Are people born inherently atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I think you're confusing colloquial use with literal meaning. If I say "bananas aren't my favourite", you'll probably understand that I'm communicating the idea "I dislike bananas". However, this doesn't mean that either of us would think this implies that there's no middle ground of "mildly like" between "favourite" and "dislike".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

For atheism to mean "the belief that gods don't exist", an atheist has to have a concept of god.

I've said several times now that I don't have one. Do you? I think I asked before.

 

[Willamena]

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?

That's not bad, except you got the labels "New Atheist" and "Natural Atheist" in the wrong place.

Weak/implicit atheism has only been around since the 1970s, and only really took off in the 1990s.

 

[Sees]

That's not bad, except you got the labels "New Atheist" and "Natural Atheist" in the wrong place.

Weak/implicit atheism has only been around since the 1970s, and only really took off in the 1990s.

My understanding of atheist goes back to the whole atheos thing that was mentioned over 2,000 years ago.

New Atheism is the Harris, Dawkins, etc. version of stating that gods do not exist and making it out to be an intellectual position.

Natural atheism can't possibly be denying the existence of gods when we naturally start out without god concepts or strong beliefs or positions on anything.

 

[Willamena]

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?

A newborn baby doesn't consider, so that they don't consider anything to be a god is entirely superfluous to that. Atheism for them is superfluous.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Your definition implies two attributes:

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

You've conflated two properties that are necessarily distinct for your definition to work:

A theist has two properties:
1) They believe in things (and do so such that they are able to consider those things to be or not be (a) god).
2) Among those things believed in, at least one the theist considers to be a god.

There are two issues that result from these requirements.

Are there any things that an infant believes in that they do not consider to be (a) god? No. There is nothing an infant believes in that they do not consider to be a god.

As "god" has no definition in your set apart from the consideration of its members, and there exists nothing that any infant considers to not be a god, then they theists. You might object that as they can't believe in anything, they can't believe in gods, but they are capable of perceptual beliefs (e.g, that a particular face belongs to their mother), and they are not capable of considering anything not to be a god.

But there's a larger problem.

The only way for a theist to be capable of believing in something they consider to be a god is to believe in things and to consider only some (or one) of those things to be god(s). If a theist is not capable of believing in things that are not god, they cannot possibly consider whether or not the set of things they believe includes (a) god.

Let's assume that everything I believe in is a god (which follows from not requiring that theists consider some things they believe in to not be gods). I am incapable, then, of any evaluation, consideration, conceptualization, or comprehension of what "not a god" could possibly be. The only defining property that "god" has for me is my entire conceptual-perceptual world.

Such a person is incapable of considering whether they believe in god.

So you have two issues. One is that infants don't believe in anything they consider not to be a god any more than they believe in things they consider to be a god (and therefore belong to neither set, as they lack the capacity to consider). The other issue is similar: in order to consider whether something is a god or not the individual must be capable of considering things not to be god (otherwise, it would be like defining "dark" when light never existed or "wet" when one has only ever experienced life in water).

A newborn baby doesn't believe in anything and doesn't consider anything to be a god,

If infants don't believe in anything, then you cannot say there exists something any infant believes in that they don't consider to be (a) god.

so therefore doesn't consider anything they believe in to be a god

They don't consider. Your set of theists requires consideration. Without the consideration, then you have to define god. As you haven't defined god (and declared this impossible) then you require a theist to "consider". Infants don't "believe" anything other than perceptually, and therefore can't be said to believe in anything they consider not to be god.

Do you finally concede that babies are atheists?

1) Your definition doesn't allow it
2) I don't agree with your definition. But when you can tell me how infants can be said to consider anything, then you can tell me how they don't consider anything they believe in to be (a) god.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By having no beliefs about gods one way or the other

If they have no beliefs about gods, it cannot be said that there is no entity they consider not to be a god. For to consider whether some entity is x or has properties y is to believe that the entity is x or has those properties y. If an atheist has no beliefs about god, it cannot be said that there is anything they consider not to be a god.

... e.g. by having the mindset of a newborn baby.

Who, because your definition of "god" relies entirely on subjective consideration, are incapable of believing there exists anything that they don't consider to be a god.

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

Negations with existential and universal quantification.

Consider a universe of all possible things. A theist believes there exists an entity they consider to be (a) "god". We can say this 2 ways:
Let Gx = "is a god".
A theist is defined by the their belief in either of the following (which are logically equivalent) :
~∀(x)~Gx (i.e., it is not the case that for any x whatsoever, x isn't god)

or
∃(x) Gx (i.e., there exists an (i.e., at least one) x such that x is god)

The negations of either of these statements define all atheists according to you because they are the complement to the set of theists:


∀(x)Gx (i.e., for any x whatsoever, x isn't god)

or
~∃(x) Gx (i.e., there exists no x such that x is god)

The only way for someone to be an atheist and not deny that "there exists an x such that x is god" is to believe that for any x
1) x is not a god
2) it is not true that x is not a god

This is not possible unless you want to extend beyond classical logic, set theory, etc. (it won't help you out here, but as is you have a contradiction that is only resolved if all atheists deny there is any x they consider to be a god and therefore that deny any gods exist)

Another way to put that is to say that atheists are not the complement set to the set "theists", for if they were, then it must be true of all atheists that they believe there exists no x such that x is god AND (equivalently) that for any x whatsoever, x isn't god. That's a denial that any gods exist, and would be the strict, logical complement to your set of theists: denial that any gods exist.

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

You defined the set. If you have the problem with my logic, use of set theory, or are otherwise inclined to believe me inaccurate, then point out the logical flaws. For example, must a theist believe that these (logically equivalent statements) are true:
~∀(x)~Gx (i.e., it is not the case that for any x whatsoever, x isn't god)

or
∃(x) Gx (i.e., there exists an (i.e., at least one) x such that x is god)


If not, then your set of theist allows those who believe "there exists no god" to be members.

The logical equivalent of "there exists a god" is "it is not the case that there exists no gods". The negation of these is "there exists no god" and "it is the case that no gods exists".

If you can give an alternative logical, consistent definition of your set that makes my statements illogical, by all means do. However, defining atheists as the complement to the set theists doesn't allow for much range. It is a logical complement, which means a logical negation. If a member of the set "theists" must believe "(a) god exists", then the complement to the set of theists is by definition those who believe the negation of that statement: "no god exists".

Someone who has no beliefs about god does not belong to the complement of the set of those who believe in at least one god any more than a rock does. Put more formally, they are not in the domain of the membership function that determines membership in the set "theists". That function decides whether any individual is a theist if and only if they believe in something they consider gods. Sets require well-defined (bijective or one-to-one) mappings that evaluate membership as either in or out. The set "theists" who believe in something they consider god maps the beliefs of every individual regarding any entity they believe in as either
1) believing in an entity considered god (theist)
2) not believing in any entity considered god

Someone with no beliefs can't be said to not believe in any entity they consider to be (a) god, because if there were any entity they considered not to be god then they would have beliefs.

 

[idav]

Babies can't be theist because they dont have that belief. They dont have to have a concept to reject because atheism does not come with a concept of a deity. The default position is that the concept of deity does not exist until some person in their 30's all of a sudden says, "hey I think some bearded dude created all this". Theism is unique like that, in that it is a concept that has to develop, it is a belief in an idea. People can even have the idea about a bearded creator but they have to invest faith the idea is true to be considered theist. Everything defaults to no faith in any ideas being true except for our objective reality, which even babies have, they must consider reality real. Therefore atheism is default.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your definition implies two attributes:



You've conflated two properties that are necessarily distinct for your definition to work:

A theist has two properties:
1) They believe in things (and do so such that they are able to consider those things to be or not be (a) god).
2) Among those things believed in, at least one the theist considers to be a god.

There are two issues that result from these requirements.

Are there any things that an infant believes in that they do not consider to be (a) god? No. There is nothing an infant believes in that they do not consider to be a god.

They believe in nothing, so both are true.

Edit: merely not believing in any non-god things isn't enough to qualify as a theist. To be a theist, a person has to believe in at least one thing that he or she considers to be a god. A baby who believes nothing is not a theist. Do you disagree?

As "god" has no definition in your set apart from the consideration of its members, and there exists nothing that any infant considers to not be a god, then they theists. You might object that as they can't believe in anything, they can't believe in gods, but they are capable of perceptual beliefs (e.g, that a particular face belongs to their mother), and they are not capable of considering anything not to be a god.

Stop it. I think you know full well that there is a difference between not considering something to be a god (i.e. not taking an explicit affirmative stance) and considering something not to be a god (i.e. taking an explicit negative stance).

But there's a larger problem.

The only way for a theist to be capable of believing in something they consider to be a god is to believe in things and to consider only some (or one) of those things to be god(s). If a theist is not capable of believing in things that are not god, they cannot possibly consider whether or not the set of things they believe includes (a) god.

That's right, and that's not a problem.

"John has never flown anywhere" implies "John has never flown to France."

"John is (for whatever reason) incapable of flying anywhere" implies "John has never flown anywhere", which still leads us to "John has never flown to France."

Saying that John is incapable of flying anywhere does not some how imply that the statement "John has never flown to France" is wrong. In fact, it makes this conclusion even more certain.

Let's assume that everything I believe in is a god (which follows from not requiring that theists consider some things they believe in to not be gods). I am incapable, then, of any evaluation, consideration, conceptualization, or comprehension of what "not a god" could possibly be. The only defining property that "god" has for me is my entire conceptual-perceptual world.

Such a person is incapable of considering whether they believe in god.

You're contradicting yourself. If someone considers everything to be a god, then they have considered whether they believe in god.

And your hypothetical person is fairly close to the views of some theists (in the broad strokes, anyhow). Why don't you ask any of the many Hindus who claim "everything is Brahman" or "everything is God" whether they believe in god.

So you have two issues. One is that infants don't believe in anything they consider not to be a god any more than they believe in things they consider to be a god (and therefore belong to neither set, as they lack the capacity to consider).

How is this an issue? Sure: babies are neither theists nor strong atheists. How is this relevant?

The other issue is similar: in order to consider whether something is a god or not the individual must be capable of considering things not to be god (otherwise, it would be like defining "dark" when light never existed or "wet" when one has only ever experienced life in water).

If a person doesn't understand the concept of "wet" or "dry", then it stands to reason that it's never occurred to them that they're wet.

If infants don't believe in anything, then you cannot say there exists something any infant believes in that they don't consider to be (a) god.

Good thing I'm not saying that, then.

They don't consider. Your set of theists requires consideration. Without the consideration, then you have to define god.

No, I don't.

As you haven't defined god (and declared this impossible) then you require a theist to "consider". Infants don't "believe" anything other than perceptually, and therefore can't be said to believe in anything they consider not to be god.

Again: I didn't say they did. And this is irrelevant anyhow.

1) Your definition doesn't allow it

It does, actually.

2) I don't agree with your definition. But when you can tell me how infants can be said to consider anything, then you can tell me how they don't consider anything they believe in to be (a) god.

It's very simple if you think about it a bit: do they consider anything they believe in to be (a) god? If the answer is somehow "yes", then the baby is a theist. If the answer is "no", then the baby doesn't consider anything they believe in to be a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they have no beliefs about gods, it cannot be said that there is no entity they consider not to be a god.

That's right. There are no things for which they have concluded "this thing is not a god". However, this isn't required for atheism. In fact, most theists can identify many things as "not god".

For to consider whether some entity is x or has properties y is to believe that the entity is x or has those properties y. If an atheist has no beliefs about god, it cannot be said that there is anything they consider not to be a god.

You're playing word games. If a person has no cars, he can honestly say "I don't own any non-blue cars." This doesn't make him a blue car owner, though. To do that, he has to own at least one blue car.

Who, because your definition of "god" relies entirely on subjective consideration, are incapable of believing there exists anything that they don't consider to be a god.

Yup. Just as a person with no money to buy a car is incapable of owning a non-blue car. This still doesn't make him a blue car owner.

Negations with existential and universal quantification.

Gish gallop.

The only way for someone to be an atheist and not deny that "there exists an x such that x is god" is to believe that for any x
1) x is not a god
2) it is not true that x is not a god

Denying a statement entails:

- considering it
- expressing a view on it

The mere fact that a baby has not accepted the premise "there exists an x such that x is god" does not mean that a baby is in a position to consider or express their views on anything.

You defined the set. If you have the problem with my logic, use of set theory, or are otherwise inclined to believe me inaccurate, then point out the logical flaws.

I have. Many times. You ignore them or try to distract from the problems with your arguments with rhetorical hand-waving.

The logical equivalent of "there exists a god" is "it is not the case that there exists no gods". The negation of these is "there exists no god" and "it is the case that no gods exists".

That's the opposite claim, not the complement. The complement of theism includes both explicit atheism (what you just described) and implicit atheism (i.e. merely not accepting theistic claims while also not accepting claims that gods do not exist).

Actually, your argument doesn't imply that babies aren't atheists; when you deny that there's a middle ground of implicit atheism, you imply they're either theists, strong atheists, or don't exist at all.

Someone who has no beliefs about god does not belong to the complement of the set of those who believe in at least one god any more than a rock does.

Sure, but the definition of "atheist" constrains the context to people.

Put more formally, they are not in the domain of the membership function that determines membership in the set "theists". That function decides whether any individual is a theist if and only if they believe in something they consider gods. Sets require well-defined (bijective or one-to-one) mappings that evaluate membership as either in or out. The set "theists" who believe in something they consider god maps the beliefs of every individual regarding any entity they believe in as either
1) believing in an entity considered god (theist)
2) not believing in any entity considered god

Someone with no beliefs can't be said to not believe in any entity they consider to be (a) god, because if there were any entity they considered not to be god then they would have beliefs.

Which do you think is true for someone with no beliefs?

- they believe in things they consider gods
- they don't believe in things they consider gods

These are the only options.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When I think about how many trees have died to make this thread, I begin to understand the plight of the Amazonian Rainforest.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When I think about how many trees have died to make this thread, I begin to understand the plight of the Amazonian Rainforest.

I own 5 acres outside Manaus. Keep talking.

 

[Willamena]

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

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

Artie, just because "moral" has an "amoral" counterpart doesn't mean "theist" has to. You haven't given a reason to draw this comparison; and by drawing this comparison, you haven't given any reason why there should be a classification of "weak atheist."

Perhaps it's best just to defend the weak atheist on its own.

 

[idav]

Nothing has no properties. Nothing is not "non-god entities," because non-god entities have properties, the properties of "god," "thinginess" and (thanks to you) "non-existence."

Why insist that atheists reject something that doesnt exist in the first place. Remember that properties of god come from the theist not the atheist. A person could just as easily ask the theist "what the heck are you talking about" and that person would not be theist, but why is that person not atheist, just cause they didnt invest faith in the theists idea not being reality? I dont know is probably the best answer when there is no evidence and I dont know isnt a rejection but it certainly isnt acceptance either.

 

[Willamena]

Why insist that atheists reject something that doesnt exist in the first place. Remember that properties of god come from the theist not the atheist. A person could just as easily ask the theist "what the heck are you talking about" and that person would not be theist, but why is that person not atheist, just cause they didnt invest faith in the theists idea not being reality? I dont know is probably the best answer when there is no evidence and I dont know isnt a rejection but it certainly isnt acceptance either.

I'm giving up on this thread.

I'm also seriously considering giving up on atheism.

 

[Willamena]

If the theist is someone who believes in something they consider to be god, then I can be a non-theist by actually believing in god. Go me.

 

[idav]

If the theist is someone who believes in something they consider to be god, then I can be a non-theist by actually believing in god. Go me.

Ok.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the theist is someone who believes in something they consider to be god, then I can be a non-theist by actually believing in god. Go me.

... as long as God exists and you believe him to be something else. Theologian Joan Osborne explored this issue in her 1995 work "(What if God was) One of Us".

 

[Willamena]

... as long as God exists and you believe him to be something else. Theologian Joan Osborne explored this issue in her 1995 work "(What if God was) One of Us".

"Something else" other than what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Something else" other than what?

Other than a god.