Atheism - Obvious Default?

[LarryS]

Ask any believer and they will say there is a deity. Ask non-believers, and they will say there is not one. Why? Because the believers create a god-figment in their own minds, and it cannot be denied that those figments exist. My conclusion is there have been and are still created billions of such figments throughout history, and, being individual creations, they are all different. That is why I find the tern "atheist" too ambiguous and prefer to be just a "non-believer" while accepting the fact of there being such "gods" as created by individual minds.

and the word 'atheists' also includes those who believe in 'matter' - and matter is the biggest baddest most magical God ever invented.

 

[Cosmogenes]

and the word 'atheists' also includes those who believe in 'matter' - and matter is the biggest baddest most magical God ever invented.

Sure. In place of "believing"anything, even scientific discoveries, I prefer to have "provisional stipulations", subject to further confirmation or disconfirmation.

 

[ynot]

This is an observation . . . but the rise in atheism is more of a rebellion against organized religion and a heavy-handed personal God, Many who fall in atheist category still believe in a higher power, or life having a spiritual component, life has meaning, etc. And it's not so much that believers make a 'claim' as much as they simply believe in a higher power and fully admit there's no evidence to back it up.
IOW, there are a few atheists and believers who make 'claims', but the vast majority of people stumble into believing in something magical because they want to be happy and it seems to work.

So what? This has nothing to do with atheism being the default position or not (what the thread is actually about). It's also not about giving up theism or why people believe anything.

 

[ynot]

Its an angry child's reaction out of resentment towards the perceived authority of "organized religion". It is not the automatic default.

It's (this thread) not about why people give up on religion. Are you claiming that theism (believing in a god) is the default position (as in - original, starting, unchosen position)? If so please state your case for this.

 

[ynot]

Ask any believer and they will say there is a deity. Ask non-believers, and they will say there is not one. Why? Because the believers create a god-figment in their own minds, and it cannot be denied that those figments exist. My conclusion is there have been and are still created billions of such figments throughout history, and, being individual creations, they are all different. That is why I find the tern "atheist" too ambiguous and prefer to be just a "non-believer" while accepting the fact of there being such "gods" as created by individual minds.

Atheism (non-belief in a god) is simply not having a god belief. Not "there isn't one". Non-belief isn't a belief.

 

[ynot]

and the word 'atheists' also includes those who believe in 'matter' - and matter is the biggest baddest most magical God ever invented.

Everyone with a healthy brain knows matter exists. If you claim you don't then you can't use matter fingers that don't exist, to type on matter keys that don't exist, to reply to a matter person that doesn't exist (but I bet you will). And you can't be reading this on a matter screen that doesn't exist.

Why don't you communicate simply by using whatever magical, supernatural, non-material, crap you believe in?

 

[ynot]

Sure. In place of "believing"anything, even scientific discoveries, I prefer to have "provisional stipulations", subject to further confirmation or disconfirmation.

That's sorta what science does. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Thor 2]

Sure. In place of "believing"anything, even scientific discoveries, I prefer to have "provisional stipulations", subject to further confirmation or disconfirmation.

That's sorta what science does. Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to the forum from me also Cosmogenes.

I've been looking on at all the crap you are having to deal with here ynot. It's just amazing what people will throw in to the discussion. Is there a lack of comprehension here or a deliberate clouding of the issue perhaps?

 

[ynot]

Welcome to the forum from me also Cosmogenes.

I've been looking on at all the crap you are having to deal with here ynot. It's just amazing what people will throw in to the discussion. Is there a lack of comprehension here or a deliberate clouding of the issue perhaps?

Or perhaps merely philosobabble "I'm doin philosophy" brain wanking.

 

[LarryS]

Everyone with a healthy brain knows matter exists. If you claim you don't then you can't use matter fingers that don't exist, to type on matter keys that don't exist, to reply to a matter person that doesn't exist (but I bet you will). And you can't be reading this on a matter screen that doesn't exist.

Why don't you communicate simply by using whatever magical, supernatural, non-material, crap you believe in?

Matter as a substance found outside consciousness has never been found
Matter is an explanitory device It’s a belief, a darn good belief, but a belief.

 

[ynot]

Matter as a substance found outside consciousness has never been found
Matter is an explanitory device It’s a belief, a darn good belief, but a belief.

Yep - "philosobabble "I'm doin philosophy" brain wanking"

 

[Apathia]

Matter as a substance found outside consciousness has never been found
Matter is an explanitory device It’s a belief, a darn good belief, but a belief.

What is it in us that makes us so much want to have a Mat(t)ter?

 

[LarryS]

What is it in us that makes us so much want to have a Mat(t)ter?

I'm sure there's a good question/observation here, but I'm not seeing it.
I believe in Mat(t)ter - because it works - and I'm fully honest in recognizing it is a belief.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Seems clear to me at least that "There are no god/s" must be the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. (wiki) And that is generally where atheists are at. And agnostics for that matter.

In general terms, if the claimed god can be demonstrated to exist, then sure. I will believe in it an foot of the evidence provided. No theist has ever been able to do that and thus the null hypothesis stands.

The proposition is not testable, therefore the null hypothesis is improper.

Logically, it would stand to reason that if atheism was somehow more rational and logical than belief, man would have started out being atheist.

 

[ynot]

Logically, it would stand to reason that if atheism was somehow more rational and logical than belief, man would have started out being atheist.

If you want to claim you’re “doin logic and reason” then you need to do better than that attempt.

(1) The contest isn’t between atheism and all beliefs. It’s specifically between atheism (no belief in invisible, magical, supernatural, paranormal, untestable, unfalsifiable gods), and theism (belief in invisible, magical, supernatural, paranormal, untestable, unfalsifiable gods). Essentially no different than a contest between no belief in invisible, magical, flying, fire breathing dragons, and belief in invisible,magical, flying, fire breathing dragons (can you spot the winner?).

(2) Atheism isn’t the product of rational and logical belief as you imply. It’s merely no belief in invisible, magical, supernatural, paranormal, untestable, unfalsifiable gods. A very rational and logical position to any rational and logical mind.

(3) The reason everyone starts out being atheistic is because they start out without knowledge of god claims and the ability to assess them (even if they somehow did have such knowledge). To argue that people have to know about god claims and have the ability to assess them to quality as being labeled atheists, doesn’t change the fact that during the assessment period (however brief) they are atheists. People don't believe in invisible, magical, supernatural, paranormal, untestable, unfalsifiable gods until they do.

(4) (P C nitpick) These days, "humans" is more appropriate than "man".

 

[Thor 2]

The proposition is not testable, therefore the null hypothesis is improper.

Logically, it would stand to reason that if atheism was somehow more rational and logical than belief, man would have started out being atheist.

Oh yes, the old "You can't prove my god doesn't exist argument." in disguise. No matter how many times it's debunked the theists dust it off and drag it back again. I guess it's one of the many versions of the Christian God you are backing, judging from your posting name. If so why don't you give us a brief argument against the existence of another god you don't believe in, for us to look at.

 

[ynot]

Oh yes, the old "You can't prove my god doesn't exist argument." in disguise. No matter how many times it's debunked the theists dust it off and drag it back again. I guess it's one of the many versions of the Christian God you are backing, judging from your posting name. If so why don't you give us a brief argument against the existence of another god you don't believe in, for us to look at.

Theists just don’t/can’t understand that the stupidity of their “You can't prove my god doesn't exist“ argument is exposed by the “You can’t prove other gods doesn’t exist either” retort. Then they play their equally stupid "I have faith" card, as if alternative god theists don't also play the same stupid card.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This is an observation . . . but the rise in atheism is more of a rebellion against organized religion and a heavy-handed personal God,

By 'observation' do you mean that you have viewed the statistics, or this some kind of personal observation (aka anecdote)?

Demographics_of_atheism

In global studies... the number of people who agree with statements on lacking a belief in a deity is usually higher than the number of people who self-identify as "atheists". According to sociologist Phil Zuckerman, broad estimates of those who have an absence of belief in a deity range from 500 to 750 million people worldwide. Other estimates state that there are 200 million to 240 million self-identified atheists worldwide, with China and Russia being major contributors

Q: Why do so many atheists live in China and Russia?

A: Because they were not indoctrinated into a religion.

The majority of atheists have nothing to rebel against. In many Western countries the decline of religious influence is making it easier for people to simply remain that way from birth, without being pressured into 'believing' in god.

The truth is, god belief is not innate - it is taught.

Many who fall in atheist category still believe in a higher power, or life having a spiritual component, life has meaning, etc.

If by 'higher power' you mean god then this is false by definition. But if you simply mean something 'larger' than themselves, that is not inconsistent with Atheism. The Universe is larger than all of us, but accepting this obvious fact doesn't make one religious.

As for life having a 'spiritual component' or 'meaning',

Spirituality

The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other...

Not all modern notions of spirituality embrace transcendental ideas. Secular spirituality emphasizes humanistic ideas on moral character (qualities such as love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, responsibility, harmony, and a concern for others).These are aspects of life and human experience which go beyond a purely materialist view of the world without necessarily accepting belief in a supernatural reality or any divine being.

And it's not so much that believers make a 'claim' as much as they simply believe in a higher power and fully admit there's no evidence to back it up. IOW, there are a few atheists and believers who make 'claims', but the vast majority of people stumble into believing in something magical because they want to be happy and it seems to work.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke

Magical thinking is closer to science than religion, and sometimes 'science' is closer to magic than we care to admit. Sticking pins in an effigy to hurt someone is magic, but it doesn't require the intervention of a 'higher power'. Somebody came up with that idea by logical deduction (faulty though it may be) then tested it and got 'positive' results, making them a 'believer' in magic. How different is that from many 'successful' drug trials?

Believing in cause and effect where there is none is not theism, it's just bad science. It only becomes religious when the 'cause' is posited to be a god. And this is of course why religious organizations have come down so hard on 'witchcraft'. People doing their own magic without proper attribution goes against their business model!

 

[Apathia]

I'm sure there's a good question/observation here, but I'm not seeing it.
I believe in Mat(t)ter - because it works - and I'm fully honest in recognizing it is a belief.

I'm a godless reprobate with no substance to my existence. I don't believe in a metaphysical substance, be that Mind or Matter, or anything beyond the empirical.

Of the word "matter," its etymological origin is the Latin word "mater," which means mother. In this case the root origin, occasion, or substance of all phenomena.

Why is it we posit this abstraction, this meta-physical abstraction, beyond the empirical? This "Holy" Mother?

Platonism insisted on a Real as opposed to the mere empirical, an Ultimate, an Absolute, an Unconditioned, as Unmoved Mover, an Original Being, a Highest Good and called this abstract answer to questions forced beyond their usefulness, "Theos."

Is it really necessary? Was Voltaire right: that if there weren't a God (or a Mother), we'd event one?

Here's another way we paint ourselves into the corner of God belief. (But don't have to.)

 

[Delvo]

I prefer my word salad without the random capitals sprinkled in.