We are all born Atheists

[Glacier]

Like I said before, if you simply are adamant that no gods exist, why not just own it?

But obviously, that is also a belief which requires a choice so perhaps I've answered my own question?

Atheists are desperate to declare their beliefs as the default position so they can put the onus on you to defend your position without having to actually defend their own position. This gives the impression that they aren't interested in what's true or who has the better arguments, but only about winning the argument.

I could ask you, "so, explain to me why the sky is blue."
You could explain to me why you think it's blue.
I could then point out that you made a few missteps in the science. Maybe you mistakenly said that blue light has a lower frequency than red light. Then I can declare, "ha, see, you have no idea what you're talking about; therefore, my position that the sky is actually green is the correct one. woohoo, I win!"

[JLives]

Atheists are desperate to declare their beliefs as the default position so they can put the onus on you to defend your position without having to actually defend their own position. This gives the impression that they aren't interested in what's true or who has the better arguments, but only about winning the argument.

I could ask you, "so, explain to me why the sky is blue."
You could explain to me why you think it's blue.
I could then point out that you made a few missteps in the science. Maybe you mistakenly said that blue light has a lower frequency than red light. Then I can declare, "ha, see, you have no idea what you're talking about; therefore, my position that the sky is actually green is the correct one. woohoo, I win!"

The word belief implies a lack of empirical truth. For me, I cannot accept the existence of a deity becasue there is no evidence one exists. So, no, I don't believe there is no god or gods, I accept that none exist due to the facts at hand. You seem like a pretty data driven person so it honestly surprises me that you give religion an exception in this manner.

[is winter over]

Atheists are desperate to declare their beliefs as the default position so they can put the onus on you to defend your position without having to actually defend their own position. This gives the impression that they aren't interested in what's true or who has the better arguments, but only about winning the argument.

[Glacier]

In science and philosophy there are no default positions.

[fluffy]

There is no atheist club, no set rules or guidelines that need to be followed to be an atheist.

Well, you're not allowed to believe in god.

Just as I don't know how all this came too be, and as far as I know no one else knows either.

That's pretty much the dictionary definition of an agnostic.

Maybe this is the disconnect, some on here cant get past the idea that an atheist does not hold to absolute certainty, and such doubt is inconsistent with the assertions of religious faith or belief.

Maybe that's it. I'm having trouble with atheists re-writing a definition that has been in place for centuries. What the motivation behind this is is open to speculation, but I can pretty much guarantee that you're not going to get a honest answer from an atheist. This new definition is relatively fresh on the scene, and what bugs me about it is that it attempts to encompass people who may not care to identify as atheist. Do they not get a say in this?

[Poindexter]

While this thread has gotten bogged down on definitions and default positions let me be the first to congratulate everyone for not once bringing up unicorns.

[OREZ]

I agree fluffy.

To me it seems like a dishonest approach.

Say what you mean and mean what you say, and if you don't know then say, "I don't know." that's fine too.

I don't understand how this seemingly very rigid thinking (for some, anyways) goes along with such a vague definition.

[OREZ]

While this thread has gotten bogged down on definitions and default positions let me be the first to congratulate everyone for not once bringing up unicorns.

I second that.

I know there's still time for that, but I'm hopeful.

[cliffy1]

Only those who believe in unicorns can see unicorns. That is the nature of their reality. See, all you closed minded people are missing out on one of the world's great wonders.

[Farmmaa]

Yet aren't you saying that having no opinion or knowledge of the issue makes one an atheist by default?

I don't align with any religion, nor do I subscribe to any of the traditional concepts of some all-powerful benevolent dictator with his/her thumbs on the buttons of the universe. I suspect that here is something tying everything together that we haven't uncovered yet but I'm of the mind that it will be physicists who do that and not priests. So, I don't believe in deities but I am open to the possibility that here may be something that qualifies as a higher power, maybe something of an obiwan kenobi-ish nature. Who knows. Technically I lack belief in gods, but I do not feel that I qualify as an atheist.

Am I out of date with the way atheists want the world to see them? Is a disbelief in God no longer the ticket into the atheist club? It's okay to be a little wishy-washy on the whole god question?

Yes, having no knowledge of gods makes one an atheist by default.
That's exactly what I've been saying from my first post.
If you have no knowledge or education about gods, you certainly can't believe in them.

By your definition, you would be more agnostic.
You've seen nothing thus far that has convinced you 100% that any sort of deity exists...but...your certainly open to some sort of higher power.

There is no atheist club, nor any atheist guidelines or rules - except the lack of belief in gods of any kind.
Simple...atheists just don't believe any sort of gods do or ever have existed. Atheists believe that all forms of gods and deities are nothing but man-made myths.
Most also do not believe in any sort of 'higher power', as an entity...unless you count science in there.

[fluffy]

There is no atheist club, nor any atheist guidelines or rules - except the lack of belief in gods of any kind.

That would be a rule wouldn't it?

Simple...atheists just don't believe any sort of gods do or ever have existed. Atheists believe that all forms of gods and deities are nothing but man-made myths.

I've got no problem with that at all, but from where do you draw the authority to apply the "atheist" label to people who have never given the deity issue any thought at all? I would think that would be their choice, not yours.

[Farmmaa]

Atheists are desperate to declare their beliefs as the default position so they can put the onus on you to defend your position without having to actually defend their own position. This gives the impression that they aren't interested in what's true or who has the better arguments, but only about winning the argument.

Not believing is the default position - it's got nothing to do with sides or arguments.
You don't believe in something you have no knowledge of. It is only after being told what god is that children start to believe what their parents tell them.

I don't know why an atheist would need or want to defend their position.
What exactly is there to defend ?
I don't believe in gods.
Why do I need to defend that ?
I really don't care what anyone else in this world thinks of my position. I'm not pushing it on anyone, I'm not out protesting over it, I'm not refusing to serve or cater to people based on that position, I'm not killing people to defend my position.
I'm not telling anyone else that they have to think the same way.

Maybe that's it. I'm having trouble with atheists re-writing a definition that has been in place for centuries. What the motivation behind this is is open to speculation, but I can pretty much guarantee that you're not going to get a honest answer from an atheist. This new definition is relatively fresh on the scene, and what bugs me about it is that it attempts to encompass people who may not care to identify as atheist. Do they not get a say in this?

Did atheists re-write anything ? I don't know who expanded the definition, do you ?
Perhaps as more people identify as atheist, the definition just naturally expanded to encompass the vast differences in positions and reasons for not believing in deities ?

If people don't want to identify as an atheist, I don't see any rules indicating that anyone must identify as anything at all....we are all free to define ourselves.

[fluffy]

And, if you were not taught to believe in god, or which church to follow - you would still be an atheist.

[OREZ]

I don't know why an atheist would need or want to defend their position.
What exactly is there to defend ?
I don't believe in gods.
Why do I need to defend that ?

Good questions. Could you try to answer them?

[Farmmaa]

Good questions. Could you try to answer them?

I think I made it pretty clear that I don't see not believing in gods as a position that needs defending.

We're not saying that something exists...so there's nothing to try to prove, defend or explain really...is there?

Religion , spirituality and lack thereof is nothing more than a personal choice.
No one would ever have to defend their personal beliefs if they didn't affect of interfere with anyone else's lives or rights.

Unfortunately, many religious folks do use their personal beliefs to try to affect others...and if you feel that your personal beliefs should dictate laws, rules, medical decisions, politics, education...then you do need to defend that position and try to convince those with differing beliefs why they should live by your religious code.

If your beliefs are kept to yourself and affect no one else, then no need to defend them.