Are people born inherently atheist?

[Enai de a lukal]

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".

I must have missed any posts that attempted to claim that. Probably just as well, because I would've had to light 'em up for such a ludicrous claim... More logical?

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)

:yes:

Pretty much.

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."

Spot on. Alot of this absolutely has to do with the New Atheists, and their striking ability to muddy the water- this redefinition of atheism is part of a shell game where they switch around important epistemic concerns; and as much as I ultimately agree with many of their conclusions, the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, and so on, regarding the justification for/status of atheism are just terrible, and couldn't be more wrong.

Also, your point about common usage is a fair one- "atheism" has denoted a conscious rejection of theism for quite some time; for many, many, MANY centuries, "atheist" and "atheism" denoted nothing more than heresy or blasphemy- a theist making blasphemous statements about God was no less an atheist than someone who denied God existed (and both of them likely met a similar fate). At some point, during the Renaissance, atheism began becoming associated with the conscious, intellectual rejection of theism, and gradually evolved in that direction: for the last couple centuries, atheism has primarily been considered the position of, e.g. Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx, and so on- in other words, intellectual, primarily critical, a metaclaim: theism is false- NOT the "position" (lack thereof, more accurately) of pre-linguistic humans, animals, and inanimate objects.

 

[Willamena]

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

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

I've found this thread extremely useful. I've entirely revised my lackadaisical approach to atheism and have rejected any definition that tries to define atheism in terms of its counterpart, rather than in terms of its meaning.

 

[Sonofason]

Truth is seen.

Can beliefs begin as a result of hearing, or feeling? Can beliefs begin to develop as a result of tasting?

 

[Sonofason]

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

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

I have been watching people argue here over definitions, and when there is disagreement, I haven't seen anyone adopt the other guy's definition. So are we just here because we like to here ourselves argue?

 

[Sees]

I have been watching people argue here over definitions, and when there is disagreement, I haven't seen anyone adopt the other guy's definition. So are we just here because we like to here ourselves argue?

Isn't that religious debate in a nutshell?

Or philosophy debate.. Or whatever...

Not so much about being won over, but hearing people reason (sometimes) why they see things a certain way.
I learn by challenging other people and being challenged in return. People completely switching sides in lieu of debate and discussion is pretty rare from what I've seen - doesn't seem necessary to be fruitful.

 

[Willamena]

Can beliefs begin as a result of hearing, or feeling? Can beliefs begin to develop as a result of tasting?

Yes. We can hear, feel and taste truth. Empiricism is a philosophical theory that truth resides in our sensorium.

 

[Sees]

Still left curious - what would we call the weak/implicit atheist, if we decide that denying the existence of one or more gods is the only definition best used for atheist?

They must have a special label blanket of some sort.

 

[s2a]

Still left curious - what would we call the weak/implicit atheist, if we decide that denying the existence of one or more gods is the only definition best used for atheist?

They must have a special label blanket of some sort.

We might call them a "skeptic", though 10,000 years ago...they would likely say "ugh", and you would have no clue in offered reply.

If you can accept that "we", as a a species "existed" 10k, or 100k years ago...then any aspects of "denial" are asinine. "Clan of the cave Bear" was the "faith" of the day, and "organized" religion (Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Confucianism, etc., were all only gleams in an unborn eye of invention), was unheard of as we "know" it today.

The concept of "A" (one and only "god") deity, was as foreign as any other absurdest religious claim today.

We are, in matter of fact... "born atheists", until taught/instructed otherwise...and I welcome ANY evidences you may present that may contradict that simple assertion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Still left curious - what would we call the weak/implicit atheist, if we decide that denying the existence of one or more gods is the only definition best used for atheist?

They must have a special label blanket of some sort.

Why not say that, like their analogues with respect to other positions, they're "undecided"? Or that they're "non-theists", since they are not theists, but they are not atheists in the sense that atheists are those who reject theism?

Again, it seems to me that the primary motivation for opposition to this sort of definition is that one wants to go on to say that "atheism is the default position", "atheism isn't a positive belief", "atheism doesn't require evidence", or something like this- else this entire discussion is entirely trivial to begin with.

 

[Willamena]

Still left curious - what would we call the weak/implicit atheist, if we decide that denying the existence of one or more gods is the only definition best used for atheist?

They must have a special label blanket of some sort.

People who are ignorant of something are just people who are ignorant of something.

And that still requires there be something they are ignorant of.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We are, in matter of fact... "born atheists"

I welcome ANY evidences you may present that may contradict that simple assertion.

Sure. By "atheism " I understand "theism is false": and it should be relatively uncontroversial that infants and other non-linguistic humans (as well as animals and inanimate objects) neither understand the truth claims of theism, nor the semantic notion of falsity, and can be neither atheists nor theists.

As we've pointed out ad naseum now, this is NOT a dispute over any "matter of fact", this is a dispute over definitions. So tell me, what is gained by defining atheism as mere lack of theistic belief, such that the term "atheist" applies to atheists proper, agnostics, non-theists of all sorts including even animals and inanimate objects? This would seem to make the term ambiguous beyond any practical use (and then we're obliged to make all sorts of distinctions between "weak", "strong", "implicit, "positive", "negative" atheism and so on). Why not define atheism as it has been defined for centuries- as the principled rejection of theism- such that atheism and agnosticism do not overlap (when they are often mutually exclusive), we are not using the same term to describe the intellectual, critical position of, e.g. Nietzsche, that we use to describe the non-position of your dog?

 

[Sonofason]

Yes. We can hear, feel and taste truth. Empiricism is a philosophical theory that truth resides in our sensorium.

Thus, if there is a God, there would be no reason to assume that this God would not reveal himself in some way that can be physically sensed even by an infant so as to instill at least the beginnings of belief in the child.

Thus, I would say, if there is a God, it is more likely that all infants are theists, and not atheists or agnostics at all. And then as the child grows, other human beings persuade the infant to see things "more realistically", and the beginnings of belief then often become snuffed out.

 

[Willamena]

Thus, if there is a God, there would be no reason to assume that this God would not reveal himself in some way that can be physically sensed even by an infant so as to instill at least the beginnings of belief in the child.

I'm sorry... do I hear right? Are you saying that because there is empiricism, everyone is an empiricist?

Thus, I would say, if there is a God, it is more likely that all infants are theists, and not atheists or agnostics at all. And then as the child grows, other human beings persuade the infant to see things "more realistically", and the beginnings of belief then often become snuffed out.

Amazing.

 

[Sonofason]

Isn't that religious debate in a nutshell?

Or philosophy debate.. Or whatever...

Not so much about being won over, but hearing people reason (sometimes) why they see things a certain way.
I learn by challenging other people and being challenged in return. People completely switching sides in lieu of debate and discussion is pretty rare from what I've seen - doesn't seem necessary to be fruitful.

I guess your right. Even if no one is persuaded in these argument, at least we can polish up our debating skills.

And you never know, perhaps there are those who may read what we have to say, who have not already formed an opinion, that might be persuaded by our arguments.

 

[Sonofason]

Still left curious - what would we call the weak/implicit atheist, if we decide that denying the existence of one or more gods is the only definition best used for atheist?

They must have a special label blanket of some sort.

I call them agnostic, because if a mind is not made up, it is due to a lack of knowledge (gnosis).

 

[Sonofason]

Sonofason wrote:

Thus, if there is a God, there would be no reason to assume that this God would not reveal himself in some way that can be physically sensed even by an infant so as to instill at least the beginnings of belief in the child.

I'm sorry... do I hear right? Are you saying that because there is empiricism, everyone is an empiricist?


Amazing.

Can you think of another means by which knowledge acquired? If you do, I will show you that it originates with the senses.

Truth is a reality, with or without us. If we do not perceive it via our senses, it will not be registered into the brain, and if it is not registered into a brain, it will not become knowledge. It begins with sensing that which is.

 

[s2a]

Sure. By "atheism " I understand "theism is false": and it should be relatively uncontroversial that infants and other non-linguistic humans (as well as animals and inanimate objects) neither understand the truth claims of theism, nor the semantic notion of falsity, and can be neither atheists nor theists.

As we've pointed out ad naseum now, this is NOT a dispute over any "matter of fact", this is a dispute over definitions. So tell me, what is gained by defining atheism as mere lack of theistic belief, such that the term "atheist" applies to atheists proper, agnostics, non-theists of all sorts including even animals and inanimate objects? This would seem to make the term ambiguous beyond any practical use (and then we're obliged to make all sorts of distinctions between "weak", "strong", "implicit, "positive", "negative" atheism and so on). Why not define atheism as it has been defined for centuries- as the principled rejection of theism- such that atheism and agnosticism do not overlap (when they are often mutually exclusive), we are not using the same term to describe the intellectual, critical position of, e.g. Nietzsche, that we use to describe the non-position of your dog?

Hmm, in bold face type alone, we are agreed.

I have no attachment nor binding "spirit" with any sort of atheist that claims any moniker of "strong, weak, negative/positive, or Jovian. I don't believe any claims of any "god/gods" are supported by any evidences open to evaluative disproofs.

That said, many eldar cultures perpetrated myths that unexplained (or unexplainable) events can and must therefore be inexplicably attributable to supernatural cause/effect events/outcomes.

That is the dodge of. "I don't know, but I believe it anyway".

It's always ok to say "I don't know..."

But to lay the unknown upon the invisible feet of an unseen and in-evidenced "deity" as a/the lone "truthful" alternative...is to deny the very nature of our own species capacities to just ask..."really"?

 

[Sees]

I call them agnostic, because if a mind is not made up, it is due to a lack of knowledge (gnosis).

Agnostic doesn't quite work because it is a position that we (or at least they) can not know the truth of the matter....

Some are happy with the neutral place of not having belief in gods but also not denying that gods may exist, some of these somes just don't care to bother with theology.

 

[Sonofason]

Agnostic doesn't quite work because it is a position that we (or at least they) can not know the truth of the matter....

Some are happy with the neutral place of not having belief in gods but also not denying that gods may exist, some of these somes just don't care to bother with theology.

Well, if you don't have sufficient information, you cannot know the truth. Every honest atheist, in my opinion would admit such. But they don't, do they!

 

[idav]

I call them agnostic, because if a mind is not made up, it is due to a lack of knowledge (gnosis).

Knowledge is something different from faith and belief in things unseen. So agnostic is describing a different aspect than atheist.

Atheism cant be the rejection of one or more deity because even theists do that. Atheism would then need to be the rejection of all god concepts known and unknown while theism rejects all concepts except their own.