Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club

[EduChris]

Many non-theists on this forum have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves. So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, no arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."

Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.

However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.

Question for debate: should the Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club be disbanded? Why should they be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?

Isn't it time for the non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

[AquinasD]

This makes sense to me. The idea that there is some "default position" for human belief seems very dubious. That human reasoning will automatically go towards some conclusion, unless some other non-normative human process gets in the way, is highly controversial and requires some argumentation to demonstrate that this is the case. The claim relies on indefinite terms (for example, what is this "non-normative human process," and why should it be considered as "getting in the way" at all?) and seems culturally conditioned more than objective.

[Clownboat]

Many non-theists on this forum have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves. So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, no arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."

Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.

However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.

Question for debate: should the Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club be disbanded? Why should they be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?

Isn't it time for the non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

Religion seems to be the lazy road if you ask me, not atheism. For example:
I don't know how life got here.
Chris says a god did it.
That seems lazy when compared to:
I don't know how life got here, I better study that more.

You seem to be confused.

[EduChris]

...Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?...

I need not explain that which I have not claimed. Your preconceived dogmas are preventing you from understanding my actual claim.

What I am saying is that the standard non-theist arguments work well only against the obsolete, philosophically naive concept of "accidental" or "logically contingent" gods. But since no one today seriously argues for such "gods," the debate needs to move on; non-theists need to abandon their worn-out strawman arguments.

We need to debate the type of theism that lies at the source of all the major world theisms, and here the question is not "Does God exist?" but rather, "Does Ultimate Reality involve some element of volition, or is Ultimate Reality limited solely to some admixture of chance & necessity?" You can argue whatever way you wish, but you have to present an actual argument, for there is no obvious "default position" here.

[David 2.0]

I voted yes.

I don't really care about the default position, cream usually rises to the top, IMO.

I do think that atheist argument should evolve.
Nothing wrong with that.

[Clownboat]

...Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?...

I need not explain that which I have not claimed. Your preconceived dogmas are preventing you from understanding my actual claim.

I did not say that you made a claim. I "asked" if you could explain. I will assume you cannot.

What I am saying is that the standard non-theist arguments work well only against the obsolete, philosophically naive concept of "accidental" or "logically contingent" gods. But since no one today seriously argues for such "gods," the debate needs to move on; non-theists need to abandon their worn-out strawman arguments.

We need to debate the type of theism that lies at the source of all the major world theisms, and here the question is not "Does God exist?" but rather, "Does Ultimate Reality involve some element of volition, or is Ultimate Reality limited solely to some admixture of chance & necessity?" You can argue whatever way you wish, but you have to present an actual argument, for there is no obvious "default position" here.

How is your god different than Thor, Allah, Zeus and so on? If the arguement works against them, it works against yours. Unless you are using special pleading.
Is being a stamp collector the default possition or not being a stamp collector?

I still think that my opinion about god claims being lazy is accurate and you certainly did not refute it.

[bjs]

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.

It is true that in this case we would not call John a non-stamp collector. We would call him something else entirely. We might call him a coin collector. Or a basketball player. Or a biker. Or a guy-who-sits-quietly-and-moves-as-little-as-possible.

Not collecting stamps is not the default. It is not anything. As long as John is alive then he is doing something, and if we are starting from scratch then there is no default.

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?

If I understood EduChris argument, then I dont think that he claimed that the Christian God should be the default. It appears that he is saying that there should not be any default. Everyone who enters a debate must have a position, must defend that position, and must hold their own position to the same standards that they put on other positions.

[EduChris]

...How is your god different than Thor, Allah, Zeus and so on?...

I am not arguing about "my God" vs. "some other God." Instead, I am arguing that the entire debate about God has changed, and the non-theist's arguments have not kept pace with the changes.

...If the arguement works against them, it works against yours. Unless you are using special pleading...

Standard non-theist arguments work well against the philosophically naive, primitive conceptions found in ancient mythology. Zeus and Thor are not presented as the source and ground of all existence--they are contingent beings not much different from you and me, except in power. Since these "gods" are contingent, their existence can be questioned, and in fact no one (other than the inevitable gadfly) takes such "gods" seriously any more. Atheist arguments vs. contingent "gods" have won out; that debate has, for all practical purposes, ended long ago.

...my opinion about god claims being lazy is accurate and you certainly did not refute it.

Let's discuss the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which stands as the Source of all contingent existence. Let's debate what attributes might reasonably pertain to Ultimate Reality. Let's compare your thoughts with mine and with the thoughts of others.

But let's stop with the obsolete strawman arguments that fail to address the claims of today's modern theisms.

[Clownboat]

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.

It is true that in this case we would not call John a non-stamp collector. We would call him something else entirely. We might call him a coin collector. Or a basketball player. Or a biker. Or a guy-who-sits-quietly-and-moves-as-little-as-possible.

Not collecting stamps is not the default. It is not anything. As long as John is alive then he is doing something, and if we are starting from scratch then there is no default.

I disagree. Not collecting stamps is default. Collecting them is not. Oh well.

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?

If I understood EduChris argument, then I dont think that he claimed that the Christian God should be the default. It appears that he is saying that there should not be any default. Everyone who enters a debate must have a position, must defend that position, and must hold their own position to the same standards that they put on other positions.

Of course you guys would like to claim that there should be no default possition.
Face it, when you were born, you did not believe in any gods. Sometime throughout your life, you decided to accept a god, just like a stamp collector has to do. They are born not collecting stamps, they decide to collect stamps and only then do they become known as a stamp collector.
Everyone is born an atheist.

[Goat]

It is the default position though:

Chris collects stamps. He is identified as a stamp collector.
John does not collect stamps. It is not necessary to call him a non stamp collector.

Not collecting stamps is the default. Same as not accepting one of the thousands of proposed gods.

It is true that in this case we would not call John a non-stamp collector. We would call him something else entirely. We might call him a coin collector. Or a basketball player. Or a biker. Or a guy-who-sits-quietly-and-moves-as-little-as-possible.

Not collecting stamps is not the default. It is not anything. As long as John is alive then he is doing something, and if we are starting from scratch then there is no default.

Can you explain why believing in the Christian god should be default?

If I understood EduChris argument, then I dont think that he claimed that the Christian God should be the default. It appears that he is saying that there should not be any default. Everyone who enters a debate must have a position, must defend that position, and must hold their own position to the same standards that they put on other positions.

My position is.. Until something that is claimed to have existence has actual evidence, it is reasonable to not believe in that thing. I do not believe in the Yeti, I do not believe in big foot, I do not believe in little green men from alpha centauri , and I don't believe in any supernatural deity that created the universe.

I don't believe that something can be proven by adding adjectives to another word, and playing word games.