Atheism: The default position is unbelief. Says who?

Question

Suppose you and I happen to be on an island. We find a house at a distance. We see no one in the house, but from where we stand we are able to see rays of light coming from a window in the house. What should be our default position? Should we assume that someone is in the house or should we assume that no one is in the house?

Answer 1

Your last paragraph, which begins, "An atheist sees a universe..." is a total fabrication and represents only what you "believe" is the scientific position. The Big Bang is clearly the origin of the Universe -- verifiable fact which has been repeatedly and conclusively proved. The sentence, "Then he infers that nothingness must have brought the universe through evolution into existence" is total bullshit! Energy is NOT nothing and nobody says that except Christian blowhards who haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about. "Contrary to what mathematical probability suggests, he believes the complexity and orderliness of the universe all happened by chance." ...more bullshit! Complexity and order arise because of the chaotic interaction of the flow of energy with a rules bounded physical system. For example, chemical elements are forged by nuclear fusion within the cores of stars. Each element has a specific physical configuration because of the nature of the fusion process and that configuration is ultimately responsible for the specific types of molecules each element can participate in. Atomic structure is neither random nor is it "chance."



Grossly misrepresenting scientific knowledge because Christians would rather "believe" something else, is simply lying. ...and that is the reason science will ultimately prevail -- because scientists follow the facts and reach their conclusion after they know the facts, quite unlike Christians who begin with their absurd conclusions and then fabricate bullshit lies to support their unrealistic expectations.

Answer 2

You should assume neither in this case. A light is evidence of light, nothing else. Motion, the light turning on and off, a person yelling that the light is too bright... these are all further clues to use before coming to a conclusion. Better yet, conclude nothing before checking if there is or is not a person there.



The default position is non-belief. In fact, it is also an absence of information.



Do you believe that ottoganguamakus exist?



Even after I tell you what one is, would you just because I said so, or because the sky is pretty?

Answer 3

The original Greek understanding of the word "atheist" was a man who had been abandoned by all the gods. The default position has always been that of course there are gods. Only when we figure out how to do what before we presumed only gods can do then we can rule out a god. Only if Atheists can figure out how to make an infinite universe and everything in it from nothing will they be able to rule out a creator god. Or won't they only become a god and thus be in self denial? LOL



Edit: I suppose that the default position could be naivete. A baby may be born with no understanding or there may be a certain amount of inborn understanding as it is supposed that birds are born with instinct.

Is there a difference between unbelief and disbelief? If disbelief is the stand of denial of belief, and belief is a stand of affirmation or agreeing, then is unbelief the lack of judgement toward a decision and thus a position of naivete or first position? Is it the unbiased neutral position that exists when no data has been evaluated?

It is semantics. It is the art of argument taking the place of reason and being used to deceive.



I often say, there are two kinds of Atheist: 1. Satanists incognito as Atheists who are working to fool man into leaving God's side and 2. the fooled.

Satanists invented Atheism as an attack on Christianity, or theism in general. Some recognize these Satanists as anti-theists. I define a Satanist as anyone who knows God exists and chooses to rebel just as Satan does.

A Satanist incognito as Atheist will ignore the evidence, claim to be an expert, and proceed to fool people with the "reverse gullibility" effect. Just today I had an Atheist tell me:

"Lack of belief is NOT a dictionary definition of naivete, and particularly in this case, your definition pings the wrong gong. What we have is a lack of gullibility, which is exactly the opposite of the dictionary definition of naivete."



In my mind that is self contradiction. To claim that "lack of belief" is the opposite of naive is mind boggling. Are they in a neutral undecided position or have they made a decision? The opposite of naive is belief and understanding. This person is either very confused or is trying to confuse. So we see the works of the devil, the attempt at deception and we can recognize that the person quoted is either a Satanist incognito or a victim of a Satanist incognito.



I do not equate "naive" with "ignorant". Naivete is a position of innocence. The ignorant are guilty of choosing that perspective. The observer expectancy effect might be either naivete or ignorance based on intent.

Answer 4

The default position is absence of belief that there are people in the house until there is evidence of people in the house. Does this mean don't bother to investigate? NO! It means go figure out whether there is someone in the house.



The default position is always absence of belief. It is absurd to just immediately go ahead and believe in an idea that is presented to you. Only super gullible people do that.

Answer 5

edit: The universe is orderly? Compared to what? Do you have a less orderly universe to compare it to? If you don't have a less orderly universe to compare it to how do you make that justification? If you think you can justify it because you can imagine a less orderly universe, then by the same token I can imagine a more orderly universe.



To borrow your analogy, a Christian sees rays of light and a house, then assumes there are magical, invisible spirits inside who only talk to them inside their heads and never where anyone can hear it. They also say that the magical invisible spirits made the light and the house, rather than real people which can be observed and reliably repeated, since we've seen people building houses before.



An atheist would say "there might be a person in there."

Answer 6

False analogy that doesn't apply sorry.



I'm not going to argue with your analogy, I will argue with what you are actually trying to prove.



Problems with your analogy:



1. Houses have been observed to be Created by HUMANS, the universe has NOT been observed to be created by intelligent life forms.



2. You do not parallel the light in the house with ANYTHING of the concept that you are actually trying to prove.



3. this whole argument sounds like a reverse strawman...

Answer 7

Well, there is a house, there is a light, my assumption would be there must be someone around, but your parable is not quite adequate I think. Let me see...What we are looking at are deeds of mankind, they never prove the existence of God as the man created them. We know the source of light, we know who built the house and it wasn't God.

Answer 8

""Atheism: The default position is unbelief. Says who?""





the Default position is NON belief..



Fine me ANY newborn baby that comes complete with a belief in a god..and I will admit I am wrong...

Answer 9

The default position is intelligence, except for fundies. There is no "disbelief" until "belief" is forced upon some one.

Answer 10

Problem here is, with a house you can find out if someone is home or not.



What exactly is a God? How do you know?



-atheist

Answer 11

Theism is the idea that there is a house to begin with, despite no evidence that the land has ever been touched by human hands.

Answer 12

the default position is nothing...then you propose something...what is a god then...?



What is this house and what has it to do with a being from outer space/

Answer 13

We should check it out.



What time of day is it?

Is it an island I'm familiar with?



Details.