Are people born inherently atheist?

[Enai de a lukal]

That "there is no King of France" requires a "King of France... It's just meant as an example of a required object for negation.

And the "object" required for a negative existential claim is NOT the object in question- to claim there is no King of France, we don't require, as an object, a King of France, all we need is the definite description/concept/definition "the King of France"- the point is that this description or concept is not true of any object. That's all negative existential claims amount to- "there is no King of France" says there is no object corresponding to the concept or definite description "the King of France".

 

[Willamena]

And the "object" required for a negative existential claim is NOT the object in question- to claim there is no King of France, we don't require, as an object, a King of France, all we need is the definite description/concept/definition "the King of France"- the point is that this description or concept is not true of any object. That's all negative existential claims amount to- "there is no King of France" says there is no object corresponding to the concept or definite description "the King of France".

If the object required for a negative existential claim is not the object in question, then we have created a new, second object with a property of non-existence. That's contradictory.

That "it's not true that the object exists" does not deny that there is an object, a mental entity, a "definitive description," that's been negated.

 

[Willamena]

1. It's the thought or attitude that a particular proposition is true. (Theism).

Belief.

2. It's the thought or attitude that a particular proposition is false. (Strong atheism.)

Negated belief.

3. No thoughts or attitudes regarding that particular proposition for some reason or other. (Weak implicit atheism).

Ignorance.

Atheism is negated belief.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

3. No thoughts or attitudes regarding that particular proposition for some reason or other. (Weak implicit atheism).

Ah, like a rock, or a squirrel.

 

[SkylarHunter]

People are born into a culture and I think their culture, more than anything else turns them into whatever they end up becoming.
Parents have the duty to teach their children and it makes perfect sense that they pass on what they know, but when children grow up they should ask questions and make their own choices. Most of them can't be bothered. They just keep whatever beliefs they grew up with and don't research anything else.
At the same time, there is a need many people have to believe in something beyond what we can see or explain. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" and that's an excellent definition.
Are there people who are born with faith while others don't? Probably.
My father is an atheist and all my life he tried to make me believe there is no God, I on the other hand look at the universe and the more I learn about how everything works the more I see intelligence and purpose and I can't accept that happened by chance so I believe in God. Is my belief genetic? I would love to know.

 

[ArtieE]

Ah, like a rock, or a squirrel.

Sure. If there are rock and squirrel theists then some rocks and squirrels can also be "not theists".

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is negated belief.

Negation is

"3. The opposite or absence of something regarded as actual, positive, or affirmative."

In this case, absence of theism. (My emphasis.)

Strong atheism opposite, weak implicit atheism absence.

negation - definition of negation by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure. If there are rock and squirrel theists then some rocks and squirrels can also be "not theists".

Ah, like if there were newborn human theists, then some newborn humans could also be "not theists."

 

[ArtieE]

Ah, like if there were newborn human theists, then some newborn humans could also be "not theists."

Some humans are theists, newborns are humans but too young to be theists, hence they are not theists (yet).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Some humans are theists, newborns are humans but too young to be theists, hence they are not theists (yet).

Indeed. It does appear that all arguments which attempt to define newborn humans as atheists ultimately rely on redefining newborn humans as something other than newborn humans.

 

[ArtieE]

Indeed. It does appear that all arguments which attempt to define newborn humans as atheists ultimately rely on redefining newborn humans as something other than newborn humans.

Humans are humans no matter how old they are. If they aren't old enough to be theists then they are by definition not theists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Humans are humans no matter how old they are.

And adults are not newborns. And this particular thread is about our state at birth - being newborn. I have come to realize that many people apparently have a hard time distinguishing newborns from adults though.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If the object required for a negative existential claim is not the object in question, then we have created a new, second object with a property of non-existence.

No. If our claim is correct, there never was any first object to begin with. Which was precisely what our claim meant; if I claim that the King of France doesn't exist, I am saying that there is no object corresponding to "the King of France".

And worse, as I've been trying to hammer home, we are not ascribing any object with the property of non-existence when we say it doesn't exist; that is contradictory... if there is an object, that means that object exists- so clearly we cannot say that there exists an object that doesn't exist. And besides being plainly contradictory, the view of language you're endorsing here is just woefully incomplete and untenable; words don't just pick out objects. They do far more than that. And we can talk coherently about non-referring phrases- that is, words that don't pick out any object. Nor do we need to create objects in the case of non-referring phrases, as mere logical fictions, in order to satisfy a naive theory of meaning- especially not when doing so riddles us with contradiction and ontological paradox. There are no non-existent existents- and good riddance.

So once again, negative existential claims are not first-order claims!

 

[ArtieE]

And adults are not newborns. And this particular thread is about our state at birth - being newborn. I have come to realize that many people apparently have a hard time distinguishing newborns from adults though.

Our state at birth is being a newborn human. And since this human is too young to be a theist this human is not a theist. Simple logic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Our state at birth is being a newborn human. And since this human is too young to be a theist this human is not a theist. Simple logic.

Exactly. No newborn humans are theists, as they are not capable of holding any beliefs. Hence, consistently extending your own logic with the rocks and squirrels, it isn't meaningful to label newborn humans atheists or "not theists." Of course, I also realize that logical consistency isn't a priority for everyone either.

 

[Willamena]

Negation is

"3. The opposite or absence of something regarded as actual, positive, or affirmative."

In this case, absence of theism. (My emphasis.)

While having a thought is nice and positive, its absence isn't the absence of theism. They're different absences.

 

[ArtieE]

Exactly. No newborn humans are theists, as they are not capable of holding any beliefs. Hence, consistently extending your own logic with the rocks and squirrels, it isn't meaningful to label newborn humans atheists or "not theists."

Muslims claim that we are born Muslims. It isn't meaningful in a discussion with a Muslim to claim that we are instead born atheists or born "not theists" or not born Muslims?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Humans are humans no matter how old they are. If they aren't old enough to be theists then they are by definition not theists.

So human fetuses are atheists, too?

 

[Willamena]

No. If our claim is correct, there never was any first object to begin with.

And yet, we are making positive claims about it. I object.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Muslims claim that we are born Muslims. It isn't meaningful in a discussion with a Muslim to claim that we are instead born atheists or born "not theists" or not born Muslims?

I'd find it more meaningful to convey the fact that newborns aren't capable of holding beliefs, so labeling them as theists or atheists is equally as meaningless, and usually equally as agenda-driven. As we've established with the rocks and squirrels, our choices aren't limited to atheist and theist - two labels which are only meaningfully applicable to things which are capable of holding beliefs.