Are people born inherently atheist?

[Willamena]

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

And what if I show you that the senses originate with idea?

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.

Is it true that we perceive it via our senses, register it into the brain, and it becomes knowledge? If so, then truth lies beyond the statement I just made, else I couldn't make it.

It really is a reality without us that is made with us.

 

[Sees]

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.

Even then polytheists are theists who don't necessarily reject any gods, they just don't bother or care concerning one or more outside of their own.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Theism is the belief in "a god or gods", not just some particular god.

Thus atheism is the belief in no god or gods, not just some particular god.

 

[Willamena]

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!

Not all of them have insufficient information.

 

[s2a]

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?

Well, might we not then assume without risk that infants are "undecided" about whom to hate or trust? What color or culture of people are "ok" to accept, or reject as "false", or worse?

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.

We see things alike, but I feel it is incumbent upon "unbelievers" (or "faithless") to better qualify all and any distinctions drawn (accurate or false) or even attempted as "definition" of "deniers" of a claimed "god", or deity(s).

Prima facie evidential presentation, sure.

Claim away as you please that your "god" is: best, biggest, baddest, older, wiser, handsomer, or just a better listener than all that came before..."Him/She/It".

OK.

Now what?

You say... "He IS!"

I say, *yawn*, and oh, "BS".

Now what?

IF you please, for all adherents of faith-based beliefs, lifestyles, cultures, and other oppressive regimes...

...I do not to this day, nor have never been, "blessed", with your singularly myopic "perspective".

"Atheists" (by whatever flavor or herbal mix) do not share your "beliefs", anywhere/anytime, if you see "god" as the excuse for your behaviors.

Understand?

 

[idav]

Thus atheism is the belief in no god or gods, not just some particular god.

Glad to hear atheists have such faith in their godless concept.:areyoucra

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I don't want to poopoo the party, so I'll just say I'm glad you've found it productive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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?

People change slowly. This thread will have some effect on people probably, long term.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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"?

Well, might we not then assume without risk that infants are "undecided" about whom to hate or trust? What color or culture of people are "ok" to accept, or reject as "false", or worse?

We see things alike, but I feel it is incumbent upon "unbelievers" (or "faithless") to better qualify all and any distinctions drawn (accurate or false) or even attempted as "definition" of "deniers" of a claimed "god", or deity(s).

Prima facie evidential presentation, sure.

Claim away as you please that your "god" is: best, biggest, baddest, older, wiser, handsomer, or just a better listener than all that came before..."Him/She/It".

OK.

Now what?

You say... "He IS!"

I say, *yawn*, and oh, "BS".

Now what?

IF you please, for all adherents of faith-based beliefs, lifestyles, cultures, and other oppressive regimes...

...I do not to this day, nor have never been, "blessed", with your singularly myopic "perspective".

"Atheists" (by whatever flavor or herbal mix) do not share your "beliefs", anywhere/anytime, if you see "god" as the excuse for your behaviors.

Understand?

I'm in agreement with much of this, and I don't even have any major problems with any definition of atheism we choose to adopt; semantic disputes are viewed as less substantial than factual disputes for a reason, whichever definition we adopt, we can probably still make ourselves understood. I am slightly suspicious of the definition of atheism as "lack of theistic belief" for several reasons, however- it seems ad hoc, and seems motivated by other concerns than linguistic precision (such as setting the table for an epistemic defense of atheism), it is contrary to a long running tradition of accepted usage in which the term "atheism" figures (as in the dispute between atheism and theism- the dispute is between cognitive i.e. positive atheism and theism, not "weak" or "implicit" atheism), and seems unnecessarily ambiguous.

Moreover, there is a sense in which real atheists should be slightly offended to have their position lumped together with the non-position of infants and animals- atheism, in the sense that I subscribe to, is thoroughly critical, self-reflective, and intellectual; as atheists, we should take pride in the fact that our atheism consists in the knowledge that theism is false. Extending the term "atheism" to things that lack theistic belief, but not as the result of any conscious, rational process, degrades our own atheism- they are not the same thing!

 

[idav]

I'm in agreement with much of this, and I don't even have any major problems with any definition of atheism we choose to adopt; semantic disputes are viewed as less substantial than factual disputes for a reason, whichever definition we adopt, we can probably still make ourselves understood. I am slightly suspicious of the definition of atheism as "lack of theistic belief" for several reasons, however- it seems ad hoc, and seems motivated by other concerns than linguistic precision (such as setting the table for an epistemic defense of atheism), it is contrary to a long running tradition of accepted usage in which the term "atheism" figures (as in the dispute between atheism and theism- the dispute is between cognitive i.e. positive atheism and theism, not "weak" or "implicit" atheism), and seems unnecessarily ambiguous.

Moreover, there is a sense in which real atheists should be slightly offended to have their position lumped together with the non-position of infants and animals- atheism, in the sense that I subscribe to, is thoroughly critical, self-reflective, and intellectual; as atheists, we should take pride in the fact that our atheism consists in the knowledge that theism is false. Extending the term "atheism" to things that lack theistic belief, but not as the result of any conscious, rational process, degrades our own atheism- they are not the same thing!

Whatever atheism used to be it is different now. We no longer live in a world of dominated by superstition and in fact "god existing" is no longer a given as if knowing god exists is common knowledge. I am theist and it is based on faith. I would think atheists would be more offended that some want to attribute faith to their belief as if it is possible to have faith that something doesnt exist, which to me is worse than saying babies are atheist or non-theist. To me, lack of belief fits with lack of evidence, as in nothing to reject in the first place.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

Choose or reject? It is not a belief. It is simply being able to say "This is right" and "This is wrong" and understand there's a difference.

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

Theism and strong atheism is a choice. Weak implicit isn't. Just like being moral or immoral is a choice but being amoral like an infant isn't.

 

[ArtieE]

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?

We don't use the same term. We use the terms weak and strong atheism to avoid people like you comparing a person who is simply not a theist to Nietzsche. You may not understand there's a significant difference between those two people but I can assure you there is.

 

[ArtieE]

Whatever atheism used to be it is different now. We no longer live in a world of dominated by superstition and in fact "god existing" is no longer a given as if knowing god exists is common knowledge. I am theist and it is based on faith. I would think atheists would be more offended that some want to attribute faith to their belief as if it is possible to have faith that something doesnt exist, which to me is worse than saying babies are atheist or non-theist. To me, lack of belief fits with lack of evidence, as in nothing to reject in the first place.

Well said. A person who believes gods don't exist is a strong atheist. An agnostic atheist is someone who claims not to know whether god exists or not, but doesn't believe that he does.

 

[ArtieE]

Moreover, there is a sense in which real atheists should be slightly offended to have their position lumped together with the non-position of infants and animals- atheism, in the sense that I subscribe to, is thoroughly critical, self-reflective, and intellectual; as atheists, we should take pride in the fact that our atheism consists in the knowledge that theism is false. Extending the term "atheism" to things that lack theistic belief, but not as the result of any conscious, rational process, degrades our own atheism- they are not the same thing!

You are not an "atheist" you are a "gnostic atheist" because you claim knowledge so you shouldn't even claim to speak for "atheists" in general.

 

[Sonofason]

Not all of them have insufficient information.

All atheists have zero information to support a belief that no God exists.

 

[Sees]

All atheists have zero information to support a belief that no God exists.

I think they can be very certain (say 99.9999%) that certain gods do not exist, but not outright that strong atheism is true.

You basically kill off specific god concepts, but never gods.

Having no belief in gods itself is always valid without good evidence. Saying with certainty that not one exists or could possibly exist...not so much.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We don't use the same term. We use the terms weak and strong atheism to avoid people like you comparing a person who is simply not a theist to Nietzsche. You may not understand there's a significant difference between those two people but I can assure you there is.

You are not an "atheist" you are a "gnostic atheist" because you claim knowledge so you shouldn't even claim to speak for "atheists" in general.

Yet another swing and a miss. You should probably stay in the kiddie pool.

 

[Sonofason]

I think they can be very certain (say 99.9999%) that certain gods do not exist, but not outright that strong atheism is true.

You basically kill off specific god concepts, but never gods.

Having no belief in gods itself is always valid without good evidence. Saying with certainty that not one exists or could possibly exist...not so much.

And that is why I contend that strong atheism (just plain atheism, as I call it) is absurd. Weak atheism (or agnostic, as I call it) is the only reasonable position for a person who lacks evidence, and therefore knowledge of the existence of God. Some theists have knowledge of God. Agnostic and theist are the only reasonable positions with regard to belief in a god or gods.

 

[Sonofason]

Yet another swing and a miss. You should probably stay in the kiddie pool.

No, Artie is right. I don't approve of his weak and strong atheist terminology, but it works, and what he says is true. Strong atheism is an absurd position for all reasonable persons.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, Artie is right. I don't approve of his weak and strong atheist terminology, but it works, and what he says is true. Strong atheism is an absurd position for all reasonable persons.

I've already asked you at least once before when you've made this claim to start a thread on the subject, or post to an existing thread on a closely-related subject, as I'd love to disabuse you of this idea but don't want to do it on a thread about a largely unrelated topic...