Are people born inherently atheist?

[Me Myself]

Let me try to explain it another way.

There's this group of people. They are ignorant of some things. They are ignorant of a lot of things. But you want to make them ignorant of only one particular thing--god--in order to group them with "atheists."

That's not an objective definition, as a dictionary definition must be. It's actually subjective (see, there's "you" in there).

Everytng is subjective, we cant get out of that and still be called humans.

Saying they ate ignorant of a lot of things does not make them less ignorant of the specific thing we are talking about though.

For example, if someone does not no how to read or write and also ignores a lot of other things, they are still illiterate. They dont cease to be illiterate because reading and writting is not the only thing they ignore.

They can be illiterate atheists for example

"Atheist" does not mean "they are ONLY ignorant of the concept of god BUT THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ELSE"

"Atheist" means "they lack a belief in God". Whether they lack all other beliefs or they know absolutel everything except what has to do with god is completely irreleant for the definition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The baby doesnt believe in god therefore he is an atheist by OD definition.

The problem is that atheism isn't simply not believing in god but a belief that there is no god. Or, put better, not believing in something is only meaningful as a belief itself.

part of the semantics behind "believe" or "belief" (as well as the same with negation prefixes, e.g., "disbelieve", "unbelief", etc.) entails an epistemological stance. I don't "lack" belief in "eodflnedkt", because I have no idea what that series of letters might refer to, and I know basically nothing about whatever that reference might be. Similarly, imagine I could not read classical Greek, Latin, Gothic, or biblical Hebrew. What am I to say when asked about πλησίον, vicinus, “nehwundja", or קָרֹב? Do I lack belief in them simply because I don't know how they relate to what I think of as "neighbor" (i.e., they can all be translated as "neighbor")? None of these words mean exactly what another one does, nor do any correspond exactly to the concept "neighbor", yet as I do know these languages, I can say something about my belief in what these words refer to (actually, nobody "knows" gothic given that we have only the one real primary sources combined with IE studies in general, and my knowledge of biblical Hebrew is basic). And for most people, when presented with a foreign word and an explanation as to what it means, they can then likewise make "belief" claims which previously they could not.

Atheist can be a silly weird label to begin with. It actually is a silly weird label to begin with.

It can be a silly label, like all labels, if we don't treat it correctly (not that this ensures it will not be a silly label, of course). Defining (part of) someone's identity or giving them a label based on what they do or don't believe only makes sense when it is understood that a lack of belief (meaning to not possess a belief) is not meaningful if it isn't disbelief. Atheists are disbelievers. They don't believe in god. Babies "lack" beliefs in things they've never heard of just like everyone else. One way to think about it is to try to imagine the uncountably infinite list of things one doesn't have a belief in because one has never heard it. As soon as you conceptualize anything on that list you now have a determined belief about it (you don't believe it, although in most cases the level of clarify of the item you now don't believe in is so minimal it has no real conceptual content). When I say I don't believe I "ghliht", it's not simply that, like God, I am unsure what this string that represents what I don't believe in corresponds to. People who believe in God often admit that it is impossible to fully conceptualize such an entity, but that doesn't make belief in an entity with certain properties that God usually has impossible. Likewise, it doesn't really make sense for an atheist or agnostic to ask exactly what God is before they say whether they believe in god or not because all they need is something like "do you believe that there was an agent who created the universe?" or something and if not, then if this is a property of God (with the uppercase G, it can be said to be) the atheist or agnostic either does not believe in God or is unsure what they believe.

If you dont want to use ODs definition, that's cool.

The Oxford English Dictionary is certainly the most complete dictionary in existence. However, it exists in the current edition only online behind a pay wall (you need a membership to access it). The shorter versions are not as complete. That said, we do (and by we I mean I) have access to the OED. The entry for "atheist" has as the primary definition:
"One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God"

The only other definition (for the noun, anyway) is "One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."

 

[Willamena]

Everytng is subjective, we cant get out of that and still be called humans.

Saying they ate ignorant of a lot of things does not make them less ignorant of the specific thing we are talking about though.

For example, if someone does not no how to read or write and also ignores a lot of other things, they are still illiterate. They dont cease to be illiterate because reading and writting is not the only thing they ignore.

They can be illiterate atheists for example

"Atheist" does not mean "they are ONLY ignorant of the concept of god BUT THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ELSE"

"Atheist" means "they lack a belief in God". Whether they lack all other beliefs or they know absolutel everything except what has to do with god is completely irreleant for the definition.

Everything is objective, too--we can word things cleverly either way. But dictionaries rely on definition being objective.

A worldview is composed of all the things we have included as bits of information (both "true" things and "false"). The things we haven't included, or haven't yet included, as information cannot be a part of it. "Atheism" describes a worldview, one of the person for whom "god" is excluded, but before it can be excluded it has to have been able to have been included. Else, if anything unheard of is includable, it is no less reasonable than the fantasy teapot orbiting Mars, and no less unreasonable than that Eiffel Tower that hasn't been heard of.

Saying they ate ignorant of a lot of things does not make them less ignorant of the specific thing we are talking about though.

This highlights my argument. Under this usage, they are only atheist because "we" have something to talk about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Oxford English Dictionary is certainly the most complete dictionary in existence. However, it exists in the current edition only online behind a pay wall (you need a membership to access it). The shorter versions are not as complete. That said, we do (and by we I mean I) have access to the OED. The entry for "atheist" has as the primary definition:
"One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God"

The only other definition (for the noun, anyway) is "One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."

So theists are atheists, then?

I haven't met a theist yet who hasn't rejected a god.

 

[steeltoes]

If there were no theists there would be no atheists.

 

[Thana]

So theists are atheists, then?

I haven't met a theist yet who hasn't rejected a god.

Did you not read the 'Godless man' part?
Meaning, No god/s.

 

[Me Myself]

Everything is objective, too--we can word things cleverly either way. But dictionaries rely on definition being objective.

A worldview is composed of all the things we have included as bits of information (both "true" things and "false"). The things we haven't included, or haven't yet included, as information cannot be a part of it. "Atheism" describes a worldview, one of the person for whom "god" is excluded, but before it can be excluded it has to have been able to have been included. Else, if anything unheard of is includable, it is no less reasonable than the fantasy teapot orbiting Mars, and no less unreasonable than that Eiffel Tower that hasn't been heard of.

Actually, ysing the OD definition of "objective" we are completely incapable of thinking or knowing anything objective. So no.

Dictionaries will try, but nothing we can percieve will ever be 100% objective.

A worldview is composed of all the things we have included as bits of information (both "true" things and "false"). The things we haven't included, or haven't yet included, as information cannot be a part of it. "Atheism" describes a worldview, one of the person for whom "god" is excluded, but before it can be excluded it has to have been able to have been included. Else, if anything unheard of is includable, it is no less reasonable than the fantasy teapot orbiting Mars, and no less unreasonable than that Eiffel Tower that hasn't been heard of.


This highlights my argument. Under this usage, they are only atheist because "we" have something to talk about.

Atheism does not describe a worldview. Atheism describes a specific belief or the lack of thereof coming from a person.

That is all it describes per OD definition.

Just because a tree cannot know other people call it a tree does not mean it is not a tree,

Likewise, just because you dont know you are an atheist does not mean you cannot be one.

 

[Me Myself]

So theists are atheists, then?

I haven't met a theist yet who hasn't rejected a god.

It is certainly one way to define it.

Actually, I like it.

I wouldnt use that definition on almost any context, but I understand the context in which it is used for that affirmation and it can and has been useful to prove points.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you not read the 'Godless man' part?
Meaning, No god/s.

That seems to me to be an alternate definition.

I'm fine with "godless". I'm not so fine with the gender- and age-discriminatory "man" part, but if we replace it with the more neutral "person", then it works for me... but by this definition, atheism is defined in terms of merely lacking belief, and it seemed to me that Legion was arguing against this definition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is certainly one way to define it.

Actually, I like it.

I wouldnt use that definition on almost any context, but I understand the context in which it is used for that affirmation and it can and has been useful to prove points.

It's fairly close to the way the word was used in the past: historically, "atheist" (or the equivalent terms in the root languages, rather) meant something like "person who doesn't participate in the religion of the speaker". Christians were considered "atheists" by the Romans, for instance.

... but this isn't how the word is normally used today. For instance, I doubt a Christian would call a Hindu an atheist, even in the context of a "Christian" society.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, ysing the OD definition of "objective" we are completely incapable of thinking or knowing anything objective. So no.

Dictionaries will try, but nothing we can percieve will ever be 100% objective.




Atheism does not describe a worldview. Atheism describes a specific belief or the lack of thereof coming from a person.

That is all it describes per OD definition.

Just because a tree cannot know other people call it a tree does not mean it is not a tree,

Likewise, just because you dont know you are an atheist does not mean you cannot be one.

"Objective" doesn't describe "a way we know things."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This highlights my argument. Under this usage, they are only atheist because "we" have something to talk about.

Congratulations: you just figured out that the terms we use depend on the viewpoint of the person using them.

You describe a body of water as a "river" because, inherently, you consider it to have an essentially linear nature (though granted a finite width and depth) in context, as opposed to, say, a "lake", which is considered to be essentially planar.

Similarly, we describe a person as an "atheist" because, in whatever context we're speaking, the person's lack of belief in gods is more relevant that his or her other characteristics.

 

[LuisDantas]

So simple it's absurd.

I won't deny that it clashes (a bit surprisingly) with the esthetical sense of many people, but there is nothing absurd in it.

I propose we need a new word for "people who don't believe in something that is nothing, that effectively does not exist."

Edit: Especially as it can have nothing to do with gods.

Literal radical existentialists?

Okay, that is three words.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I would not say we are born atheists and Atheism is indeed not the natural default position for children since as children we will make up all sorts of things.

I would say we are born apatheists meaning we hold little regard towards the existence or nonexistence of a deity. The amount of indoctrination it takes apparent to get a child t observe religious rules is astonishing considering that most adults speak of disliking church as children and not wishing to abide by religious rules.

I recall the same experiences as a child myself as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no significant difference, the way you use the definition, between the god that the person is ignorant of, the Eiffel Tower that the person is ignorant of, and the teapot oribiting Mars that the person is ignorant of. Each of these things* occupies precisely the same place in the same nowhere. In fact, they are effectively precisely the same thing.

Nothing.

*and everything else that they are ignorant of

You used to be better at that, Willamena: those are all examples of things that a person may be ignorant of.

It does not follow at all that there is no significant difference among those things, only that the person itself will have no means of telling them apart.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's no meaningful distinction between the baby's "lack of belief in god" and his "lack of belief in the Eiffel Tower," or his "lack of belief in a teapot orbiting Mars."

You have just distinguised among them, quite clearly at that.

How did you do that if there is no meaningful distinction to tell them apart?

There's no meaningful way to relate this definition only to "god."

You mean, this particular variety of Atheism can't occur without the ignorance of a lot of other abstract concepts? Sure.

Atheism loses all meaning.

Uh, not at all. It may perhaps lose a bit of the charm that some people see in it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me try to explain it another way.

There's this group of people. They are ignorant of some things. They are ignorant of a lot of things. But you want to make them ignorant of only one particular thing--god--in order to group them with "atheists."

Actually, it is you who sees that as necessary. I haven't quite figured why yet.

That's not an objective definition, as a dictionary definition must be. It's actually subjective (see, there's "you" in there).

How would that be?

 

[LuisDantas]

If there were no theists there would be no atheists.

Sure there would. The concept might well fail to develop, though.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did you not read the 'Godless man' part?
Meaning, No god/s.

That is actually a meaningless definition, since "god" is so ill-defined a concept in the first place. In some contexts literally anything or anyone may be a god.

 

[Valjean]

Again, you seem to be missing the point that newborns, like rocks and squirrels, cannot possess beliefs, therefore it is meaningless to describe their absence of a specific belief.

What is this obsession with meaningfulness, Kilgore? A term doesn't have to be meaningful or applicable to the discussion at hand to be a legitimate term, and what's moot in one context may well be relevant in another.
It may make no sense in most contexts to call a rock non-verbal or inanimate, but that doesn't invalidate the terms.

What reason does the implicit atheist have for not believing in gods (i.e. strong or explicit atheism)? Unlike the strong atheist, it is no reason or reasoning of theirs that brings them to the designation "atheist." There is no opportunity to come to the designation by themselves, and hence no opportunity to consciously reject a belief. The reason and reasoning belongs to others, and so the designation "atheist" happens at the behest of others.

I'm not following this at all, Willamena. And isn't a lack of evidence sufficient reason not to believe in something? Isn't lack of belief the default position for both things without evidence and things we've never heard of?

There's no meaningful distinction between the baby's "lack of belief in god" and his "lack of belief in the Eiffel Tower," or his "lack of belief in a teapot orbiting Mars."

There's no meaningful way to relate this definition only to "god."

Atheism loses all meaning.

And here's this obsession with meaning again.If the baby lacks belief in Russell's teapot or the Eiffel tower he could legitimately be called an a-Russellite or an a-towerite.
A term doesn't have to be meaningful to be apt.

I have no argument with the Oxford Dictionary, just with those who would promote that babies and people who have never heard of god are atheists when there can be no meaningful way to objectively relate what they are ignorant of to one thing they are ignorant of.

A rock is in-animate despite the fact that it cannot in any way relate to the concept of motion.

If there were no theists there would be no atheists.

If there were no theists there would be nothing but non-theists!
Are you sure you're applying the right definition of atheism? Perhaps you're thinking of a specific type of atheism, rather than atheism in general?