Weird and confusing things non-theists claim about atheism

[William]

I think it obvious that non-theists - specifically atheists - tend to conflate material science with atheism and developed a type of atheist creed using material science as a support structure for their developed beliefs.
Truth be observed, those who naturally lack belief in gods are Agnostics.
Atheists have taken it a step further by introducing ways in which to support their choice to willfully lack belief in gods, [and everything else associated with gods] to 'hold the position' as if it were somehow relevant to do so. They call this a 'type' of atheism - "hard atheism" - and attempt to convince others that the default nature of the human being is "Atheist" ["human babies are atheist because the lack belief in gods" - is a common atheist argument] when in actual fact it is more likely "Agnostic" is the default - the preliminary position re human babies...

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There are two good topics here, William.

I'll take the baby atheist one first. When atheists are made aware of or about God, then their lack of belief is no longer passive but instead it is active. At that point, the atheist makes the choice or concludes that what they've heard is not convincing based on their standards of evidence and logic.

As for science, I tend to not classify it as material. Whether or not the universe is entirely physical or material is an open question. I question how much of the universe that we even know about.

We can say that we know a lot, but how much does that constitute out of everything that can be known, .01%? .5%? Can we even know?!

 

[William]

There are two good topics here, William.

I'll take the baby atheist one first. When atheists are made aware of or about God, then their lack of belief is no longer passive but instead it is active. At that point, the atheist makes the choice or concludes that what they've heard is not convincing based on their standards of evidence and logic.

When I first heard the claim I thought it had something to do with boosting numbers - but for a non-theist to claim that "all babies are atheists" because they lack belief in gods, it appears to be no more or less preposterous than a creationist claiming all babies are born creationists, because they lack belief in evolution.

The fact of the matter is that all babies are born ignorant and this is where I think agnosticism comes into play because agnostics admit to the ignorance once the ignorance about being ignorant becomes active rather than passive.

As for science, I tend to not classify it as material. Whether or not the universe is entirely physical or material is an open question. I question how much of the universe that we even know about.

We can say that we know a lot, but how much does that constitute out of everything that can be known, .01%? .5%? Can we even know?!

That is why I referred to the particular science atheists use to make their case appear sound. Other science's are generally referred to as either less important [because they do not support the lack of belief in any obvious way?] or pseudo science.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

When I first heard the claim I thought it had something to do with boosting numbers

Babies wouldn't make good atheists anyway. They are too gullible!

 

[William]

So you agree with my assessment? [ Atheism is NOT the default.]

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So you agree with my assessment? [ Atheism is NOT the default.]

Yes, to a degree. Agnosticism is a default position, and so is a passive form of atheism (simply lacking belief). In other words, a baby lacks knowledge and belief.

 

[William]

Yes, to a degree. Agnosticism is a default position, and so is a passive form of atheism (simply lacking belief). In other words, a baby lacks knowledge and belief.

What do you name this passive form of atheism?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What do you name this passive form of atheism?

Negative atheism or weak atheism. But like you, I don't accept that someone informed about God can maintain passive belief. They have to actively reject or withhold judgement when it comes to what they've heard about God's existence.

 

[William]

I see no justification for there having to be two types of atheism as this is inconsistent with the other positions [theism and agnosticism]

When it comes to branching [types of], these can be shown as sub-sets...so subsets of theism are religions {which includes all forms of Gnosticism) and everything to do with having some type of leaning towards support for the existence of "GOD" [including my leaning toward the idea of a Cosmic Mind]
So the 'forms' of atheism [ weak and strong] should be observed as types of atheism [subsets] and agnosticism should not be regarded as branching from atheism as a 'type' [usually said to being 'weak'] but rather, should be regarded as distinct from either theism or atheism.

Graphically, it would look something like;

 

[perplexedzeromass]

Yes, to a degree. Agnosticism is a default position, and so is a passive form of atheism (simply lacking belief). In other words, a baby lacks knowledge and belief.

Sure, passive atheism might meet the definition, whereas positive atheism would not, but atheism seems to require a cognitive choice or external influences exerted upon such cognitive choices, whereas agnosticism can simply exist without a choice at birth or later as a result of influences and thinking.