Are people born inherently atheist?

[Curious George]

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"?

No because amoral means that morality is not applicable. You however are not using weak atheist as "not applicable" because you are applying it to two distinguishable groups and still expect to restrict the applicability of the term to people.

 

[Willamena]

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".

Further to this, we can and do deny any gods exist when we are not opposing the set of theists but instead asserting a particular worldview that excludes unnecessary possible existents.

 

[Sees]

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)?

Like I said... it's revealing a specific belief being absent... whether there is specific disbelief or lack of belief, either way what does it tell?

If somebody asked me what I do at night and I answered "I don't pinch my self"... it's not really a revealing answer. Even if atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods;the opposite of theism... nothing much is being done towards describing world-view. It really is like saying my favorite food is not a burrito. You never leave square one.

Dictionary definitions and grammar are getting worse as time goes by... Hence "hone in" now being accepted or even preferred.

The a-theist and a-theism words describe themselves.. Without/absent theism. *

 

[Willamena]

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

The amoral person is not the weak atheist. The amoral person is "neither moral nor immoral."

 

[idav]

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.

Put simply, in any real world scenario, whenever I wanna know what someone thinks or believes, I certainly wouldnt ask them what they dont think or what they dont believe. That just doesnt happen. That is a main problem I have with the word atheist to begin with. If I wanted to really know what atheists believe, the god question doesnt answer. What would answer what atheists believe is asking them if they are naturalists or materialists or nihilistic etc. Atheism in itself is not a philosophy nor is it a worldview and it isnt even a type of theism.

 

[Curious George]

The amoral person is not the weak atheist. The amoral person is "neither moral nor immoral."

I like your ability to make statements concisely, although this is what I tried to say, my tendency toward wordiness can take away from my point.

 

[idav]

The amoral person is not the weak atheist. The amoral person is "neither moral nor immoral."

So neither theist or itheist but....drum roll please.....atheist. Im kinda liking itheist lol.

 

[ArtieE]

The amoral person is not the weak atheist. The amoral person is "neither moral nor immoral."

And the weak atheist is neither a theist nor a strong atheist. Same thing.

 

[Curious George]

And the weak atheist is neither a theist nor a strong atheist. Same thing.

Nope, not the same. See my earlier post. You are not describing non applicability with weak atheism.

 

[Sonofason]

It is not a very straightforward definition. It uses believe when it shouldnt. Theist is one who believes in god while you propose that atheist is a person who believes in not believing in a deity. Your trying to make atheist a believer but it is theism which has a believer in the defintion. Atheist is not a believer and throwing belief in the definition ignores the fact that atheists differ from theists in that they do not believe. You can say they have a worldview but atheism is not necessarily a worldview unless your including their philosphical viewpoints on nihilism and what not.

Wow atheists have doctrine now too?

And blind faith.

 

[Willamena]

If somebody asked me what I do at night and I answered "I don't pinch my self"... it's not really a revealing answer.

I agree; it's just a silly example.

Why would you say that?

 

[Willamena]

I like your ability to make statements concisely, although this is what I tried to say, my tendency toward wordiness can take away from my point.

I love what you said in 2237, but I didn't follow. Can you try saying it again?

 

[Willamena]

And the weak atheist is neither a theist nor a strong atheist. Same thing.

Then which one's the atheist?

 

[Willamena]

So neither theist or itheist but....drum roll please.....atheist. Im kinda liking itheist lol.

"I Sparta!" (kick)

 

[Sees]

If we go off my goofy examples of liking or disliking a certain food or drink in place of belief in existence of god/gods.

Theist = likes the taste/believes it taste good.
Strong/New Atheist = doesn't like the taste/believes it taste bad.
Weak/Implicit/Natural Atheist = lacks an opinion concerning the taste/without belief on whether it tastes good or bad.

Both 2 and 3 do not believe it taste good... just one specifically is in opposition.

Does that make sense?

 

[ArtieE]

Then which one's the atheist?

Bedtime. I can't put it simpler than this.

Moral, immoral, amoral.
Theist, strong atheist, weak implicit atheist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are people born inherently atheist?

I was and I have remained so regardless of the multiple attempts by family to indoctrinate me.

 

[ArtieE]

If we go off my goofy examples of liking or disliking a certain food or drink in place of belief in existence of god/gods.

Theist = likes the taste/believes it taste good.
Strong/New Atheist = doesn't like the taste/believes it taste bad.
Weak/Implicit/Natural Atheist = lacks an opinion concerning the taste/without belief on whether it tastes good or bad.

Both 2 and 3 do not believe it taste good... just one specifically is in opposition.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

The "therefore" I highlighted doesn't follow from the rest of what you said.

A newborn baby doesn't believe in anything and doesn't consider anything to be a god, so therefore doesn't consider anything they believe in to be a god. Do you finally concede that babies are atheists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That's right.

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?

By having no beliefs about gods one way or the other... e.g. by having the mindset of a newborn baby.

There must be at least one thing an individual believes in and believes of that thing that it may be a god.

Where did your arbitrary "there must be at least one thing an individual believes in" criterion come from?

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.

Yes, it's easy to affirm plenty of incorrect things.

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".

If you make unjustified logical leaps, sure. They let you do lots of things.