

People don"t always recognize that the belief that God doesn"t exist (or probably doesn"t exist) is a belief about reality, and claims about reality require justification if they are to warrant anyone"s attention.

As Christopher Hitchens said, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Yep, and the assertion of the existence of a god or gods has no evidence.

Well this is true of the claim that God probably doesn"t exist.

That's not an assertion, that is a statement of the probable correctness of an assertion.

http://unbelieversradio.com...

The view of one commentator is not the view of every atheist. I note also that most of his comments were couched as 'we ought' to define it this way. If that is his choice then he can decide to redefine it as meaning other than it means.
~ ~



At 5/12/2015 8:31:12 AM, dhardage wrote:
Albert Einstein was no member of a primitive society.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages."~~~ Albert Einstein, interview with George Sylvester Viereck shortly after Einstein turned age 50. Per Time Magizine
http://www.time.com...

He had strong objections to being associated as having Atheistic beliefs.
Does that not at least make you wonder?

No, it just means he was honest enough to say 'I don't know'. That's something theism and religion don't have, the humility and honesty to admit they don't know, replacing that with blind assertions originating with primitive people, mostly gathered, arranged, and redacted to support their particular belief system.

Well, again you miss the point.
He had no firm belief in god, and did not want to be called an Atheist.
Not an Atheist by your usage, and not a Theist either.
And not a primitive mind unable to know his own mind.

No, you miss the point. Einstein had no belief in God and could be called and agnostic. That's his standpoint. He did not support your theistic beliefs with his statements. Why do you feel his statement is in any way relevant?

If you want a convincing rebuttal, it should be easy enough.
It is well known that a lot of sources say Atheists define Atheism as a lack of belief in god. Most of the Atheists sites do, there may be exceptions.
The response to that is, 'That would include dogs.'
Some Atheists are comfortable with that, and agree. I have quoted some of them.

The point is, this is common across the web:
'If Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, then that would mean dogs are Atheistic.'
If the Atheist sites did not agree with it, surely they would speak up.
They would make the claim that you do - 'No, that is not so. Yes, Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, but that does not mean dogs are Atheistic because........'
I have never seen such a denial in an Atheist blog, or site.
Only from mavericks like yourself, in discussion forums.
It is a joke among Theists, and Atheists are not known for accepting undeserving criticism. Their silence speaks volumes, and so does your lack of substantiation of your claims.

The 'official word', is exactly as I say.
Those who claim to speak for a sizable portion of the Atheist community do not deny it.
I made the offer to you to admit that you are a maverick, and you would not do it.
I asked you to substantiate your claims that you are mainstream in your views on Atheism, and you do not do it.

You make these weak arguments, red herrings, play dodge and run.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:28:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is a cross reference to another thread:

Scientists say no Atheists
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that's not a joke

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn"t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.
http://www.debate.org...