The Presumption of Atheism

[williamryan]

I often hear atheists say that the theist has the burden of proof. And often the theist will punt back that burden and the two will play burden-of-proof volleyball for a while. But they're both wrong.

There are about 5 positions on the proposition: "God exists."

1. Theism: the positive claim to know that God exists.
2. Atheism: the positive claim to know that God doesn't exist
3. Weak Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know
4. Strong Agnosticism: the positive claim that you cannot know whether God exists
5. Verificationism: the positive claim that the phrase "God exists" is neither true nor false. It's simply meaningless b/c it's non-falsifiable

(5) is the view that unless something can be verified by the five senses, it's not true or false, it's simply meaningless. It's like saying: "The slithy tog did gire and gimble in the wabe." Virtually no one holds to (5) anymore because it's self-refuting: is the following proposition verifiable by the five senses: "a proposition must be verifiable by the five senses to be meaningful."

The default position here is (3): weak agnostism because it's the only one w/o a burden of proof. Every other position is making a positive claim to knowledge, which means they have a proof-burden. When atheists collapse 2, 3, 4, and 5 together under the broad umbrealla of a theism, what they're really doing is bringing them together under non-theism. So they're defining "atheism" in a very nonstandard way.

Thus, the default position is weak agnosticism; not atheism or theism. Thoughts?

[theleftone]

No. The theists are wrong. They absolutely have the burden of proof to evidence that god exists. To be sure, complex supernatural beings don't be dafault exist. They require evidence.

The only person without a burden of proof is the one who makes no claims.

Of course it's not. The default position individuals take is atheism. Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god. They're born completely ignorant of religion, but are later indoctrinated to believe by their parents. They come to know about these lingering superstitions from the society around them. It may seem like non-theists have the burden, but that argument is fallacious: to relies on the appeal to popular opinion fallacy.

This is wrong. A position denotes a view or perspective. To have a view or perspective necessitates one perform some form of mental activity on a concept. If one is completely ignorant of deity-concepts then one is incapable of formulating a view or perspective on any deity. Thus, a child is incapable of holding a position on a god. Therefore, the notion of atheism being a position and children being atheists are incompatible.

[Zzyzx]

.

The only person without a burden of proof is the one who makes no claims.

I agree -- and emphasize that ANY person who makes claims has the obligation / responsibility to substantiate their claims if challenged OR the ethical obligation to WITHDRAW the claim if it cannot be substantiated.

This brings up the matter of "what constitutes substantiation?" -- which is a topic for a separate thread.

[The Duke of Vandals]

No. The theists are wrong. They absolutely have the burden of proof to evidence that god exists. To be sure, complex supernatural beings don't be dafault exist. They require evidence.

The only person without a burden of proof is the one who makes no claims.

Of course it's not. The default position individuals take is atheism. Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god. They're born completely ignorant of religion, but are later indoctrinated to believe by their parents. They come to know about these lingering superstitions from the society around them. It may seem like non-theists have the burden, but that argument is fallacious: to relies on the appeal to popular opinion fallacy.

This is wrong. A position denotes a view or perspective. To have a view or perspective necessitates one perform some form of mental activity on a concept. If one is completely ignorant of deity-concepts then one is incapable of formulating a view or perspective on any deity. Thus, a child is incapable of holding a position on a god. Therefore, the notion of atheism being a position and children being atheists are incompatible.

You've confused the lack of a position with a position. Understand that atheism is a broad spectrum of people. It applies to anyone who does not believe in god including the like of Richard Dawkins whose done the research to little kids who've been lucky enough not to hear about god.

[Fisherking]

They absolutely have the burden of proof to evidence that god exists.

If they make the claim that God exists it is up to them to provide evidence that he indeed does.
On the other hand, when strong atheists (such as yourself) make the claim God does not exist, it is up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god.

It would be interesting to see evidence supporting this claim.

They're born completely ignorant of religion

They would also be ignorant of atheism, why they shouldn't play in the toilet, and various other bits of knowledge....

but are later indoctrinated to believe by their parents.

Children are definitly indoctrinated by their parents to believe or not to believe, to be a republican or a democrat, a conservative or a liberal...... of course there are exceptions -- uncle Joe or grandma Betty may be the ones doing the indoctrination, but as far as I can tell babies aren't born knowing anything.

They come to know about these lingering superstitions from the society around them.

They come to know everything from the society around them -- including atheism.

[The Duke of Vandals]

On the other hand, when strong atheists (such as yourself) make the claim God does not exist, it is up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

*sigh*

And for the millionth time, all we have to do in order to support our side is to destroy your claim which we do with striking efficiency.

It would be interesting to see evidence supporting this claim.

Sure. I can point to modern biology and psychology to explain that human beings are born with survival instincts and the ability to quickly absorb new skills (during childhood). Where is your evidence that kids just know about god? What will you point to? Certainly not science or anything credible.

They would also be ignorant of atheism, why they shouldn't play in the toilet, and various other bits of knowledge....

Is it really your argument that children are born knowing not to play in the toilet? Really?

As for atheism, your statement is nonsensical. A child born without any diseases isn't also "without healthy". Healthy is the state of a lack of disease. Likewise, atheism is a lack of religion... whether by ignorance or research is irrelevant.

Children are definitly indoctrinated by their parents to believe or not to believe, to be a republican or a democrat, a conservative or a liberal...... of course there are exceptions --

I'm glad you understand this, but on a side note, the indoctrination that kids receive for Christianity is far more sinister than anything else you mentioned. There's nothing in conservatism that tells children they're go to hell if they don't vote a certain way.

They come to know everything from the society around them -- including atheism.

No. They start as atheists. Then, if they have religious parents, they get indoctrinated into that religion. Usually for life.

[Zzyzx]

.

Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god.

It would be interesting to see evidence supporting this claim.

You supply support for his claim later in your post

. . . but as far as I can tell babies aren't born knowing anything.

Since “babies aren’t born knowing anything” (as you state and I agree), they obviously do not have a “sense of god” (because that denotes knowing something).

Humans are not born knowing about Santa Claus, space aliens, leprechauns or gods. They do not know to hate and discriminate and to make war. They LEARN about those things from the environment in which they grow up. Some are taught to worship invisible supernatural beings, they are known as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc (or Theists). Some are not taught about “gods” and they are known as non-religious. Some are taught that “gods” are imaginary and they are known as Atheists.

[Fisherking]

On the other hand, when strong atheists (such as yourself) make the claim God does not exist, it is up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

*sigh*

And for the millionth time, all we have to do in order to support our side is to destroy your claim which we do with striking efficiency.

In other words all one has to do to destroy the other side is to believe they are destroying the other side.

Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god.

It would be interesting to see evidence supporting this claim.

You supply support for his claim later in your post

Since “babies aren’t born knowing anything” (as you state and I agree), they obviously do not have a “sense of god” (because that denotes knowing something).

I was interested as to what evidence would cause one to believe children are not born with a sense that there may be a God--not what evidence would cause one to believe children are not born with a sense that there is or isn't a God. All his claim is basically saying is that children aren't born as agnostics, but as atheists. I was curious what evidence had brought that conclusion.

Humans are not born knowing about Santa Claus, space aliens, leprechauns or gods.

No, the claim in question would say humans aren't born with a sense that Santa, space aliens, or leprechauns may be real. Duke is saying they are born knowing they are not real. I am still interested how this could be verified.

Sure. I can point to modern biology and psychology to explain that human beings are born with survival instincts and the ability to quickly absorb new skills (during childhood)

Thats wonderful. You have pointed to biology and psychology that says humans are born with survival instincts and the ability to quickly absorb new skills. How is that evidence that children are not born with the sense that there may be a God?

Where is your evidence that kids just know about god?

Where is the evidence that I ever made this claim?

They're born completely ignorant of religion

They would also be ignorant of atheism, why they shouldn't play in the toilet, and various other bits of knowledge....

Is it really your argument that children are born knowing not to play in the toilet?

No, my statement was they " They would also be ignorant of atheism, why they shouldn't play in the toilet, and various other bits of knowledge....".

As for atheism, your statement is nonsensical. A child born without any diseases isn't also "without healthy". Healthy is the state of a lack of disease. Likewise, atheism is a lack of religion... whether by ignorance or research is irrelevant.

They come to know everything from the society around them -- including atheism.

No. They start as atheists.

Tisk tisk.... kindly provide evidence to support the claim that they start as atheists.

[theleftone]

Of course it's not. The default position individuals take is atheism. Children aren't born with a sense that there may be a god. They're born completely ignorant of religion, but are later indoctrinated to believe by their parents. They come to know about these lingering superstitions from the society around them. It may seem like non-theists have the burden, but that argument is fallacious: to relies on the appeal to popular opinion fallacy.

This is wrong. A position denotes a view or perspective. To have a view or perspective necessitates one perform some form of mental activity on a concept. If one is completely ignorant of deity-concepts then one is incapable of formulating a view or perspective on any deity. Thus, a child is incapable of holding a position on a god. Therefore, the notion of atheism being a position and children being atheists are incompatible.

You've confused the lack of a position with a position.

I have not confused the two. I am arguing against the confusion of the two. Odd that I should be accused of the very thing I am arguing against.

Understand that atheism is a broad spectrum of people. It applies to anyone who does not believe in god including the like of Richard Dawkins whose done the research to little kids who've been lucky enough not to hear about god.

I agree the term can be used broadly. However, as has been noted in your previous post, it is a position. Thus, the ignorant are incapable of developing a position on deities.

[bernee51]

I often hear atheists say that the theist has the burden of proof. And often the theist will punt back that burden and the two will play burden-of-proof volleyball for a while. But they're both wrong.

There are about 5 positions on the proposition: "God exists."

1. Theism: the positive claim to know that God exists.
2. Atheism: the positive claim to know that God doesn't exist
3. Weak Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know
4. Strong Agnosticism: the positive claim that you cannot know whether God exists
5. Verificationism: the positive claim that the phrase "God exists" is neither true nor false. It's simply meaningless b/c it's non-falsifiable

You definitions are not accurate:

1. Theism: the belief that God exists.
2. Atheism: the lack of belief that God exists
3. Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know

That is all that is possible.

Within theism both gnosticism and agnostism are valid positions. Withis atheism there is also the possibility of a positive claim that god does not exist but this is not a prerequisite to be an atheist.

[McCulloch]

Oh darn! Definitions, definitions, definitions...

You definitions are not accurate:

1. Theism: the belief that God exists.
2. Atheism: the lack of belief that God exists
3. Agnosticism: the personal admission that the person just doesn't know

That is all that is possible.

If Atheism is simply the lack of belief that God exists then Agnosticism is a subset of Atheism, since agnostics do not have a belief in God's existence either.

One Dictionary has:
a·the·ism
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Now, I'm content to work within that definition. By it, atheist believe that there is no God, not just that they lack a positive belief in God.

Another dictionary has:
a·the·ism
n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh&#275;s- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Not much different. Atheism is more than simply not believing that there is a God.

Yet another:
atheism

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

The second definition from Princeton's WordNet agrees with your particular usage, so it too is a valid use.