Are people born inherently atheist?

[Falvlun]

An agnostic is someone who believes we don't or can't know that a god exists. There is nothing about theism/atheism that precludes agnosticism. Each one can and does exist with it in many people.

Just pointing out that there are two valid definitions for "agnostic" in common usage.

You have stated what I call the "technical" definition. It is familiar to most RFers and philosophy majors.

But the word "agnostic" is also commonly used to refer to people who have no set opinion either way; they are undecided, usually because they think the arguments for and against are equally convincing or lacking.

It is a useful term, and I see no reason to pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[idav]

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?

If someone says they dont believe in evolution I would ask, "then what DO you believe" since I have already gathered it isnt evolution.

 

[Curious George]

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

But aren't there really four options since we can clearly distinguish weak atheists who have the ability to believe either way but don't and weak atheists who don't believe either way because they lack such an ability?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Why are you making the assumption that "atheism" should be defined in a way to mean "absence of theism"?

What benefit is there to such a broad definition?

As has been noted, it causes confusion and loss of precision in language.

 

[Sees]

But aren't there really four options since we can clearly distinguish weak atheists who have the ability to believe either way but don't and weak atheists who don't believe either way because they lack such an ability?

You could but then why not further classification based off education or other stuff...we just got too many labels already.

For, against, not applicable/undecided seem good to me.

 

[Falvlun]

If someone says they dont believe in evolution I would ask, "then what DO you believe" since I have already gathered it isnt evolution.

Are you claiming that they have given absolutely no information about their beliefs when they say "I don't believe in evolution"?

 

[Sees]

Why are you making the assumption that "atheism" should be defined in a way to mean "absence of theism"?

What benefit is there to such a broad definition?

As has been noted, it causes confusion and loss of precision in language.

It's what the word is... The question is whether the change to make it the opposite position is correct. Why change the word instead of create a new one?

im-theist or similar would be more appropriate.

The word atheist isn't really going to reveal much by its nature.

 

[Curious George]

You could but then why not further classification based off education or other stuff...we just got too many labels already.

For, against, not applicable/undecided seem good to me.

And I think for, against, not applicable, or undecided sounds better.

if your worried about too many labels- you are producing a slippery slope inference. Four labels is hardly too many. And not applicable has the additional effect of making sense and excluding rocks.

 

[idav]

Are you claiming that they have given absolutely no information about their beliefs when they say "I don't believe in evolution"?

Its a simple yes or no question so there is no clarification as to what is actually believed. If someone doesnt believe in evolution there are a number of replacement theories that they might actually believe. So no, telling someone what you dont think or believe isnt saying much. Just like saying atheist isnt much, they could be nihilistic or Buddhist or some combination. Even saying theist isnt much more but it is something, saying monotheist pantheist or deist says a heck of a lot more.

 

[ArtieE]

But aren't there really four options since we can clearly distinguish weak atheists who have the ability to believe either way but don't and weak atheists who don't believe either way because they lack such an ability?

Implicit and explicit atheism. But I can't even get people to understand and differentiate between weak and strong so there's no point going into further detail.

 

[Sees]

And I think for, against, not applicable, or undecided sounds better.

if your worried about too many labels- you are producing a slippery slope inference. Four labels is hardly too many. And not applicable has the additional effect of making sense and excluding rocks.

Undecided is just a type of not applicable though... really not needed.

If you made a list of people who like the taste of Pepsi you would only need three base options before you start to get into description of one of the three... Right?

 

[Curious George]

Implicit and explicit atheism. But I can't even get people to understand and differentiate between weak and strong so there's no point going into further detail.

Yes I understand your circles and I fail to see any reason to include implicit weak atheists. If belief is not applicable it is just that. It's an arbitrary move to try to include not applicable objects in a set.

Beyond that not able to believe is still distinguished from able but uninformed, which also falls into your weak, implicit atheistic grouping

 

[Curious George]

Undecided is just a type of not applicable though... really not needed.

If you made a list of people who like the taste of Pepsi you would only need three base options before you start to get into description of one of the three... Right?

Nope, not applicable is not undecided. You would need two groups to start. Applicable and not applicable. From there you can break down the applicable into there groupings. Otherwise you have rocks and trees in your undecided grouping. And, that doesn't even make sense. you are skipping that first step, and it is important.

 

[ArtieE]

Why are you making the assumption that "atheism" should be defined in a way to mean "absence of theism"?

Because that is exactly what it means. The prefix a- means "not, without". Are you going to redefine what the prefix a- means?

What benefit is there to such a broad definition?

It states that the person is not a theist and there are a lot of other words he can use if he wishes to clarify his position further.

As has been noted, it causes confusion and loss of precision in language.

A language has an awful lot of words we can use to state precisely what we mean. You shouldn't try to cause confusion by redefining the meaning of the prefix a-.

 

[Willamena]

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.

The opposite of theism is not the absence of theism--those have different qualifiers. One opposes, the other eliminates.

The opposite of an emotion, like love, is not "no love" or "never having heard of love," it's another, opposing emotion, like anger. Theism means something, it's a belief, and its opposite means something else, an opposing belief. The atheist has a different worldview, and it doesn't include "god," but that doesn't eliminate "god," it just excludes "god."

 

[Falvlun]

It's what the word is... The question is whether the change to make it the opposite position is correct. Why change the word instead of create a new one?

im-theist or similar would be more appropriate.

The word atheist isn't really going to reveal much by its nature.

Many dictionaries have the definition of atheism as being the belief that gods don't exist. Additionally, I have never encountered anyone, outside of here or a philosophy class, who thought that the word "atheist" primarily referred to anyone who wasn't a theist. It is always, in my experience, been a word associated with the belief that gods don't exist.

So when you say "it's what the word is", that is not quite correct. Right now, the "lack of" definition appears to be a newcomer, that has gained popularity primarily within the atheist ranks.

It's not good enough to say that the word "isn't really going to reveal much by its nature." We are discussing the nature of the word. Your argument is circular.

Why do you think that the word shouldn't reveal much? What benefit is there to such a position? Why do you think that everyone who isn't a theist should be called an atheist; why do they all need to have a label (and especially one that essentially states nothing)?

 

[Curious George]

Undecided is just a type of not applicable though... really not needed.

If you made a list of PEOPLE who like the taste of Pepsi you would only need three base options before you start to get into description of one of the three... Right?

I capitalized an example of this step. Already you are narrowing to two groups- people and not people. This is a process of deciding what's applicable and what's not.

Now the question is why extend applicability to all humans when all humans are not applicable? It is a fundamental procedural error which is causing you to impute "atheist" onto non applicable entities.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes I understand your circles and I fail to see any reason to include implicit weak atheists. If belief is not applicable it is just that. It's an arbitrary move to try to include not applicable objects in a set.

So when the dictionary says there are three possibilities with moral: moral, immoral and amoral and that infants are amoral that is also "an arbitrary move to try to include not applicable objects in a set"?

 

[Falvlun]

Its a simple yes or no question so there is no clarification as to what is actually believed. If someone doesnt believe in evolution there are a number of replacement theories that they might actually believe. So no, telling someone what you dont think or believe isnt saying much. Just like saying atheist isnt much, they could be nihilistic or Buddhist or some combination. Even saying theist isnt much more but it is something, saying monotheist pantheist or deist says a heck of a lot more.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

If someone tells me that they don't believe in evolution, that very much is information about their beliefs. Yes, of course, it doesn't tell you everything. But it does tell you quite a bit of relevant information. I don't know why you are so motivated to downplay such.

 

[Falvlun]

Because that is exactly what it means. The prefix a- means "not, without". Are you going to redefine what the prefix a- means? It states that the person is not a theist and there are a lot of other words he can use if he wishes to clarify his position further.A language has an awful lot of words we can use to state precisely what we mean. You shouldn't try to cause confusion by redefining the meaning of the prefix a-.

You're not gonna tell me that every single word in English follows precise grammatical rules, are you?

The definition of words are not determined by their separate parts. They are determined by usage.

And, quite frankly, apart from here, I don't hear anyone using the word "atheist" to refer to every person who "lacks a belief in gods".