Theism is wrong by default.

[Jontg]

I can't dance around the issue. It just is. Why is it so hard to get this across? We are not the weird ones here. We are not making wild, unsupported assertions. Atheism is a religious null hypothesis--the natural, default position from which theism deviates--and it is their job to provide evidence to the contrary. Until then, their beliefs are empty conjecture, their privileges undeserved, and their existence antithetical to science.
To have to self-identify as an atheist--as being in active opposition to the ideas of one theistic sect or another--is as nonsensical a concept as having to affirm that one is not a Nazi; in fact, if somebody asks you if you believe in a god, you have every right to react as if the speaker had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.
:soapbox

[Pure Argent]

I can't dance around the issue. It just is. Why is it so hard to get this across? We are not the weird ones here. We are not making wild, unsupported assertions. Atheism is a religious null hypothesis--the natural, default position from which theism deviates--and it is their job to provide evidence to the contrary. Until then, their beliefs are empty conjecture, their privileges undeserved, and their existence antithetical to science.
To have to self-identify as an atheist--as being in active opposition to the ideas of one theistic sect or another--is as nonsensical a concept as having to affirm that one is not a Nazi; in fact, if somebody asks you if you believe in a god, you have every right to react as if the speaker had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.
:soapbox

TLDR TRANSLATION: Burden of proof is on the theists and I wish they'd accept that.

MY REACTION: I concur.

[Minarvia]

THANK YOU!!! I don't think this is hard for theists to understand, they just can't bring the proof.

And wherever someone recently asked if newborns are atheists, the answer is YES! They haven't been "indoctrinated" yet. Or given the "good news" or whatever the heck theists call it.

[Marduk]

THANK YOU!!! I don't think this is hard for theists to understand, they just can't bring the proof.

And wherever someone recently asked if newborns are atheists, the answer is YES! They haven't been "indoctrinated" yet. Or given the "good news" or whatever the heck theists call it.

Try brainwashed, it certainly washes out all the common sense
:p

[Minarvia]

Try brainwashed, it certainly washes out all the common sense
:p

That's the word I was going to use but decided not to be rude for a third time tonight!

[dio]

We are not the weird ones here.

I disagree.

We are the weird ones.

The default is this: people are scared (of death, life, sickness, everything). They need that higher being to watch over them, and the promise of a future life.

They don't have to prove anything. They believe. This is the only way the world makes sense to them.


We are led by our brutal objectivity to avoid/overcome that default state, to not see what is not there, and to enjoy life (that only 1) even more. We're the weirdos.

[The True Scotsman]

Prove that goblins don't exist. Oh wait, you can't. Therefore, goblins exists. Now, try to prove that unicorns don't exist. Oh wait, you can't prove that either. Two for two.

(one hour later)

Prove that ogres don't exist. Oh wait, you can't. You zero, me 5,000. Now try to prove...

[Malerin]

THANK YOU!!! I don't think this is hard for theists to understand, they just can't bring the proof.

And wherever someone recently asked if newborns are atheists, the answer is YES! They haven't been "indoctrinated" yet. Or given the "good news" or whatever the heck theists call it.

Are rocks atheists?

[EventHorizon]

I can't dance around the issue. It just is. Why is it so hard to get this across? We are not the weird ones here. We are not making wild, unsupported assertions. Atheism is a religious null hypothesis--the natural, default position from which theism deviates--and it is their job to provide evidence to the contrary. Until then, their beliefs are empty conjecture, their privileges undeserved, and their existence antithetical to science.
To have to self-identify as an atheist--as being in active opposition to the ideas of one theistic sect or another--is as nonsensical a concept as having to affirm that one is not a Nazi; in fact, if somebody asks you if you believe in a god, you have every right to react as if the speaker had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.
:soapbox

Well said and very much how I've always felt.

[Third Eye Open]

I agree with you, but jeez. Try not to Godwin it in the first post next time.

[Malerin]

I disagree.

We are the weird ones.

The default is this: people are scared (of death, life, sickness, everything). They need that higher being to watch over them, and the promise of a future life.

They don't have to prove anything. They believe. This is the only way the world makes sense to them.


We are led by our brutal objectivity to avoid/overcome that default state, to not see what is not there, and to enjoy life (that only 1) even more. We're the weirdos.

Uh huh. Because no one has ever had a profound spiritual experience and concluded God was a better explanation for it than science :rolleyes:

[Third Eye Open]

Uh huh. Because no one has ever had a profound spiritual experience and concluded God was a better explanation for it than science :rolleyes:

How does this relate in any way to the post you replied to?

The :rolleyes: implies sarcasm, in my experience. Which means you are really saying that people DO concluded God is a better explanation than science based on spiritual experience.

But this is what the post you replied to is saying, as far as I can tell. That they don't need to prove anything, and we do. They can decide what is true or not based on a feeling, we can't or don't.

Am I missing something? Or is there just not enough disagreement in this thread for you.

[Malerin]

How does this relate in any way to the post you replied to?

The :rolleyes: implies sarcasm, in my experience. Which means you are really saying that people DO concluded God is a better explanation than science based on spiritual experience.

But this is what the post you replied to is saying, as far as I can tell. That they don't need to prove anything, and we do. They can decide what is true or not based on a feeling, we can't or don't.

Am I missing something? Or is there just not enough disagreement in this thread for you.

This:

We are not the weird ones here.

The default is this: people are scared (of death, life, sickness, everything). They need that higher being to watch over them, and the promise of a future life.


is wrong. I'm sure there are theists who believe in God because of wishful thinking, but that's not "the default". There are plenty of theists who simply believe God is a better explanation for the universality of spiritual experience (and/or their own experiences) than science.

[Third Eye Open]

is wrong. I'm sure there are theists who believe in God because of wishful thinking, but that's not "the default". There are plenty of theists who simply believe God is a better explanation for the universality of spiritual experience (and/or their own experiences) than science.

Ahh, I agree then. I think most people believe in god because that's just what everyone around them does and it feels normal, they've never thought about it really.

The smaller groups would be the ones who are afraid, and the ones who have well thought out reasons.

I think the same could probably be said about atheists; the majority of them haven't really thought about it. No one around them believes in god, and it just doesn't really make sense. A small minority will have spent a lot of time thinking of reasons and arguments.

[dio]

Uh huh. Because no one has ever had a profound spiritual experience and concluded God was a better explanation for it than science :rolleyes:


And that "profound spiritual experience" did not originate in normal human fears, and the benefits of the conclusion (big powerful friend, afterlife) have not influenced the choice at all.:rolleyes:

[Trent Wray]

I don't know if I'd use the words "by default" ---

Tonight, for the first time, my 4 year old son came up to me and said, "Daddy, I don't like it when you talk about dying." He said this in response to some rabbit trail conversation I had with my wife about "what if this happened, and I was on life support," etc etc. So I tried to explain a little to him about how everyone eventually dies, and this is a normal part of our experience.

He wasn't afraid, but immediately sad ... and wanted to know when I was going to die. I told him I didn't know. So he went and got his mom, and brought her to me, and he told us all to put our hands out in a pact, and he made us promise him to try our best to live as long as possible, that we would all do it.

He also asked that we all stay children and not get any older. He then told me goodnight, and that he hoped he had good dreams, because sometimes his dreams came true that he had, due to his "imagination" ---- his words.

So the point is this: as he gets older, he will make up his own mind about what is true or not true, real or not real, imagination or not. He will decide on his own when he is comfortable with the idea of death and how he chooses to feel about it. For me to tell him we'll never die, is lying. But to crush his heart unecessarily when he's not able to handle it is ridiculous. As is to fill his head with more fantastical ideas. So OVER TIME ... I will offer him what I find to be true, and also try to answer questions he might have about what others say.

But he's not ready at this moment. To present him the utter fragility of his life as well as his parents is impractical, and unnecessary. It's not sheltering him from reality .... it's preparing him to handle reality PROPERLY and RESPONSIBLY. And if that bridge comes sooner than we wish, we will cross it when we get there.

BY DEFAULT ... he is born with an active imagination, trying to make sense of things. I remember the first irrational fear he had .... It was me that made him afraid of a robotic crocodile in a mall, and ever since then he's been afraid of ALL CROCODILES ... whether they are stuffed animals or not. So I taught him to be afraid of a toy, not the real animal. At this stage in his life, he is only able to understand so much. This goes for crocodiles, lego toys, life, and death.

So .... hopefully I will help guide and shape his mind and imagination to keep his imagination intact, but also give him a firm grasp of reality based on evidence and science and the world "at large" ... so he can figure out which questions he wants to ask and the answers he chooses to believe based on his own conclusions ... from forum boards like this one, and maybe even the mosque on the corner. But to beat him over the head right now with truth-truth-truth ---- I would be committing the same error most every religious sect commits: brainwashing the vulnerable, not brain-accepting by choice those mature enough to make an informed choice. The medical profession practices this concept everytime (ideally) it treats a patient, using various types of consent and analyzing whether a patient is capable of making decisions.

People are not much different. Even 50 year olds. Take Cargo Cults for example. Could you reveal the truth that US soldiers aren't gods, and that their religion is utterly ridiculous ... and actually hope to get through? Possibly. But probably not. Some people are so ingrained with certain "programs" they lose the ability to make choices without severe consequences. And that's just the reality. It's sad, but it's the state of things.

On a side note ... I'm an agnostic. I'm not convinced in the current concepts of an intelligent "force" most people call God, but I've had personal experiences that current science hasn't answered for me to my own contentment. I might be the exception from most theists however, in that I have no desire to "prove" anything to anyone. I have a desire to understand things for myself, but I feel no obligation to convince anyone of something I believe. For the sake of discussion and comparing notes and my own self-learning ... it's all good. But if someone doesn't want to go there, who am I to make them? I don't want to force myself upon anyone, and I hope for the same in kind. It's one of my biggest problems with religion ... the idea they think they are ENTITLED to or REQUIRED to try and convert me and others to their way of thinking. But, it's been part of our societies since recorded history.

But anyway ... the idea that theists are wrong by default doesn't do them much good, unless they are at a place where they are willing to understand and analyze broader evidence. But I don't think atheists and even opposing believers in other faiths realize that there is a possibility that some (if not most) theists may not be CAPABLE of understanding certain ideas so radical from those that may have been ingrained in them ---- not unlike a child. Even those who have come out of some of the more radical "minor" cults might be more successful in "deprogramming" because they come from such a minority. But when there is a majority supporting each other in fighting for Allah or praying to Jesus or heiling Hitler or even "bleeding out to reduce a fever because the doctors know what they are doing" .... the majority can be hard to escape and overcome, because the majority itself is a type of overwhelming evidence for people who seek to congregate in confirmation biased circles for security and affirmation, again ---- not unlike a child :)

But anyway, I'm starting to ramble. It's late:)

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't know if I'd use the words "by default" ---

Tonight, for the first time, my 4 year old son came up to me and said, "Daddy, I don't like it when you talk about dying." He said this in response to some rabbit trail conversation I had with my wife about "what if this happened, and I was on life support," etc etc. So I tried to explain a little to him about how everyone eventually dies, and this is a normal part of our experience.

He wasn't afraid, but immediately sad ... and wanted to know when I was going to die. I told him I didn't know. So he went and got his mom, and brought her to me, and he told us all to put our hands out in a pact, and he made us promise him to try our best to live as long as possible, that we would all do it.

He also asked that we all stay children and not get any older. He then told me goodnight, and that he hoped he had good dreams, because sometimes his dreams came true that he had, due to his "imagination" ---- his words.

So the point is this: as he gets older, he will make up his own mind about what is true or not true, real or not real, imagination or not. He will decide on his own when he is comfortable with the idea of death and how he chooses to feel about it. For me to tell him we'll never die, is lying. But to crush his heart unecessarily when he's not able to handle it is ridiculous. As is to fill his head with more fantastical ideas. So OVER TIME ... I will offer him what I find to be true, and also try to answer questions he might have about what others say.

But he's not ready at this moment. To present him the utter fragility of his life as well as his parents is impractical, and unnecessary. It's not sheltering him from reality .... it's preparing him to handle reality PROPERLY and RESPONSIBLY. And if that bridge comes sooner than we wish, we will cross it when we get there.

BY DEFAULT ... he is born with an active imagination, trying to make sense of things. I remember the first irrational fear he had .... It was me that made him afraid of a robotic crocodile in a mall, and ever since then he's been afraid of ALL CROCODILES ... whether they are stuffed animals or not. So I taught him to be afraid of a toy, not the real animal. At this stage in his life, he is only able to understand so much. This goes for crocodiles, lego toys, life, and death.

So .... hopefully I will help guide and shape his mind and imagination to keep his imagination intact, but also give him a firm grasp of reality based on evidence and science and the world "at large" ... so he can figure out which questions he wants to ask and the answers he chooses to believe based on his own conclusions ... from forum boards like this one, and maybe even the mosque on the corner. But to beat him over the head right now with truth-truth-truth ---- I would be committing the same error most every religious sect commits: brainwashing the vulnerable, not brain-accepting by choice those mature enough to make an informed choice. The medical profession practices this concept everytime (ideally) it treats a patient, using various types of consent and analyzing whether a patient is capable of making decisions.

People are not much different. Even 50 year olds. Take Cargo Cults for example. Could you reveal the truth that US soldiers aren't gods, and that their religion is utterly ridiculous ... and actually hope to get through? Possibly. But probably not. Some people are so ingrained with certain "programs" they lose the ability to make choices without severe consequences. And that's just the reality. It's sad, but it's the state of things.

On a side note ... I'm an agnostic. I'm not convinced in the current concepts of an intelligent "force" most people call God, but I've had personal experiences that current science hasn't answered for me to my own contentment. I might be the exception from most theists however, in that I have no desire to "prove" anything to anyone. I have a desire to understand things for myself, but I feel no obligation to convince anyone of something I believe. For the sake of discussion and comparing notes and my own self-learning ... it's all good. But if someone doesn't want to go there, who am I to make them? I don't want to force myself upon anyone, and I hope for the same in kind. It's one of my biggest problems with religion ... the idea they think they are ENTITLED to or REQUIRED to try and convert me and others to their way of thinking. But, it's been part of our societies since recorded history.

But anyway ... the idea that theists are wrong by default doesn't do them much good, unless they are at a place where they are willing to understand and analyze broader evidence. But I don't think atheists and even opposing believers in other faiths realize that there is a possibility that some (if not most) theists may not be CAPABLE of understanding certain ideas so radical from those that may have been ingrained in them ---- not unlike a child. Even those who have come out of some of the more radical "minor" cults might be more successful in "deprogramming" because they come from such a minority. But when there is a majority supporting each other in fighting for Allah or praying to Jesus or heiling Hitler or even "bleeding out to reduce a fever because the doctors know what they are doing" .... the majority can be hard to escape and overcome, because the majority itself is a type of overwhelming evidence for people who seek to congregate in confirmation biased circles for security and affirmation, again ---- not unlike a child :)

But anyway, I'm starting to ramble. It's late:)

That's a great story. But I don't think it makes the point you want it to make. Rather, it somewhat throws out the default position of a higher being or a life after death. Your son did not approach you asking if you were going to heaven, or if God (god) was going to take you away from him. He asked you if you were going to die - a natural end of one's life on earth.

I'd argue that he presented you with a completely atheistic approach to the end of life, presented that he didn't want you to die (of course not, this is a Good Thing (tm) :D ), and then told you that he has dreams and sometimes they come true, sometimes they don't. There is nothing there about Unicorns, or Gods, or Goddesses, etc.

You're spot on regarding how mature (or maybe not-so-mature) adults choose to handle the world around them. Many (most) are taught to avoid things they don't understand by attributing it to some higher power. Case in point: We cannot (easily) estimate/comprehend the awesome power released and devastation caused by the recent quake in Haiti. It is, therefore, easier to attribute this disaster to a higher power, especially for those who have been taught from a young age that this is appropriate.

It is not easy to change a deeply religious person's mind because it requires, quite literally, the removal of their blinders. It means they must choose to leave their comfort zone and really, truly analyze the world around them. It's far, far easier for him/her to keep the blinders on and remain within their little world, comforted by their friends who believe the same thing. The truth is, mind you, that we all have comfort zones - atheist and theist alike. Relating to another current thread: the true skeptic is the one who is willing to step out of their comfort zone and look for the truth (even if it's done only in inches...). Skepticism, including atheism, is a journey.


I believe I have started to ramble as well, so I'll leave it at that (and probably read it tomorrow and kick myself b/c I won't be able to edit it...:D)

[Rasmus]

Are rocks atheists?

Yes, I think they are. They are also non-smokers.

It will rarely be useful to talk about rocks being atheists or non-smokers, though.

Same with babys: They have no believe in god, therefore, they are atheists. It will usually not be terribly useful to bring that up - but it can be. In particular, it's worth pointing this out when your whole point is that theists are made or develop.

[Hux]

Have you ever had the 'lecture' on the "nature of evidence and proof" yet? Its really rather good.

[GrandMasterFox]

We are the weird ones due to a thing called basic demographics.
We are the minority and thus we are the weird ones.

As for why that is? That's another story.

[Trent Wray]

Yes, I think they are. They are also non-smokers.

It will rarely be useful to talk about rocks being atheists or non-smokers, though.

Same with babys: They have no believe in god, therefore, they are atheists. It will usually not be terribly useful to bring that up - but it can be. In particular, it's worth pointing this out when your whole point is that theists are made or develop.

That's a great story. But I don't think it makes the point you want it to make. Rather, it somewhat throws out the default position of a higher being or a life after death. Your son did not approach you asking if you were going to heaven, or if God (god) was going to take you away from him. He asked you if you were going to die - a natural end of one's life on earth.

I'd argue that he presented you with a completely atheistic approach to the end of life, presented that he didn't want you to die (of course not, this is a Good Thing (tm) ), and then told you that he has dreams and sometimes they come true, sometimes they don't. There is nothing there about Unicorns, or Gods, or Goddesses, etc.
Great responses!

Oh my point wasn't that my son's default position was a belief in god ... rather my point was that his position was a "neutral" one. He has no concept of god unless it is presented to him. But I don't think that makes him atheist either ... doesn't he first have to know of the concept of god in order to choose whether to believe in a god or not? It's kind of like saying he's a democrat or a republican or a communist or something along those lines .... simply because he isn't one or the other. He becomes a democrat/republican ... etc once he learns of their existence and then chooses whether or not to be one. But simply choosing not to be a democrat doesn't automatically make him one of the other things either. You see what I'm saying?

Yes I agree ... theists are made. But I think atheists are made as well ... once they are aware of a "theism" in the first place. Until then, my son simply has his developing imagination to try and interpret his surroundings with our guidance and input. If I'm biased towards theism, it will probably "leak out" onto him somehow. If I'm biased towards atheism, it will probably do the same, etc etc and on down the line.

Now here is something interesting though .... for the first couple of years of his life, he LOVED sleeping in the dark. Then about 1.5 year ago he became terrified of shadows in his room at night. He never claimed they were monsters or anything, only that they scared him. He asked me what they were, and I tried to explain to him what caused shadows.

Now ... when I was a kid, I thought shadows were monsters, and being the ignorant believer my mother was ... she told me that there were no monsters, but there were demons, and that if i wanted to see demons I would ... they would appear and be there. Needless to say, I was terrified of demons.

But I told my son no such thing, and he attributed no such thing to the shadows initially either.

But was my explanation good enough for him? Nope. Still, he is afraid of them. And he had no explanation for it for some time. He still wants to turn them into something they aren't ... even though I've shown him otherwise and he understands how shadows work now. But when he's alone in his room, "the demon haunted world" appears ...

He still wants to anthropomorphize them and escalate them to something unnatural. He finally decided that ghosts made them, after quite some time. Interesting.

*I'm not saying he's seeing ghosts ... only that he isn't content with the rational explanation, even though I have not biased him towards any other. Yes Scooby Doo effects him, and I'm sure something happened to him unbeknownst to me, or he is making some psychological correlation to them that is stronger than his ability to rationalize what the shadows are when his imagination kicks in :p But still .... it's interesting to me ;)

Later!

[DC]

God is so mean, he made me an atheist by default :D

[Sledge]

I disagree with the notion that one has to have heard of god/s to be an atheist. The whole point is that an atheist has no belief in a god. Whether or not one has been exposed to the concept doesn't change the fact that the person has no belief in it.

[skeptiform5]

I disagree.

We are the weird ones.

The default is this: people are scared (of death, life, sickness, everything). They need that higher being to watch over them, and the promise of a future life.

They don't have to prove anything. They believe. This is the only way the world makes sense to them.


We are led by our brutal objectivity to avoid/overcome that default state, to not see what is not there, and to enjoy life (that only 1) even more. We're the weirdos.

Well, that is as true as it gets. Do you know what percentage of all the knowledge in the universe? It is actually in the negative numbers because of all of the supposed 'knowledge' that humans know.
Unfortunately we are the weird ones because knowledge is extremely weird. I'm used to being the weird one because surprisingly I'm the smart guy who everyone asks when they need help. I do believe that atheists are extremely outnumbered by 'believers' and normal and weird is set by what is the most common, that's what makes it normal.
So unfortunately we are the weird one's in the end.

[skeptiform5]

I disagree.

We are the weird ones.

The default is this: people are scared (of death, life, sickness, everything). They need that higher being to watch over them, and the promise of a future life.

They don't have to prove anything. They believe. This is the only way the world makes sense to them.


We are led by our brutal objectivity to avoid/overcome that default state, to not see what is not there, and to enjoy life (that only 1) even more. We're the weirdos.

Well, that is as true as it gets. Do you know what percentage of all the knowledge in the universe? It is actually in the negative numbers because of all of the supposed 'knowledge' that humans know.
Unfortunately we are the weird ones because knowledge is extremely weird. I'm used to being the weird one because surprisingly I'm the smart guy who everyone asks when they need help. I do believe that atheists are extremely outnumbered by 'believers' and normal and weird is set by what is the most common, that's what makes it normal.
So unfortunately we are the weird one's in the end.

[Trent Wray]

I disagree with the notion that one has to have heard of god/s to be an atheist. The whole point is that an atheist has no belief in a god. Whether or not one has been exposed to the concept doesn't change the fact that the person has no belief in it.
Hmmm ... okay, I thought an atheist had no belief in god because there was no evidence. In other words, the reason for the no-belief was an informed choice, not an uninformed or unnecessary choice.

I'm not sure if this analogy totally works .... but is my new baby-girl (one month old) pro-life or pro-choice by default? Is she for abstaining from sex before marriage or anything-goes (by defualt)? Does she think homosexuality is a choice or genetic (by default)? Does she believe in a flat-earth or a round earth or no earth (by default)?

Maybe it's a matter of definitions and semantics? IDK .... I think certain labels can't be applied to a "blank page" like a child by default until they are able to make an informed choice. I assumed by most atheists def. of the term atheism this was an implied choice, not a "starting point". It's not saying that theism is the the starting point ... rather a neutral ignorance of the idea is the starting point. We ascribe the terms because we are aware of them, not the child. But that's just imo, at least for now ;)

[Sledge]

Hmmm ... okay, I thought an atheist had no belief in god because there was no evidence. In other words, the reason for the no-belief was an informed choice, not an uninformed or unnecessary choice.Consider this a learning experience. The word literally means "without gods." That's it. It's not a complex philosophy, a religion or anything else. It means someone doesn't have a belief in gods.
I'm not sure if this analogy totally works .... but is my new baby-girl (one month old) pro-life or pro-choice by default? Is she for abstaining from sex before marriage or anything-goes (by defualt)? Does she think homosexuality is a choice or genetic (by default)? Does she believe in a flat-earth or a round earth or no earth (by default)?The analogy doesn't work. To have an opinion on abortion (the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" annoy me, but that's another discussion) requires knowledge of abortion. Your one month old baby has no knowledge of the subject, therefore has no opinion on it.
Maybe it's a matter of definitions and semantics? IDK .... I think certain labels can't be applied to a "blank page" like a child by default until they are able to make an informed choice.Exactly. Therefore, all children are atheists. How can they not be? If they don't even know what "god" is, how can they be believers in the concept?
I assumed by most atheists def. of the term atheism this was an implied choice, not a "starting point".You know what happens to U and ME when you ASSUME? ;)
It's not saying that theism is the the starting point ... rather a neutral ignorance of the idea is the starting point. We ascribe the terms because we are aware of them, not the child. But that's just imo, at least for now ;)You can't apply the term "Christian" (for instance) to a baby because the baby has no way of knowing what that is. You can apply the term "atheist" because of what the word means.

[BobTheDonkey]

I disagree with the notion that one has to have heard of god/s to be an atheist. The whole point is that an atheist has no belief in a god. Whether or not one has been exposed to the concept doesn't change the fact that the person has no belief in it.

Short response: Atheism is the neutral position.

[Skeptic]

I agree with the OP's actual claim -- that the burden of proof is on the theist -- but disagree with the way it is presented -- that the burden of proof means it is necessarily wrong (though I think it is).

All scientific hypotheses, for example, have to pass muster by proving they are (possibly) true, but this hardly means any new hypothesis is ipso facto necessarily wrong. It could be that they're true but simply weren't proven yet.

[Sledge]

Short response: Atheism is the neutral position.

That would be the shorter, better way of expressing what I was trying to say.:o

[Trent Wray]

Consider this a learning experience. The word literally means "without gods." That's it. It's not a complex philosophy, a religion or anything else. It means someone doesn't have a belief in gods.

Quote:
I'm not sure if this analogy totally works .... but is my new baby-girl (one month old) pro-life or pro-choice by default? Is she for abstaining from sex before marriage or anything-goes (by defualt)? Does she think homosexuality is a choice or genetic (by default)? Does she believe in a flat-earth or a round earth or no earth (by default)?
The analogy doesn't work. To have an opinion on abortion (the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" annoy me, but that's another discussion) requires knowledge of abortion. Your one month old baby has no knowledge of the subject, therefore has no opinion on it.
Exactly. Therefore, all children are atheists. How can they not be? If they don't even know what "god" is, how can they be believers in the concept?
You know what happens to U and ME when you ASSUME? ;)
You can't apply the term "Christian" (for instance) to a baby because the baby has no way of knowing what that is. You can apply the term "atheist" because of what the word means.Okay ... at first I would have said you contradicted yourself here and that my analogy was valid. But if atheism isn't a philosophy, rather a state one is in ... then I understand.

Short response: Atheism is the neutral position.
Okay cool .... easier to understand. Just have to clarify my own definition. English isn't my first language :)

Okay ... then let me ask, once a person is exposed to the idea of god and considers it, but makes the choice to reject it ... they are no longer neutral, correct? Because they have chosen "a side" --- that of choosing to believe in no gods by rejecting the idea. What does this make a person then? A "conscientious atheist" ---- ? If they remain neutral and maintain no opinion one way or another, are they an agnostic or a skeptic?

[Trent Wray]

I agree with the OP's actual claim -- that the burden of proof is on the theist -- but disagree with the way it is presented -- that the burden of proof means it is necessarily wrong (though I think it is).

All scientific hypotheses, for example, have to pass muster by proving they are (possibly) true, but this hardly means any new hypothesis is ipso facto necessarily wrong. It could be that they're true but simply weren't proven yet.
So does this make you a skeptic or an atheist?

So far, the theists I've seen posting (at least the obvious ones) are short on skepticism and loaded with subjective perceptions ... and this would wear my patience thin in a forum like these. I hope my questions aren't tiresome. I have been the minority in more circumstances than I can remember, and although I enjoy the experiences greatly I try to be aware of my own ignorance of "the culture" and not do a bunch of stupid s*%t all the time LOL :)

So sorry if I'm asking redundant or stewpid questions! LOL

[Sledge]

Bob explained it a lot better than me. Note to self: keep it simple, stupid. :o

Why does there need to be a seperate term for someone who examines the options and remains an atheist? Or someone who returns to atheism after being religious?

[Trent Wray]

Bob explained it a lot better than me. Note to self: keep it simple, stupid. :o

Why does there need to be a seperate term for someone who examines the options and remains an atheist? Or someone who returns to atheism after being religious?Good question ... and every time I type up a response, I'm unhappy with it and another rabbit trail of my own thinking forms about why some of us have the need for so many distinctions while others do not. My thoughts aren't full formed yet, but for me it lies in the idea that atheism is a neutral concept.

It's like trying to decide which color is neutral: white, or black (which is no color, unless you want to get into semantics) or some other color we can either perceive or not perceive in the EMSpectrum. Can a color be neutral? And which is the default color? And by trying to say one is neutral above the other, aren't I anthropomorphizing light/color/etc?

So by claiming atheism is neutral, am I anthropomorphizing the concept of god? Like the concept of color? To claim "without gods" as being neutral, then "with gods" would also be neutral, right?

Color is our label we put on our limited perceptions of a certain phenomenon. But we have our labels to make distinctions. But they are still colors. Color would seem to be the neutral term. Black isn't. White isn't. So "with gods" or "without gods" is something that seems, well, black and white. The common denominator being god. With color, the common denominator would seem to be light. Color exists, because light exists and we perceive it. Perhaps a neutral term for a child would be "organism". Not theism or atheism ... but organism. Or "neutraltheism".


But just to add to the mess, I came upon this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86183

lol :)

Time for me to get some sleep now ...

[Jontg]

I agree with you, but jeez. Try not to Godwin it in the first post next time.

Well, find me something that provokes the same level of, to sum it up in a (semi)word, WTF when somebody openly professes it and I'll amend it. The two ideas are equally bizarre and unsupported, and have roughly similar bodycounts (unless you regard the fanatical adulation of a head of state to be a form of religion...), and the fact that one evokes an almost primal revulsion while the other is accepted as the normal, even optimal state of being is nothing but social bias. I'm sure if Germany had won World War II, we'd be getting our doses of Chicken Soup for the Nazi Soul from saccharine stories of doe-eyed Hitler Jugend members helping old Aryan ladies cross the street. After all, der Fuhrer would have done the same!

[Minarvia]

Are rocks atheists?

Yep. And therefore they must be immoral, too! :D

[Third Eye Open]

Yep. And therefore they must be immoral, too! :D

Well they are definitely amoral.

[Minarvia]

Why does there need to be a seperate term for someone who examines the options and remains an atheist? Or someone who returns to atheism after being religious?

I've often wondered that myself. Why? Just to keep people asking questions? Because it is politically correct? For the same reason toilet paper is now bathroom tissue and a snot rag is a nose tissue?

[Trent Wray]

I've often wondered that myself. Why? Just to keep people asking questions? Because it is politically correct? For the same reason toilet paper is now bathroom tissue and a snot rag is a nose tissue?
I think it boils down to this:

When one human being wants to make a distinction of themselves from another human being (for whatever their reason, be it out of neutrality or being offended, etc) and place a label on it, the terms are created.

When will we all just get along? LOL :) Maybe I should convert to hippie-ism. Or maybe rock-ism.

Actually, I believe rocks are immoral a55holes. Everytime I stub my toe on one they pi55 me off and I pick it up and throw it as far from myself as possible. :)

And I have asked about the distinctions from a neutral perspective ... I am not "emotionally or morally charged" either way by someone's beliefs, even if they verbally attack me. I'm more just fascinated in understanding how people feel and think about themselves and others, and so nailing down the terms reveals this side of people for me. I'd have to be physically threatened or emotionally impacted by someone I "care about" on a deeper level than just conversations. Until then, I'm just adding to my personal internal hard-drive.

These are great forums btw. It's a pleasure! :D

[Vortigern99]

Tonight, for the first time, my 4 year old son came up to me and said, "Daddy, I don't like it when you talk about dying."

[SNIP engrossing soap-box/sermon about childhood innocence, imagination, fear, the need to believe, agnosticism and the tyranny of the majority]

But anyway, I'm starting to ramble. It's late:)

Nominated: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5581938&posted=1#post5581938

[Trent Wray]

Originally Posted by trentwray
Tonight, for the first time, my 4 year old son came up to me and said, "Daddy, I don't like it when you talk about dying."

[SNIP engrossing soap-box/sermon about childhood innocence, imagination, fear, the need to believe, agnosticism and the tyranny of the majority]

But anyway, I'm starting to ramble. It's late
Nominated: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5581938&posted=1#post5581938

Hey thanx! My first nom! Although by using the term soap-box/sermon I'm assuming it might be as a sort of "mockery nomination" displaying what you perceive to be my ignorance?

I hate sounding like a soap-box/sermon talker, but people tell me that's how I talk all the time when I'm "discussing" something. I am not good at concisely summarizing something in a few words.

But I woulds say that I wasn't trying to describe childhood innocence, so much as childhood ignorance (in a neutral, blank page sense of the term). But I would say that I was exploring the idea that my kid wants to understand verses believe. Giving him the "truth" isn't what he WANTS all the time. So to fulfill his need to calm his own fears, he picks what works. That is what he chooses to believe. I don't know that the need is belief in and of itself. Belief is the pill he takes to boost his immune system to whatever issue his body (or his want) is telling him to fight ... fear or a specific want, insecurity, desire, etc. In that sense, some of us have different "needs". But in general, we teach our children that "suffering, fear, pain, etc. is bad" but then use it to our own advantage or what we perceive to be their advantage or a combination of the two in certain situations. Like punishment. Or teaching. Or even positive signs of "growth". But what interests me is when my son no longer trusts the majority which he normally trusts (like me, his mother, his teacher, gma, etc) with how to handle a certain thing, and chooses to believe something fantastical or illogical as a better alternative. It would appear, that he's unaware of the concept of self-delusion, even though he uses it to what he thinks is his advantage.

Why? Is it something we do naturally ... unawares? And if so, can we be blamed for it when the consequences of it are "bad"? Should it be viewed as a mental disorder, or common states of being? When is it okay to believe delusions as a tool to cope and when is it not?

[Beth]

I can't dance around the issue. It just is. Why is it so hard to get this across? We are not the weird ones here. We are not making wild, unsupported assertions. Atheism is a religious null hypothesis--the natural, default position from which theism deviates--and it is their job to provide evidence to the contrary. Er, no. There is no particular reason to make atheism the null hypothesis or default position. The default hypothesis is typically whatever is currently believed to be true while the alternative is what needs to be proven.

The burden of proof lies upon whoever is attempting to convert someone else to their point of view. It lies on the theist when they attempt to convert someone to their belief. It lies on the atheist when they attempt to convert someone to their belief. If you are not trying to convince anyone else of the truth of your personal belief, you have no burden of proof.

[BobTheDonkey]

Er, no. There is no particular reason to make atheism the null hypothesis or default position. The default hypothesis is typically whatever is currently believed to be true while the alternative is what needs to be proven.

The burden of proof lies upon whoever is attempting to convert someone else to their point of view. It lies on the theist when they attempt to convert someone to their belief. It lies on the atheist when they attempt to convert someone to their belief. If you are not trying to convince anyone else of the truth of your personal belief, you have no burden of proof.

The point is that Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. You are comparing blind faith based beliefs to evidence based beliefs (or lack-of-evidence based beliefs :) ).

The default position is to not have any beliefs in supernatural beings. That belief is developed through association with our respective cultures/societies that, at least in some part, encourage belief in supernatural beings.

ETA: As an example, if Trentway and his wife had explained to their son the christian beliefs on death and god, his son would thus be inclined to believe in this particular brand of supernatural. If they had chosen to use reincarnation as a basis for the discussion, his son would have been inclined to believe in that particular brand of woo.

[Trent Wray]

The burden of proof lies upon whoever is attempting to convert someone else to their point of view. It lies on the theist when they attempt to convert someone to their belief. It lies on the atheist when they attempt to convert someone to their belief. If you are not trying to convince anyone else of the truth of your personal belief, you have no burden of proof. I agree with this.

But I'm still unconvinced that atheism is the default position. If atheism literally is defined as "without gods", then it implies that gods exist to be without. If it is "without the concept of gods", then it is unnecessary to state as a default position .... because the list of concepts a baby is without would be so long that it's pointless to list it all. It's more a matter of discussion based on someone's beliefs .... if a Christian thinks all babies are born going to hell, then all babies are born "lost".

A truly neutral position for a Christian, would be "a baby is neither lost nor saved."

Even to say "the baby is neither with, nor without gods." That's neutral in one sense, but it's still implying there are gods to be without.

I think this statement is more correct to say:
"A baby hasn't chosen to be with or without gods, and a baby is unable to communicate whether or not they are aware of the concept of a god or gods."

If the above statement is more or less all encompassing of a baby's state concerning a god or gods, and also describes atheism correctly (which I don't think it does based on my understanding of atheism) ... then I would agree that all babies are born atheist by default.

[BobTheDonkey]

I agree with this.

But I'm still unconvinced that atheism is the default position. If atheism literally is defined as "without gods", then it implies that gods exist to be without. If it is "without the concept of gods", then it is unnecessary to state as a default position .... because the list of concepts a baby is without would be so long that it's pointless to list it all. It's more a matter of discussion based on someone's beliefs .... if a Christian thinks all babies are born going to hell, then all babies are born "lost".

A truly neutral position for a Christian, would be "a baby is neither lost nor saved."

Even to say "the baby is neither with, nor without gods." That's neutral in one sense, but it's still implying there are gods to be without.

I think this statement is more correct to say:
"A baby hasn't chosen to be with or without gods, and a baby is unable to communicate whether or not they are aware of the concept of a god or gods."

If the above statement is more or less all encompassing of a baby's state concerning a god or gods, and also describes atheism correctly (which I don't think it does based on my understanding of atheism) ... then I would agree that all babies are born atheist by default.

There's a difference between "with or without gods" and "with or without a belief in gods."

Atheism is not simply being "without a god." It's without a belief in god(s). That is the default. One is not born believing in gods. Indeed the specific god(s) one believes in is easily attributable to the predominant religion of the geographical region one is born into.

As for whether or not the burden of proof lies on atheists or theists, I feel the OP is more correct than Beth. Generally, yes, she's right. When one is trying to convince another person of a belief set, the burden of proof lies on whomever is attempting the conversion. However, atheism is based on a distinct lack of evidence.

Think of it like this: You start as an atheist. You examine one path (religion) of evidence, it doesn't support the conclusion, so you determine this path to be fallacious and return to the beginning (atheism) and start following/examining the evidence of the next path (religion), see it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and return back to the beginning. Atheism is where one stands before any beliefs are accepted as true, thus, it is the default.

[Beth]

The point is that Atheism is defined as a lack of belief.
Atheism has a several definitions. That is one, but it is not the only one.
You are comparing blind faith based beliefs to evidence based beliefs (or lack-of-evidence based beliefs :) ). No - I'm not making that comparison at all. I'm just making the point that the default hypothesis is not restricted to a single position. That is a general statement about null hypotheses, not just about the null with regard to god beliefs.

The default position is to not have any beliefs in supernatural beings. That belief is developed through association with our respective cultures/societies that, at least in some part, encourage belief in supernatural beings. So? It is also true that humans have no ability to talk at birth, therefore should being without language be the default position? To me, it simply isn't logical to use the state at birth to restrict the default position to a single option for something as complex and social as religion or language.

Since adults can have beliefs for either position, the default can be either. The burden of proof rests on whomever wishes to convince someone else to change their belief.

[Ryan O'Dine]

To expand a little on what dio and others have touched on, I believe atheism is the default logical position, but I don't think it's the default psychological position.

There's a sort of continuum of gods which children spontaneously develop, from imaginary friends to anthropomorphized inanimate objects to the fear of thunder as something “out to get them.”

Seems to me it's only small steps from there to spirits inhabiting rocks and trees, and from there to some grand overarching spirit(s), the specifics of which are culturally determined.

The universality of religion suggests these are evolved psychological traits. IOW, I do think atheists overcome a default psychological position in reaching their atheism.

[Trent Wray]

To expand a little on what dio and others have touched on, I believe atheism is the default logical position, but I don't think it's the default psychological position.

There's a sort of continuum of gods which children spontaneously develop, from imaginary friends to anthropomorphized inanimate objects to the fear of thunder as something “out to get them.”

Seems to me it's only small steps from there to spirits inhabiting rocks and trees, and from there to some grand overarching spirit(s), the specifics of which are culturally determined.

The universality of religion suggests these are evolved psychological traits. IOW, I do think atheists overcome a default psychological position in reaching their atheism.Interesting ....
So would it be fair to say, based on this train of thought .... that a child may hear thunder and due to their inheriting a genetic instinctual disposition to view thunder as "a danger to one's security" --- that they "instinctually" respond to the thunder in a fearful way perhaps? But for some reason they are unable to understand what the thunder is, and so imagination comes into play when logic is absent?

By this thinking .... I could ask why imagination and the results of it are "wrong" sometimes, since it is an inherrant (sp?) quality in us that serves to help us survive. I'm not saying that imagination doesn't betray us and cause us to make detrimental choices ... but I'm saying why do we view it as "wrong" in a moral sense.

And why haven't we "evolved" to a point where we instinctually don't need imagination to account for certain things? For example ... does a child need imagination in order to scream for food and understand that need? But a child wants to understand the shadows and the thunder and the big, threatening dog. So it would seem that we are rather incomplete evolutionarily speaking. A fox hears the thunder and takes cover, but doesn't seem to need to understand the thunder and attribute it to a god or something imaginary. Perhaps they will attribute it to something else they have encountered already ... or perhaps nothing at all. Perhaps just rain is what they will associate it with.

So does this mean our imagination is incomplete? That we still need to evolve to a point where our psychological = logical? And does this also mean that our tendencies to judge actions as "good or evil" is a sign of our incompleteness? Is it further evidence we need to continue to evolve to some different state of being psychologically? Perhaps ridding ourselves of the "need to understand the concepts behind" anything?

In other words .... are we evolving/changing/metamorphisizing into something more psychologically and philosophically different from other animals in the animal kingdom, or more akin to them in these regards? Or perhaps something different all together?

[skeptic griggsy]

We naturalists illustrate that theists do indeed have that burden of evidence as the presumption of naturalism illuminates- see the thread!

[Ryan O'Dine]

Interesting ....
So would it be fair to say, based on this train of thought .... that a child may hear thunder and due to their inheriting a genetic instinctual disposition to view thunder as "a danger to one's security" --- that they "instinctually" respond to the thunder in a fearful way perhaps? But for some reason they are unable to understand what the thunder is, and so imagination comes into play when logic is absent?
To be specific, I'd imagine children inherit a fear of loud noises, not necessarily thunder per se. The rest of what you say is on target, but I'd go a step further. It's not just imagination filling in the gaps of logic, it's an actual anthropomorphization (that a word?) of what they fear.

To really go out on a limb, my hunch would be that children (and adults) experience this as a kind of byproduct, or emergent property of the so-called theory of mind.

By this thinking .... I could ask why imagination and the results of it are "wrong" sometimes, since it is an inherrant (sp?) quality in us that serves to help us survive.
...snip...
Imagination may do harm and mislead, but it does a heck of a lot more good. Being able to predict the outcome of actions before those actions are taken is worth whatever costs have come with it, obviously.

The only reason we'd evolve more perfect imaginations would be if there were selection pressures large enough to overcome the cost, which may be huge. I'm guessing imagination takes a LOT of brain resources, faulty though it is. And the brain as a whole is already a resource hog.

One could ask how perfect imagination could be in any event. It's a tool for filling incomplete or unknown data. It's bound to be error prone by its very nature.

[Manopolus]

I can't dance around the issue. It just is. Why is it so hard to get this across? We are not the weird ones here. We are not making wild, unsupported assertions. Atheism is a religious null hypothesis--the natural, default position from which theism deviates--and it is their job to provide evidence to the contrary. Until then, their beliefs are empty conjecture, their privileges undeserved, and their existence antithetical to science.
To have to self-identify as an atheist--as being in active opposition to the ideas of one theistic sect or another--is as nonsensical a concept as having to affirm that one is not a Nazi; in fact, if somebody asks you if you believe in a god, you have every right to react as if the speaker had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.
:soapbox

Nope.

The "default position" would be having never heard of the concept of God in the first place.

The "most natural" position would be to assert that you know nothing of the existence of God or lack thereof.

However, I agree that theists are willfully ignorant.

[Manopolus]

I disagree with the notion that one has to have heard of god/s to be an atheist. The whole point is that an atheist has no belief in a god. Whether or not one has been exposed to the concept doesn't change the fact that the person has no belief in it.

Ha! I disagreed with your disagreement before reading your post. Before hearing about dark matter, did you deny its existence?

[Malerin]

Yes, I think they are. They are also non-smokers.

It will rarely be useful to talk about rocks being atheists or non-smokers, though.

Same with babys: They have no believe in god, therefore, they are atheists. It will usually not be terribly useful to bring that up - but it can be. In particular, it's worth pointing this out when your whole point is that theists are made or develop.

If rocks are atheists, it would be fair to say atheists vastly outnumber theists. You would have no problem with that?

[Pure Argent]

If rocks are atheists, it would be fair to say atheists vastly outnumber theists. You would have no problem with that?

I dunno about Rasmus, but I don't think I would. It'd be nice to be the majority.

:cs:

[h.g.Whiz]

Believers in god lack proof of existenz, but not nonbelievers lack proof of non existenz. Their strategies for truth have Identical errors (no proof). One thinks they got proof, the other thinks no proof is needed.

[KingMerv00]

Believers in god lack proof of existenz, but not nonbelievers lack proof of non existenz. Their strategies for truth have Identical errors (no proof). One thinks they got proof, the other thinks no proof is needed.

I have proof of existenz:

http://www.now-movies.com/movieimg/movie1262902460.jpg


Seriously though, you misunderstand atheism. We are not making a claim of non-existenz. We are saying that the claim of existenz is unfounded.

[Pure Argent]

Believers in god lack proof of existenz, but not nonbelievers lack proof of non existenz. Their strategies for truth have Identical errors (no proof). One thinks they got proof, the other thinks no proof is needed.

The burden of proof is on those who claim existenz.

[BobTheDonkey]

The burden of proof is on those who claim existenz.

Exactly. It's not like we're the ones claiming something for which there is no evidence. It's the other way around ;)

[KingMerv00]

The burden of proof is on those who claim existenz.

Dude! I proved existenz with my poster! Maybe you don't like the idea of Jude Law carrying a gun made of meat. How about this?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcp/pedrojosetena/myfiles/15%20existenz%201999.jpg

[Pure Argent]

Dude! I proved existenz with my poster! Maybe you don't like the idea of Jude Law carrying a gun made of meat. How about this?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lcp/pedrojosetena/myfiles/15%20existenz%201999.jpg

That's eXistenZ, not existenz.