Are people born inherently atheist?

[Kilgore Trout]

I didn't miss it, but thanks for repeating it.

It just seems like something you'd want to address since you seem to put a lot of stock in the specific wording of dictionary definitions in formulating your positions and arguments.

Meh, maybe Penguin will find it worth addressing since he seem to rely on the dictionary as well for defining atheists as "people."

Anyway, this is getting nowhere. Here's the bottom line:

You and some others prefer not to call babies atheists because you don't feel it's meaningful. I and some others prefer to call them atheists because it can be meaningful in certain contexts and it's technically true. Applying the term to babies, though, isn't the same as applying it to rocks or squirrels, since humans can be theists, while neither of the other things can ever be theists.

Not dissimilar to a summary I put forth about 50 pages back. People just kept arguing with me anyway. Yeah, fundamentally, it comes down to some people finding "being a person" sufficient for applying the categorization of belief, whereas others find "able to hold beliefs" more clear and logical for applying the categorization of belief. I suppose it's a matter of opinion and aesthetics.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'd be more than interested in continuing a dialogue with you, if you showed the capability to engage in an actual give-and-take, rather than just a give.

I give til it hurts. I'm just a giving person.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Am I the only one who sees this as "a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood." ?

Is this stuff really going to give us a definitive answer concerning the definition of atheism and atheist?

It has been argued that we cannot define atheism negatively because this would entail certain inconsistencies, contradictions, or otherwise entail illogical results. Therefore we should define atheists only and wholly as "not theists". And using such a definition would indeed make infants atheists.

The problem is that there actually is no problem defining atheism as "the belief that no gods exist", and if there were any, it would apply to defining atheists as being "not theists".

All of these posts on logic, set theory, etc., are not (in my view) at all useful to define atheism or theism, but they are important if it is claimed that the only logical way to define atheists is to define them as "not theists".

Of course, we could define atheist as "not theists". That would just be
1) pointless
2) not reflect usage
3) render meaningless or confusing a number of other labels
4) entail labeling people as being atheists even if they themselves as other than atheists and also if the definition of their label reflects usage (which the definition of "atheism" as solely and wholly "not theism" does not)

The problem is that no matter how useful it is to make distinctions like that between theists and deists, agnostics and atheists, polytheists and monotheists, etc., if one argues that logic requires a definition of atheists as "not theists" and further that theists are then defined as anybody who beliefs in god, then we have an issue.

On the one hand, there are all the useful distinctions being thrown out the window for the sake of set theory and logic. On the other, it's also useful to have formal definitions and the ability to use definitions in logical arguments.

Luckily, there is nothing whatsoever illogical about defining atheists as those who deny the existence of any gods. If we consider the most recent definition of "theists" put forward and claimed to be a logical one, it includes people who believe in something they consider to be god. If this definition is capable of being formally expressed, then so is the definition of atheists as "those who believe there is nothing they consider to be a god", or (more simply) that "atheists deny any god exists".

I already spent post after post on pragmatic reasons to define atheism as a belief that gods don't exist, including everything from linguistics to neuroscience, but apparently I must also demonstrate that there is nothing illogical with such a definition.


The New Atheism is at least partly to blame. In recent decades the position that atheism does not entail any beliefs has become a popular (if demonstrably false) one, as it allows atheists to argue that believers are the only ones making epistemic claims. Hence we find incredibly awkward and odd phrases like "absence of belief" or "lack any belief" used almost exclusively in discussions of atheism, because whenever anybody (including atheists) wishes to indicate they "neither disbelieve nor believe" they say "I don't know" and if they don't believe they say "I don't believe." However, saying "I don't believe in god" sounds to many to be too similar to a belief claim, and is to be avoided by awkward phrases that entail the exact same thing. It's all pointless and ridiculous nonsense that could be avoided if the new atheists and those influenced by them (and everybody, actually) were required to take argumentation/critical thinking classes and logic courses in high school rather than learn about rationalizing some meaningless algebraic expression so that if they go on to calculus they will be capable of evaluating the limits of functions through algebraic manipulations they will never use outside of calculus courses.

 

[Willamena]

I didn't miss it, but thanks for repeating it.

Anyway, this is getting nowhere. Here's the bottom line:

You and some others prefer not to call babies atheists because you don't feel it's meaningful.

Second from bottom line.

The issue for me isn't whether having or not having belief is meaningful, it's about the nature of "belief" itself (which is why it's not meaningful to define it some ways). If atheism is to be defined in terms of belief, then belief has to be possible before either atheism or theism can kick in. It's because the two terms are defined in terms of belief that this is necessary.

That's why defining atheism in terms of theism or theists doesn't work (for me).

 

[ArtieE]

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."

There is a classification of "weak atheist" for the same reason there is a classification of "amoral".

 

[Willamena]

There is a classification of "weak atheist" for the same reason there is a classification of "amoral".

And what is that reason?

Amorality came about because of a "dispute among scientists and philosophers. If morality is intrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings either do not exist or are only deficiently human. If morality is extrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings can both exist and be fully human, and may be amoral either by nature or by choice...

For example, a rock may be used (by rational agents) for good or bad purposes, but the rock itself is neither good nor bad." (Wikipedia)

Do you believe morality is objectively real (extrinsic to humanity)?

Do you believe beliefs are objectively real?

 

[Sees]

Thanks for a good synopsis of your posts. You lose me sometimes with the other stuff. In my High School and university courses we never went over logic equations and all of that. Maybe a very brief passing. Never ran into them in books on philosophy, spirituality, religion, psychology, etc. either, so I kind of ignored them till now.

Will have to add it to my tool-box in the future though. PM good foundation books if you can.

It has been argued that we cannot define atheism negatively because this would entail certain inconsistencies, contradictions, or otherwise entail illogical results. Therefore we should define atheists only and wholly as "not theists". And using such a definition would indeed make infants atheists.

The problem is that there actually is no problem defining atheism as "the belief that no gods exist", and if there were any, it would apply to defining atheists as being "not theists".

All of these posts on logic, set theory, etc., are not (in my view) at all useful to define atheism or theism, but they are important if it is claimed that the only logical way to define atheists is to define them as "not theists".

Of course, we could define atheist as "not theists". That would just be
1) pointless
2) not reflect usage
3) render meaningless or confusing a number of other labels
4) entail labeling people as being atheists even if they themselves as other than atheists and also if the definition of their label reflects usage (which the definition of "atheism" as solely and wholly "not theism" does not)

The problem is that no matter how useful it is to make distinctions like that between theists and deists, agnostics and atheists, polytheists and monotheists, etc., if one argues that logic requires a definition of atheists as "not theists" and further that theists are then defined as anybody who beliefs in god, then we have an issue.

On the one hand, there are all the useful distinctions being thrown out the window for the sake of set theory and logic. On the other, it's also useful to have formal definitions and the ability to use definitions in logical arguments.

Luckily, there is nothing whatsoever illogical about defining atheists as those who deny the existence of any gods. If we consider the most recent definition of "theists" put forward and claimed to be a logical one, it includes people who believe in something they consider to be god. If this definition is capable of being formally expressed, then so is the definition of atheists as "those who believe there is nothing they consider to be a god", or (more simply) that "atheists deny any god exists".

I already spent post after post on pragmatic reasons to define atheism as a belief that gods don't exist, including everything from linguistics to neuroscience, but apparently I must also demonstrate that there is nothing illogical with such a definition.


The New Atheism is at least partly to blame. In recent decades the position that atheism does not entail any beliefs has become a popular (if demonstrably false) one, as it allows atheists to argue that believers are the only ones making epistemic claims. Hence we find incredibly awkward and odd phrases like "absence of belief" or "lack any belief" used almost exclusively in discussions of atheism, because whenever anybody (including atheists) wishes to indicate they "neither disbelieve nor believe" they say "I don't know" and if they don't believe they say "I don't believe." However, saying "I don't believe in god" sounds to many to be too similar to a belief claim, and is to be avoided by awkward phrases that entail the exact same thing. It's all pointless and ridiculous nonsense that could be avoided if the new atheists and those influenced by them (and everybody, actually) were required to take argumentation/critical thinking classes and logic courses in high school rather than learn about rationalizing some meaningless algebraic expression so that if they go on to calculus they will be capable of evaluating the limits of functions through algebraic manipulations they will never use outside of calculus courses.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Am I the only one who sees this as "a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood." ?

Is this stuff really going to give us a definitive answer concerning the definition of atheism and atheist?

There is no definitive answer concerning the definition of 'atheism' or 'atheist' or any other word.

This is just mud wrassling.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is just mud wrassling.

...without the dirty dirty girls in bikinis!


And no, Legion....your mankini does not qualify.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you believe morality is objectively real (extrinsic to humanity)?

Morality is simply the ability to differentiate between something "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". What do you mean by extrinsic to humanity? I imagine any sufficiently advanced alien civilization would have evolved this ability.

Do you believe beliefs are objectively real?

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Willamena]

Morality is simply the ability to differentiate between something "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad". What do you mean by extrinsic to humanity? I imagine any sufficiently advanced alien civilization would have evolved this ability.

That's what it means, yes. If morality can be found in animals and aliens, it is not a belief that defines humanity. It's something any of us can choose, or reject entirely.

What is this supposed to mean?

In drawing a comparison, do you believe that theism and strong atheism are a choice?

 

[Sees]

There is no definitive answer concerning the definition of 'atheism' or 'atheist' or any other word.

This is just mud wrassling.

I agree but for those of us who hobby in this stuff it is good to conversate and explore what we are taking about. I often say babies are atheist and wanted to give my spell and arguments for why I do. I think outside of objects known to the senses and things defined by our actions, labels will almost always be as confusing as they are revealing. I don't call my self atheist but use the word often enough to bother with it.

 

[Sonofason]

Can someone please tell me what the most basic criteria are to establish whether or not a belief is beginning to form?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree but for those of us who hobby in this stuff it is good to conversate and explore what we are taking about.

Sure. Mud wrassling is good, too!

I often say babies are atheist and wanted to give my spell and arguments for why I do.

It wouldn't occur to me to call babies atheists, but I might not object if another person does. Depends on the tone, the context, etc.

I think outside of objects known to the senses and things defined by our actions, labels will almost always be as confusing as they are revealing.

Here's a fun project: Start a thread here declaring that your definition of a 'Jew' is the most reasonable and best of all definitions. Title it "Are people born inherently Jews?"

Then -- when so-called 'legitimate Jews' object to a non-Jew trying to define Jews --declare that all babies are indeed Jews, and you never deconverted, and so you have the same right as they do to argue over who's a Jew.

And that anyway, non-Jews are the best people to tell who is a Jew and who isn't.

Plus, how come people can argue over who's an atheist but not argue over who's a Jew?

If you're after some real label-arguing fun, I mean.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Can someone please tell me what the most basic criteria are to establish whether or not a belief is beginning to form?

The ability to manipulate language.

The cat may believe that a mouse in under that flowerpot, but I wouldn't call that any kind of belief worth discussing.

 

[Sonofason]

The ability to manipulate language.

The cat may believe that a mouse in under that flowerpot, but I wouldn't call that any kind of belief worth discussing.

Then we disagree on the very definition of belief, and no further discussion can be constructive.

 

[Falvlun]

People insisting that atheism be a belief does not consider those who prefer to reserve judgement. Insisting that atheists put faith that lack of evidence is proof of no god is a fail because absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm not insisting that at all. I am simply saying that those people aren't atheists. There might be a better label for them, such as agnostic (in the common sense) or ignostic. Or there might not be. I don't think that everyone necessarily needs a label.

 

[Willamena]

Can someone please tell me what the most basic criteria are to establish whether or not a belief is beginning to form?

Truth is seen.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for a good synopsis of your posts. You lose me sometimes with the other stuff.

I get lost in my own post. I can't imagine how bad it is for others.

PM good foundation books if you can.

I actually started a thread with links to free sources, and the second post (here) contains books on the foundations of mathematics (proof, logic, etc.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then we disagree on the very definition of belief, and no further discussion can be constructive.

Then this entire thread is non-constructive in your view?

It seems to me that people like to argue over definitions.