It is often claimed by some atheists that atheism is the default position for human beings to take. With all the reasoning I can muster, I have attempted to solve this riddle over the past five years of my life. I have done so to no avail. So, I am curious if anyone here can help me solve this riddle. For debate...
Is atheism the default position? If so, why? If not, why?
Atheism - The Default Position
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
Yes, I believe that atheism is the default position. I'm not exactly certain why its a riddle, perhaps if you explained that I could give you a more complete answer.
I suppose the general idea there is the trend towards religions. Catholic parents tend to raise children to be catholics. Baptist parents tend to generate baptist children. Muslim parents tend to generate Muslim children. If you don't believe me just look at the general population distributions around the world and the histories associated with that.
On occasion you'll find people converting to belief's, however as a general trend 90% of the time what I'm saying is true.
Using that information, if you were to raise a child with no knowledge of religion or a god (except as a conceptual basis, perhaps even covering the greek/roman myths for a historical perspective), wouldn't the child by necessity be an atheist? You could make a case for it being agnostic, however as I understand it agnostics generally find the case for a specific god neither proven nor disproven. You would ask the child believes in X, whereas X is your deity of choice, and the child would say no. The purest middle ground of atheism available.
I suppose the general idea there is the trend towards religions. Catholic parents tend to raise children to be catholics. Baptist parents tend to generate baptist children. Muslim parents tend to generate Muslim children. If you don't believe me just look at the general population distributions around the world and the histories associated with that.
On occasion you'll find people converting to belief's, however as a general trend 90% of the time what I'm saying is true.
Using that information, if you were to raise a child with no knowledge of religion or a god (except as a conceptual basis, perhaps even covering the greek/roman myths for a historical perspective), wouldn't the child by necessity be an atheist? You could make a case for it being agnostic, however as I understand it agnostics generally find the case for a specific god neither proven nor disproven. You would ask the child believes in X, whereas X is your deity of choice, and the child would say no. The purest middle ground of atheism available.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air...we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #3
How do you learn about the things that you know about? Two ways, direct experience and being taught by others. You learn about hunger by direct experience. You learn how to get food when others teach you how. Few of us discover new ways to acquire food.
For those who believe in a deity, where did they learn about this deity? From others. Therefore, if no one teaches you about God, you simply will not know about God. The very few who claim to experience God directly are prophets or lunatics, depending on your point of view. However, even most theists admit that natural prophets, those who experience God directly without having been taught by other about God first, are a minority.
So, I conclude, that atheism is the default.
For those who believe in a deity, where did they learn about this deity? From others. Therefore, if no one teaches you about God, you simply will not know about God. The very few who claim to experience God directly are prophets or lunatics, depending on your point of view. However, even most theists admit that natural prophets, those who experience God directly without having been taught by other about God first, are a minority.
So, I conclude, that atheism is the default.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
theleftone
Post #4
Nyril wrote:Using that information, if you were to raise a child with no knowledge of religion or a god (except as a conceptual basis, perhaps even covering the greek/roman myths for a historical perspective), wouldn't the child by necessity be an atheist?
What evidence do your two have that should an individual never educated about God must necessarily be ignorant of God?McCulloch wrote:For those who believe in a deity, where did they learn about this deity? From others. Therefore, if no one teaches you about God, you simply will not know about God.
Second, if the one above is indeed ignorant of God, is it still proper to label them an atheist? If so, why?
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #5
McCulloch wrote:For those who believe in a deity, where did they learn about this deity? From others. Therefore, if no one teaches you about God, you simply will not know about God.
How is if that someone who is not educated about God would come to the knowledge of God? Lacking the answer to this question, one must assume that someone not educated about God must be ignorant. I do not believe in divine revelation nor in miracles.tselem wrote:What evidence do your two have that should an individual never educated about God must necessarily be ignorant of God?
Good point. If you define atheism as disbelief in the existence of any god, then agnosticism is the default position.tselem wrote:Second, if the one above is indeed ignorant of God, is it still proper to label them an atheist? If so, why?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Post #6
tselem
As I have explained, the knowledge man has is based on his observation of nature. That is where the understanding that we must consider the default position comes from. Reality consists of that for which we have supporting evidence, we may not understand it(yet) but we do know it exists.
But man's intellect needs to have an explanation for everything, after all, it is what he has come to expect in his observation of nature. So what does he do if his knowledge base is insufficient to be able to understand what he sees??? He creates stories about powerful beings who are responsible for them. Then you get gods like Thor, god of thunder, or Odin and his lightning bolts. Of course the story teller(shaman) makes it all as mysterious and secretive as he can and uses the threat of god's punishment to further his own status and power. To make a long story short you end up with a whole mythology held in place by a cadre of priests, controlling the masses with threats to their present or future life, that for most of man's history composed the governing structures of our society.(for a glimps of that evil situation I would point to Afganistan)
All of this structure incorporates the morals that man has developed over the centuries, but they attribute their origin as being passed down from god on high(with a few additions designed to keep the priests in power) when the truth is that "Do unto others..." was probably first developed by our animal forebearers(I not throw poo at Ogg, he throw poo at me if I do)(and beat me sensless with a stick), even dogs understand these concepts, we're nothing special except in degree.
I said all that to say this. This entire structure is a fabrication of our mind, having no supporting evidence of it's actual existence. While some good can come from moral philosophy, it cannot create reality nor does it reflect reality, it is super(outside of or over)natural. While lots of thought can be expended winnowing the kernals of worth from the chaff of superstition, in the end the various religious structures have little reality to them and we are left with that for which we have supporting evidence as the default position, and that includes Atheism as the default outlook on gods and demons.
Grumpy
As I have explained, the knowledge man has is based on his observation of nature. That is where the understanding that we must consider the default position comes from. Reality consists of that for which we have supporting evidence, we may not understand it(yet) but we do know it exists.
But man's intellect needs to have an explanation for everything, after all, it is what he has come to expect in his observation of nature. So what does he do if his knowledge base is insufficient to be able to understand what he sees??? He creates stories about powerful beings who are responsible for them. Then you get gods like Thor, god of thunder, or Odin and his lightning bolts. Of course the story teller(shaman) makes it all as mysterious and secretive as he can and uses the threat of god's punishment to further his own status and power. To make a long story short you end up with a whole mythology held in place by a cadre of priests, controlling the masses with threats to their present or future life, that for most of man's history composed the governing structures of our society.(for a glimps of that evil situation I would point to Afganistan)
All of this structure incorporates the morals that man has developed over the centuries, but they attribute their origin as being passed down from god on high(with a few additions designed to keep the priests in power) when the truth is that "Do unto others..." was probably first developed by our animal forebearers(I not throw poo at Ogg, he throw poo at me if I do)(and beat me sensless with a stick), even dogs understand these concepts, we're nothing special except in degree.
I said all that to say this. This entire structure is a fabrication of our mind, having no supporting evidence of it's actual existence. While some good can come from moral philosophy, it cannot create reality nor does it reflect reality, it is super(outside of or over)natural. While lots of thought can be expended winnowing the kernals of worth from the chaff of superstition, in the end the various religious structures have little reality to them and we are left with that for which we have supporting evidence as the default position, and that includes Atheism as the default outlook on gods and demons.
Grumpy
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #7
Nyril wrote:Using that information, if you were to raise a child with no knowledge of religion or a god (except as a conceptual basis, perhaps even covering the greek/roman myths for a historical perspective), wouldn't the child by necessity be an atheist?
An atheist, agnostic, or theist is someone who believes that their belief on the existence of God is justified. Someone who is not taught about a subject matter (whether that be God or neutrinos) will be justified in holding a belief on the subject matter only if they have knowledge and good reasons for having that belief (or staying uncommitted to that belief, or denying that belief).McCulloch wrote:For those who believe in a deity, where did they learn about this deity? From others. Therefore, if no one teaches you about God, you simply will not know about God.
Young children are not atheists. Young children don't know what it is for a belief or disbelief to be justified. Likewise, a child never taught about God would be justified in disbelieving in God only if they had good and compelling reasons for their disbelief in God.
-
theleftone
Post #8
Why must one assume that?McCulloch wrote:How is if that someone who is not educated about God would come to the knowledge of God? Lacking the answer to this question, one must assume that someone not educated about God must be ignorant.
I think that depends on how you define agnosticism. I'm willing to consider other definitions, but if we take either of the first two provided by the link then agnosticism couldn't be the default position. The reason is that both definitions require some kind of action (i.e., belief or acceptance of the "dcotrine") on the part of the individual.McCulloch wrote:Good point. If you define atheism as disbelief in the existence of any god, then agnosticism is the default position.tselem wrote:Second, if the one above is indeed ignorant of God, is it still proper to label them an atheist? If so, why?
-
theleftone
Post #10
Justification. This is indeed my point in posting this debate. What is the justification for the belief that atheism is the default position? Or, as well, what is the justification for the belief that atheism is not the default position? While I am more interested in the former justification, I am also interested in the latter.
