Are people born inherently atheist?

[LuisDantas]

And defining infants (or other things uncapable of belief) as atheists, is how the word is actually used?

It is by me, at the very least. It is just so natural.

Would you object to calling then apolitical? Much the same thing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Its not about lack of capacity. Its about what the child never was. The child was never a theist.

One does not have to make a choice to be a atheist.

One doesn't have to make a choice to be a theist, either you are, or you are not.

And it's meaningless to describe the non-choice of something incapable of making that choice. It's quite simple. Infants aren't capable of making the choice of holding a belief, so it adds no meaning to describe one choice they don't (can't) make.

My daughter is 7, she has never been a theist and has never believed in a deity, she has been a atheist from birth.

There was no time in her life when she was a theist.

There are no infants who are theists, since they aren't capable of holdling any beliefs. Therefore, it is a meaningless distinction.

That's how it is used properly in a sentence and is not meaningless. It is a fact.

So I would ask you to be careful when your telling me I'm flawed for how I describe my own child. I am not flawed nor is the description, its factually the truth.

You can describe your child however you wish, for whatever reasons compel you. The flaw in your argument, however, is that it rests on redefining infants as someone older for it to have any meaning. Redefining an infant as someone older, who can hold a belief, may suit your argument. However, basic logic dictates that an infant is not someone older than an infant.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is by me, at the very least. It is just so natural.

Would you object to calling then apolitical? Much the same thing.

Yes, much the same thing - it is equally as meaningless to describe an infant, or a rock, as apolitical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And defining infants (or other things uncapable of belief) as atheists, is how the word is actually used?

I think that it's rare to talk about the atheism or lack thereof of infants, but the way we use the word when describing adults implies that it's defined in terms of lack of belief, not rejection of belief.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think that it's rare to talk about the atheism or lack thereof of infants, but the way we use the word when describing adults implies that it's defined in terms of lack of belief, not rejection of belief.

Although it is widely used both ways to describe adults, I agree that describing atheism as an absence of belief is quite valid, and the most broad use of the term atheist. My only argument is that atheism is implicit in infants in the same way that is in rocks, being that neither have the ability to hold any beliefs. This being the case, describing infants, or rocks, as atheists adds no meaningful information, and thus, is a pointless distinction.

 

[outhouse]

it's defined in terms of lack of belief, not rejection of belief.

Exactly.

:yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Exactly.

Therefore, rocks are atheists, in your estimation.

 

[outhouse]

And it's meaningless to describe the non-choice of something incapable of making that choice. It's quite simple. Infants aren't capable of making the choice of holding a belief, so it adds no meaning to describe one choice they don't (can't) make.
.

Your flaw is not being capable to fully understand the definition.

A choice is not required to be a atheist. It is only a lack of theism.

There are no infants who are theists, since they aren't capable of holdling any beliefs. Therefore, it is a meaningless distinction.

Your wrong again.

People baptize their infants all the time. Try telling them their child is not a theist.

Again you personally pervert the definition. It is not the rejection of theism. It is a lack of belief.

The flaw in your argument

I didn't make a argument, nor a flawed one.

I made a factually true statement about my child.

. Redefining an infant as someone older,

This makes no sense at all, and factually did not take place.

 

[outhouse]

Therefore, rocks are atheists, in your estimation.

You don't get it, I understand. You also don't get to make the rules.

Don't bring your straw man into this. Red herrings and straw men are not up for debate


If you don't like the broad definition, don't take part in a debate.


Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas


The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist


In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your flaw is not being capable to fully understand the definition.

A choice is not required to be a atheist. It is only a lack of theism.

Your wrong again.

People baptize their infants all the time. Try telling them their child is not a theist.

Again you personally pervert the definition. It is not the rejection of theism. It is a lack of belief.

I didn't make a argument, nor a flawed one.

I made a factually true statement about my child.
This makes no sense at all, and factually did not take place.

Okay, now you're just floundering all over the place. I'm really not interested in chasing your wildly fluctuating goal posts, but at this point, I'm simply repeating myself over and over again anyway, in the vain attempt that you might comprehend what I'm saying.

Listen, if you find it meaningful to describe something which cannot hold any beliefs (like an infant or a rock) according to one, specific non-belief, that's your prerogative. Once again, personally, I find it a vapid and meaningless description as it adds no significant information. Of course something that cannot hold beliefs cannot hold the belief in gods. Saying so adds nothing of value or meaning. You've provided no indication that you even understand what I'm saying, as you've never addressed it, but I've said it a number of ways over many posts.

I don't really have anything else to add unless you provide some type of indication that you're even capable of understanding what I'm saying. If you decide to do so at some point, I'll be happy to repond.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You don't get it, I understand.

Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night.

 

[Valjean]

I am arguing that atheism is essentially the denial of god, ...

Edit: Additionally, it was argued that denial of god isn't necessary for some defintions of atheism; I can argue that it fits in just fine with every definition of atheism given.

Willamena, you seem to have this idee fixe concerning denial of God that is completely impervious to repeated correction and clarification. How can a person who's never heard of any God concept deny that which he's never heard of, for example?
Atheism is a lack of theism, period. You may deny God, you may never have heard of God, you may be indifferent to the concept, but the only sine qua non is non-belief.

 

[Leftimies]

Are people born inherently atheist? If we never had all these religions would people "find god?" I know everybody would be curious about why things happen but if people were raised with the final conclusion of an inquiry as "we just don't know yet" rather than than saying "god, would the world be a better place?

People are born as crying, messy, blood-stained little creeps of awesome. They are not religious, they are not atheist, nor do they care. Everything that comes afterwards, religion or lack thereof, is product of learning experience.

Species variation provides us with varying individuals. Some have the tendency to explain the world and phenomena through otherworldly Final Cause. Others are more keen on exploring the phenomena itself to satisfy their thrist for knowledge.

People are born tabula rasa, with genetic context though. I think they are neither at birth.

 

[Valjean]

There are no infants who are theists, since they aren't capable of holdling any beliefs. Therefore, it is a meaningless distinction.

Well, there you go again...

There are no rocks that are animate, so is it meaningless to describe them as inanimate? Even if meaningless, would it be grammatically or logically incorrect to label them inanimate?
Why would atheism in infants be meaningless in a discussion about innate beliefs or instincts, for example?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are no rocks that are animate, so is it meaningless to describe them as inanimate?

Animate and inanimate adds useful information because it places things into broad, yet useful categorizations. Rocks are part of the collection "inanimate" which provides a meaningful distinction from all things which are "animate." It divides the world into two distinct categories: the animate and inanimate.

Now, if you want to instead divide the world into two broad categories: atheist and theist, then it is perfectly acceptable to place infants into the category "atheist." Of course, you then have to put all other things which are not theists into this category, including rocks and squirrels.

Personally, I don't find atheist and theist to be useful categories for separating all things in the world. They are only useful when categorizing things which are capable of holding theistic beliefs, or beliefs at all. Infants, rocks, squirrels and other things which are not capable of holding beliefs do not fall under the dichotomy of atheist and thiest, since their inability to hold beliefs makes such a distinction meaningless - it adds no useful information.

Why would atheism in infants be meaningless in a discussion about innate beliefs or instincts, for example?

It would be meaningful if you could determine that infants were capable of holding beliefs, and, what, if any, beliefs they actually hold. As far as I know, infants aren't cognitively developed, or conscious, enough to formulate or hold any meaningful beliefs. I suppose atheistm would be meaningful in a discussion about infants if it was shown that they were capable of holding beliefs - particularly those to do with theism.

Apart from this possibility, discussing atheism in infants in regards to innate beliefs or instincts is as meaningful as disccusing atheism in squirrels in regards to innate beliefs or instincts.

 

[Valjean]

People are born as crying, messy, blood-stained little creeps of awesome. They are not religious, they are not atheist, nor do they care. Everything that comes afterwards, religion or lack thereof, is product of learning experience.

Species variation provides us with varying individuals. Some have the tendency to explain the world and phenomena through otherworldly Final Cause. Others are more keen on exploring the phenomena itself to satisfy their thrist for knowledge.

People are born tabula rasa, with genetic context though. I think they are neither at birth.

Isn't atheism an epistemic tabula rasa?

First you say infants are born not religious. Then you say the lack of religion is learned.
Am I missing something? These seem contradictory.

 

[Thana]

The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist

I've never met anyone who introduced their infant as Athiest.
And to be honest, I never really want to.

It's a useless distinction, And since an infant can't speak, let alone think anything coherent, Then I'd say they can't believe there is no God.
If they could believe in God, And they choose not to, Then they're Athiest.
If they don't have the ability to do so, Then they're not Athiest.

Do you find it usefull to pick up a rock and let everyone know this rock is Athiest?
Is it meaningful or helpful in anyway? Does it change your opinion of said rock?
No.

 

[outhouse]

I've never met anyone who introduced their infant as Athiest.
And to be honest, I never really want to.

It's a useless distinction, And since an infant can't speak, let alone think anything coherent, Then I'd say they can't believe there is no God.
If they could believe in God, And they choose not to, Then they're Athiest.
If they don't have the ability to do so, Then they're not Athiest.

Do you find it usefull to pick up a rock and let everyone know this rock is Athiest?
Is it meaningful or helpful in anyway? Does it change your opinion of said rock?
No.

Do you understand what it is to be an implicit atheist?

No conscious rejection of theism is required.


My daughter is 7 and does not believe in mythology surrounding deities, she does not believe in any deity existing. She has never been a theist.

At what age was she ever a theist?

She has been an atheist since birth.


That is how it is used with meaning, if you and others want to pervert it with red herrings and straw men as you are, feel free.

 

[outhouse]

One more time.

Introducing a fallacy to the definition, is only perverting the definition due to personal rejection of the definition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

One more time.

Introducing a fallacy to the definition, is only perverting the definition due to personal rejection of the definition.

On and on about fallacies, yet not even a single attempt to coherently or cogently explain why and how something is a fallacy.

One more time.

Saying something doesn't make it so.

I understand how and why many use accusations of argumentative fallacy when they cannot produce a valid counter-argument though.