Are people born inherently atheist?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

so it would be best if don't assume that you understand what I'm saying.

If "theist" is meaningful, then my definition of "atheist" MUST be meaningful, since all I've done is define atheism as the complement of theism.

Do you define "atheist" as "person who isn't a member of the set 'theists'"?

If so, define the set theists such that we can determine for each and every individual is the possess whatever properties, attributes, etc., that would make them a member of this set. Then, and only then, could you have the complement set "atheists".

Let's assume that we can define "theists" as "someone who believes in at least one god". Deists might disagree, but before we worry about who isn't a theist because they believe in many gods or a specific type of god or whatever, we can recognize that at the heart of the matter is belief in the existence of a god.

Now, given any individual, in order to know whether they are a member of the set of theists or a member to the complement set ("atheists"), we must determine if the individual believes in a "god".

How do we do this? For example, if a person believes the sun is god, then is anybody who believes in the sun a theist? If a person believes if a "deistic creator entity" but believes that this entity shouldn't be considered a god, is this individual a member of the set "theists"? If an individual worships the Goddess and denies believing in any god, is this individual a theist?

There is only way to determine, given any individual, whether they belong to the set "theists" or not (and if not, then the complement set "atheists"). At minimum, a theist must have the property/attribute "belief in (a) god". In order to determine who has this property/attribute, we require a definition of god. Without such a definition there is no way to determine whether anybody is a member of the set "theists" or not.

If we can formulate a definition of "god" adequate enough to determine whether an individual is a member of the set "theists", then we are equally able to define "atheists" as those who deny there exists any entity fitting this definition. If we cannot formulate a consistent definition of god that allows us to determine for each and every individual that among the things they believe in at least one of these things constitutes a "god", then we cannot define the set "theists".

Defining atheists as the members of a set that is the complement of the set "theists" means defining what atheists don't believe in. If we can define someone as belonging to the set "theists" because of their beliefs, then we can define "atheists" as rejecting those beliefs.

There is no way to define a complement of a set without defining the complement set itself. If I can determine that someone is a theist because of their beliefs, then I can determine whether someone is an atheists the same way (I just define them as disbelieving, denying, or believing in the non-existence of whatever a theist believes in).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You define atheists as "not theist", correct? You do this because of issues of consistency and/or logical issues that would exist if we defined atheism in terms of (rejection of) belief, correct?






If an "atheist" is "not a theist" (and defined as an atheist as such), then to determine whether someone is an atheist we would need to define the set "theists". If we do not, then we do not have any means to determine who is in the set of theists, and therefore no way to determine who is not (atheists).


The problem is that the definition "not theist" (or not a member of the set "theists") requires a definition of the set "theists" that
1) Defines every theist consistently (otherwise, we'd risk overlap)
2) Defines "god" (as a theist must at least believe in a god).

This is basic set theory. Defining a set as the complement of another simply changes the way you apply the definition (the set of odd numbers as "not even numbers" requires a definition of "even numbers" that is equivalent to defining "odd numbers" themselves).




Then show I am wrong. An atheist is any individual who is not a member of the set "theists", correct?

Define the set "theists".

A theist is a person who believes in something that they consider to be a god.

 

[Sees]

According to what standard? The same thing I said to idav appears to be applicable here- there is no matter of fact of which definition is correct. We're arguing over what set of definitions is preferable, not what atheism *really* consists of.


It clearly does. A person who holds to agnosticism, traditionally defined, is both an agnostic, atheist, and a non-theist on your definition, because in holding that theism vs. atheism is undecidable, they are lacking theistic belief. Such an overlap necessarily leads to imprecision since if I say, "so-and-so is an atheist", this could mean any number of things- that they believe theism is false, that they are agnostic, that they've never heard of theism, and so on. On my proposed definitions, which are also borne out by colloquial use in many contexts, there is no such problem; if so-and-so is an atheist, they cannot also be an agnostic.

Still not sure why we need to understand the theological stance of someone who doesn't do theology?

It seems like making it a specific position only has the purpose of painting a clear target for ideological battles. I like the broad category that it is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Theists is a believer in one or more deity. If you dont believe in one or more deities your atheist

To use this definition we require a definition of "deities" independently of what term or word and individual uses to describe the entity or entities they believe in that makes them a "theist". For example, a monotheist might deny that they believe in "a deity" because they believe in "the deity". Or perhaps they simply think that "deities" refer to gods like Zeus and not to a deistic god. And what of those who believe that the universe itself is a conscious entity with purposes/goals and the power to realize these?


The point is that if we can determine whether a person believes in at least one deity, then we can determine if a person denies the existence of any deity. This is because the only way to determine whether or not someone believes in a deity is to have a definition of a deity.


Either the set of theists is well-defined (and this entails a consistent definition of a deity/god that allows us to determine, at the very least, that an individual believes in a deity), or it is not. If it is well-defined (consistently, logically, etc.), then the complement set is equally well defined. As such, there is no benefit to defining atheists as "not theists". We could just as easily define them in terms of denial that any deities exist.

If the set is not well-defined, then we cannot determine who is or isn't an atheist in any consistent way and once again there is no benefit to defining atheists as "not theists".


Either way, to define atheists as "not theists" offers us no logical advantage over defining atheists as those who believe no deities exist.

Do people wanna redifine atheism to be rejection and just call babies nontheist.

It's ridiculous to speak of propositional attitudes of individuals incapable of having any. Atheists are not defined as "not theists" for a number of reasons. For one, this creates a meaningless dichotomy where none exists. Deists, theists, polytheists, pantheists, agnostics, etc., should not all be lumped together just so that atheists can be defined as "not theists". We do not need a word for someone who is "not a theist", because we can simply say of such a person that they are "not a theist". Additionally, there are many ways one can be "not a theist" and they are not all equivalent (which is why we have words like "agnostic" or "deist"). Atheists deny that god(s) exist. There are people who are "not theists" who make no such claim and do not identify themselves as "atheists".

People liking a label has little to do with the accuracy of a label.

This is true. The issue is that the label "atheist" is not defined solely and wholly by "not a theist". Atheists are simply one set of people who are not theists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then there's the term nontheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A theist is a person who believes in something that they consider to be a god.

If an atheist doesn't consider anything they believe in to be a god, then there exists nothing that an atheist believes in and considers to be a god, and therefore an atheist believes no gods exist.

If it were not true that an atheist believes no gods exist, then there must be some entity the atheist considers a god and believes exists, but that would make them a theist. Therefore, atheists believe no gods exist.

 

[idav]

Do you define "atheist" as "person who isn't a member of the set 'theists'"?

If so, define the set theists such that we can determine for each and every individual is the possess whatever properties, attributes, etc., that would make them a member of this set. Then, and only then, could you have the complement set "atheists".

Let's assume that we can define "theists" as "someone who believes in at least one god". Deists might disagree, but before we worry about who isn't a theist because they believe in many gods or a specific type of god or whatever, we can recognize that at the heart of the matter is belief in the existence of a god.

Now, given any individual, in order to know whether they are a member of the set of theists or a member to the complement set ("atheists"), we must determine if the individual believes in a "god".

How do we do this? For example, if a person believes the sun is god, then is anybody who believes in the sun a theist? If a person believes if a "deistic creator entity" but believes that this entity shouldn't be considered a god, is this individual a member of the set "theists"? If an individual worships the Goddess and denies believing in any god, is this individual a theist?

There is only way to determine, given any individual, whether they belong to the set "theists" or not (and if not, then the complement set "atheists"). At minimum, a theist must have the property/attribute "belief in (a) god". In order to determine who has this property/attribute, we require a definition of god. Without such a definition there is no way to determine whether anybody is a member of the set "theists" or not.

If we can formulate a definition of "god" adequate enough to determine whether an individual is a member of the set "theists", then we are equally able to define "atheists" as those who deny there exists any entity fitting this definition. If we cannot formulate a consistent definition of god that allows us to determine for each and every individual that among the things they believe in at least one of these things constitutes a "god", then we cannot define the set "theists".

Defining atheists as the members of a set that is the complement of the set "theists" means defining what atheists don't believe in. If we can define someone as belonging to the set "theists" because of their beliefs, then we can define "atheists" as rejecting those beliefs.

There is no way to define a complement of a set without defining the complement set itself. If I can determine that someone is a theist because of their beliefs, then I can determine whether someone is an atheists the same way (I just define them as disbelieving, denying, or believing in the non-existence of whatever a theist believes in).

You dont need to define god to define theist. That is up to whatever theists believe and every theist defines god different and at a personal level. Atheist cannot possibly be the opposite of believing in conjecture and fabrication.

BTW, legion, where is your sig from?

 

[idav]

If an atheist doesn't consider anything they believe in to be a god, then there exists nothing that an atheist believes in and considers to be a god, and therefore an atheist believes no gods exist.

If it were not true that an atheist believes no gods exist, then there must be some entity the atheist considers a god and believes exists, but that would make them a theist. Therefore, atheists believe no gods exist.

It is a debate over the difference between "do not believe god exists" and "believe no gods exist". The problem with the second phrase is it isnt consistent with theist because 'believe' is part of the theist definition, as in the theist portion of a-theist.

 

[ArtieE]

Here is how I see "the principle": being neither a theist nor a strong atheist, a person is an atheist.

Is that what you mean to say?

No. There are three possibilities: Theist, strong atheist and weak (implicit) atheist, just like there are three possibilities with moral: Moral, immoral and amoral. A person can be a theist, a strong atheist or a weak (implicit) atheist. A person can be moral, immoral or amoral. Three possibilities.

 

[Willamena]

No. There are three possibilities: Theist, strong atheist and weak (implicit) atheist, just like there are three possibilities with moral: Moral, immoral and amoral. A person can be a theist, a strong atheist or a weak (implicit) atheist. A person can be moral, immoral or amoral. Three possibilities.

Okay! Got it!


But I disagree.

 

[Sees]

Okay! Got it!


But I disagree.

What others do you see?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A theist is a person who believes in something that they consider to be a god.

Notice now that we can define atheists just as easily as we can theists AND we can do so based on their beliefs.

For an individual to not be a theist, there must not exist anything that individual both believes in AND believes to be a god.

Now consider the argument you have advanced (that an atheist cannot be defined as believing no gods exist as this would entail a rejection of every single god).

If someone is an atheist, according to your definition they must be "not a theist". To be "not a theist" is to deny that one believes in anything one considers to be a god.

How can one be "not a theist" and not deny that any gods exist? There must be at least one thing an individual believes in and believes of that thing that it may be a god. However, we can just as easily say that to be an atheist is to not simply deny that any gods exist, but to affirm that for anything they believe exists that thing cannot be a god.

If it is possible to define theists by belief that something exists which they consider to be a god, then it is necessarily possible to define atheists by belief that nothing exists which they consider to be a god.

Put simply, it's possible for an atheist to be defined as "anyone who denies any gods exist".

 

[Willamena]

It is a debate over the difference between "do not believe god exists" and "believe no gods exist". The problem with the second phrase is it isnt consistent with theist because 'believe' is part of the theist definition, as in the theist portion of a-theist.

It should be a debate over what one person believes and what another believes. We are the sum of our beliefs, not someone else's.

 

[Willamena]

What others do you see?

I see what one person believes and what another person believes that is different.

Two options.

 

[Sees]

Notice now that we can define atheists just as easily as we can theists AND we can do so based on their beliefs.

For an individual to not be a theist, there must not exist anything that individual both believes in AND believes to be a god.

Now consider the argument you have advanced (that an atheist cannot be defined as believing no gods exist as this would entail a rejection of every single god).

If someone is an atheist, according to your definition they must be "not a theist". To be "not a theist" is to deny that one believes in anything one considers to be a god.

How can one be "not a theist" and not deny that any gods exist? There must be at least one thing an individual believes in and believes of that thing that it may be a god. However, we can just as easily say that to be an atheist is to not simply deny that any gods exist, but to affirm that for anything they believe exists that thing cannot be a god.

If it is possible to define theists as by belief that something exists which they consider to be a god, then it is necessarily possible to define atheists by belief that there nothing exists which they consider to be a god.

Put simply, it's possible for an atheist to be defined as "anyone who denies any gods exist".

Didn't make sense for me...still seems to be making the assumption of atheism being the opposite of theism and not the absence of theism. It's similar to saying having no political opinion (apolitical) means you believe all political opinions are false.

 

[idav]

It should be a debate over what one person believes and what another believes. We are the sum of our beliefs, not someone else's.

Im insisting that "believe" is not part of atheist definition unless your counting the 'theist' portion in the word 'a-theist'. 'Not-believer in deities'. I undertsnad every one has many beliefs but again is beyond the scope of theist because theism is about only one particular concept of belief as in belief in deities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You dont need to define god to define theist.

I agree. I was arguing against the view that we can't define atheists as people who deny any gods exist because this would entail that an atheist deny each and every god or require a definition of god (some set of characteristics) that held true of each and every god, and therefore we must (or at least should) define atheists as "not theists" as this is somehow logically consistent.

The problem is that it is only logically consistent if there exists a way to define every theist. However, as soon as we have such a method, then we can define atheists without needing to define them as "not theists".


Once we rid ourselves of logical necessity, then we can turn to pragmatic issues. For example, given how many people there are who do not define themselves either as atheists or as theists, and given how many labels would become subsumed under "atheist" (including those incapable of labeling themselves), it makes far more sense to define atheism at least in terms of the denial that gods exist. We have labels like agnostic, deist, atheist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc., for a reason: to communicate certain notions/ideas. By defining atheist solely by and wholly as "not a theist" we communicate nothing by it that we couldn't simply by saying "not a theist". It becomes useless. However, if we place it among categories like agnostic, theist, pantheist, etc., it communicates something. It retains utility.

BTW, legion, where is your sig from?

Me

 

[Falvlun]

Im not bothered by it because atheist is a useless word to begin with. A person telling me they are atheist doesnt tell me what they believe like theism pantheism or monotheism says things about what a person believes. Same thing for fence sitters, saying your agnostic say s little to nothing of what that person actually believes.

I'm telling someone what I actually believe when I say that I am an atheist.

Just because you put the word "don't" in front of "believe" doesn't make that a non-belief or a non-answer.

I mean, would you claim that someone who says "I don't believe in evolution" isn't saying anything about themselves and their beliefs?

 

[ArtieE]

I see what one person believes and what another person believes that is different.

Two options.

So you can only see the moral person and the immoral person but not the amoral one?

 

[idav]

I agree. I was arguing against the view that we can't define atheists as people who deny any gods exist because this would entail that an atheist deny each and every god or require a definition of god (some set of characteristics) that held true of each and every god, and therefore we must (or at least should) define atheists as "not theists" as this is somehow logically consistent.

The problem is that it is only logically consistent if there exists a way to define every theist. However, as soon as we have such a method, then we can define atheists without needing to define them as "not theists".


Once we rid ourselves of logical necessity, then we can turn to pragmatic issues. For example, given how many people there are who do not define themselves either as atheists or as theists, and given how many labels would become subsumed under "atheist" (including those incapable of labeling themselves), it makes far more sense to define atheism at least in terms of the denial that gods exist. We have labels like agnostic, deist, atheist, monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc., for a reason: to communicate certain notions/ideas. By defining atheist solely by and wholly as "not a theist" we communicate nothing by it that we couldn't simply by saying "not a theist". It becomes useless. However, if we place it among categories like agnostic, theist, pantheist, etc., it communicates something. It retains utility.



Me

That is a nice sig.

It is already logically consistent, atheism being not theism. There is nothing wrong with falling under many labels at the same time but atheism and theism are mutually exclusive, so any logical consistency should keep that in mind. You either believe in god or you dont and all other labels just add more detail. As it is saying whether you believe or not doesnt really say much at all without further clarification. For example calling oneself agnostic atheist is further clarification as to why someone is atheist.