Are people born inherently atheist?

[Falvlun]

So I can't say "I consider Darth Vader to be a Sith Lord" without believing that Darth Vader literally exists?

No. You can't say "I consider Darth Vader to be a Sith Lord" unless you also believe Darth Vader is a Sith Lord.

 

[idav]

Why does there need to be a "default" and why should the word "atheism" be used to denote such a default?

There doesnt need to be a default, there just is. I dont think atheism has to be that word but it works because it entails not having a belief in a specific concept. Just like if an unicornist became a prevalent belief, likewise the baby would be an a-unicornist.

 

[outhouse]

9-10ths_Penguin has maintained that it is illogical and/or inconsistent to define atheists as denying any gods exist, and thus defining atheists as "not theists" is the only (or at least a) way to define them logically and consistently. I think it is ridiculous to consider theists in terms of set theory and logic, but if one is going to maintain that this is the reason atheists are defined as "not theists" then one has to understand what set theory and logic dictate, not simply demand that both apply when atheists are considered as a set and then loosely define the set "theists" and object when actual set theory and logic shows how absurd a definition is.


Logic demands that the conditional "If all unicorns are pink, then the moon is made of green cheese" to be true. It is true because conditionals are only false when their antecedents are true and their consequents false. Any time the antecedent is false, the conditional is necessarily true.

Ergo:
1) All infants believe in nothing.
2) If an infant believes in something, that infant believes in god

The protosis (antecedent) of the conditional is false, and therefore the conditional itself is true (that's logic).

Same with set theory. If the set of all theists is defined as anybody who believes in something they consider god, then
1) Someone who believes in nothing is a theist AND not a theist
2) Someone who considers nothing is a theist AND not a theist

This is because if one has no beliefs, there is no statement we can make about beliefs they have that are logically false. Also, if one considers nothing there is no statement we can make about what they consider that is logically false.

You have a point


But it does not change the fact infants are not theist, and that they are atheist with no belief in a deity.

9-10ths is correct as it is the definition of implicit atheism, like it or not.

 

[idav]

9-10ths_Penguin has maintained that it is illogical and/or inconsistent to define atheists as denying any gods exist, and thus defining atheists as "not theists" is the only (or at least a) way to define them logically and consistently. I think it is ridiculous to consider theists in terms of set theory and logic, but if one is going to maintain that this is the reason atheists are defined as "not theists" then one has to understand what set theory and logic dictate, not simply demand that both apply when atheists are considered as a set and then loosely define the set "theists" and object when actual set theory and logic shows how absurd a definition is.


Logic demands that the conditional "If all unicorns are pink, then the moon is made of green cheese" to be true. It is true because conditionals are only false when their antecedents are true and their consequents false. Any time the antecedent is false, the conditional is necessarily true.

Ergo:
1) All infants believe in nothing.
2) If an infant believes in something, that infant believes in god

The protosis (antecedent) of the conditional is false, and therefore the conditional itself is true (that's logic).

Same with set theory. If the set of all theists is defined as anybody who believes in something they consider god, then
1) Someone who believes in nothing is a theist AND not a theist
2) Someone who considers nothing is a theist AND not a theist

This is because if one has no beliefs, there is no statement we can make about beliefs they have that are logically false. Also, if one considers nothing there is no statement we can make about what they consider that is logically false.

I am not following. On the first set, 2 is false. On the second set both are false. On what planet does just holding a belief mean that belief is in one or more deities?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except for the fact that they are subset of people who are incapable of holdling beliefs. So including them in a discussion about holding and not holding beliefs is exactly as relevant as including rocks and squirrels in such a discussion.

You say that you limit the word "atheist" to people capable of belief. Are you sure that all adult atheists are capable of believing in gods?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There doesnt need to be a default, there just is. I dont think atheism has to be that word but it works because it entails not having a belief in a specific concept. Just like if an unicornist became a prevalent belief, likewise the baby would be an a-unicornist.

Our "default" when it comes to beliefs about gods is "not applicable," since we are born not capable of holdling such beliefs. Same with squirrels. Theism and atheism are not applicable to them since they are not capable of holding such beleifs.

 

[outhouse]

Except for the fact that they are subset of people who are incapable of holdling beliefs. .

Which is the mistake you keep repeating over and over and over.

holding belief is not in any part of implicit atheism

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You say that you limit the word "atheist" to people capable of belief. Are you sure that all adult atheists are capable of believing in gods?

Nope. There are certainly many adult humans who have cognitive and developmental disorders or conditions which render them incapable of holding such beliefs. It wouldn't be meaningful to describe these people as "atheists" either.

 

[outhouse]

Our "default" when it comes to beliefs about gods is "not applicable," since we are born not capable of holdling such beliefs. Same with squirrels. Theism and atheism are not applicable to them since they are not capable of holding such beleifs.

Its only about the lack of belief. PERIOD.

One does not have to be a theist first, to then be a atheist as your false definition assumes.

One does not have to make a conscious decision to be a atheist

 

[outhouse]

It wouldn't be meaningful to describe these people as "atheists" either.

Yet they are atheist

 

[Kilgore Trout]

holding belief is not in any part of implicit atheism

Of course not. The abiliy to hold beliefs is only a part of meaningfully described atheism. Rocks and squirrels are also "implicity" atheists. Again, if someone finds such categorizations useful, that's their prerogative.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yet they are atheist

Indeed. Their atheism is identical to that of a rock or squirrel. A designation I personally find useless and silly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only when it's no longer an infant.

Similarly, an adult atheist can only be a theist if he's no longer an atheist.

And, for the thousandth time (in case you missed it), this is a discussion about our state at birth - in other words, newborn. I realize that you'll just keep ignoring this point, but I'll keep trotting it out as long as you keep insisting on changing the definition of "infant" into "adult."

I'm not ignoring anything; it's just sometimes relevant to point out how your mental gymnastics about the case of infants create absurdities when we try to use the term "atheist" in a broader context. You aren't trying to propose separate definitions of "atheist" for the two contexts, are you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Its only about the lack of belief. PERIOD.

Like a squirrel.

One does not have to be a theist first, to then be a atheist as your false definition assumes.

I can only imagine how confusing logic is to you if you think anything I've said implies such a silly argument.

One does not have to make a conscious decision to be a atheist

But one has to have the ability to hold beliefs in order for a belief or absence of belief to hold any useful meaning.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Similarly, an adult atheist can only be a theist if he's no longer an atheist.

Okay, but in either case such a person is someone capable of holding beliefs - an attribute that doesn't apply to newborn humans.

I'm not ignoring anything; it's just sometimes relevant to point out how your mental gymnastics about the case of infants create absurdities when we try to use the term "atheist" in a broader context. You aren't trying to propose separate definitions of "atheist" for the two contexts, are you?

This bizarre response makes me scarcely be able to imagine what it is that you think I'm saying compared to what I'm actually saying.

 

[Sees]

Even if we want to only go by people who can hold beliefs, we can be sure that any belief in one or more gods isn't one of the first and isn't even a meaningful belief with clearly understood concept until much later.

No matter how the game is played people start off without belief in one or more gods...whether looking at birth, 3 months, 6 months, 2 years old, etc.

 

[idav]

You have a point


But it does not change the fact infants are not theist, and that they are atheist with no belief in a deity.

9-10ths is correct as it is the definition of implicit atheism, like it or not.

I see he is trying to say that in order to be atheist one has to falsify a concept of theism. I really dont see why that is necessary since it means atheist would have to have faith that lack of evidence is sufficient for proof. I didnt realize so many atheists use faith in there beleifs, I always thought that is more of a theist thing. I also didnt realize that I have to actually reject the concept in order to be considered a non-beleiver. It is very inconsistent to not consider people who can hold beliefs and at the same time maintain apathy toward any given concept. Cant atheists be apathetic toward god concepts?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. There are certainly many adult humans who have cognitive and developmental disorders or conditions which render them incapable of holding such beliefs. It wouldn't be meaningful to describe these people as "atheists" either.

I'm not talking about them; I'm talking about informed, intelligent people of sound mind who lived their whole lives without ever coming to believe in any gods. If you say that these people were capable of believing in gods, then this implies that in every case, some different set of circumstances would have resulted in the person being a theist. How can you be sure of this? They never did believe in gods, so what suggests to you that they were capable of believing in something that they never did?

 

[outhouse]

Of course not. The abiliy to hold beliefs is only a part of meaningfully described atheism. .

Nonsesne

Meaning is your personal unsubstantiated opinion.

YOu have already been shown examples of how it can be used with meaning.


It is the person using the definition that gets to determine meaning, not you!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not talking about them; I'm talking about informed, intelligent people of sound mind who lived their whole lives without ever coming to believe in any gods. If you say that these people were capable of believing in gods, then this implies that in every case, some different set of circumstances would have resulted in the person being a theist. How can you be sure of this? They never did believe in gods, so what suggests to you that they were capable of believing in something that they never did?

Well, that's certainly an interesting discussion in and of itself, and one that I'd be interested in exploring and researching. However, this has little bearing on the general distinction I'm applying in this discussion - which is pointing out the fact that newborn humans are not capable of holding beliefs, whereas adult humans are capable of holding beliefs. Whether adults accept or reject specific beliefs (out of conscious choice or not), they can still form and hold meaningful beliefs about things - an attribute that doesn't apply to newborns.