• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are people born inherently atheist?

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
No I get the point you're all trying to make.
A lack of belief,
Without belief.

But it's a useless, meaningless distinction to put onto a child/infant.

Actually, it is quite proper and useful.


Because they will eventually be able to stop lacking belief,
It's a temporary term, Completely unhelpful.

I have no idea of why you would think so. And I did try to guess.

So what's the point?

Being accurate. Do you see how the parallel applies with being illiterate or unemployed?
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
None, other than that the child might conceivably develop theism in the future.

Right, an infant's atheism could be described as meaningful once it has changed into something other than an infant, and it is capable of holding beliefs. But then, we are no longer talking about an infant.

I accept someone's perspective that an infant is an atheist the same way a rock is an atheist. I simply don't accept that an infant's atheism is any different than a rock's, nor that such a label adds any useful or significant information.
 

Thana

Lady
Being accurate. Do you see how the parallel applies with being illiterate or unemployed?


Illiteracy - That can be useful knowledge to have of someone.
Implicit Atheism - That's completely useless knowledge to have of someone.

See my point?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There are different "kinds" of atheism, to be sure, but they're modifications or additions to the basic concept.

Basic, essential, weak, implicit... all that's required is lack of belief. You keep mixing this up with strong or explicit atheism, which is rejection of the idea of God or Gods. Strong atheism presupposes the concept of God. Weak atheism does not.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Let's put it this way: what is the meaningful distinction between an infant's absence of belief in god, and a rock's absence of belief in god?
I agree that it is useless to say that a rock has no belief, in anything, should go without saying. A baby has no beliefs for a similar reason but at least the infant has the potential for belief later. Honestly I think that any word for not belief is really a useless term so I can understand it being useless for rocks and infants as well however this doesn't change the accuracy of the term. Rocks don't have beliefs, it is accurate to say such.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Illiteracy - That can be useful knowledge to have of someone.
Implicit Atheism - That's completely useless knowledge to have of someone.

See my point?
The term atheism is only useful for theists. Nobody else would care.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Right, an infant's atheism could be described as meaningful once it has changed into something other than an infant, and it is capable of holding beliefs. But then, we are no longer talking about an infant.

Consolidated, I can see. Meaningful, however, I just do not.


I accept someone's perspective that an infant is an atheist the same way a rock is an atheist. I simply don't accept that an infant's atheism is any different than a rock's, nor that such a label adds any useful or significant information.

It does not add any useful information, because it is known "a priori".

It is still quite true.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Illiteracy - That can be useful knowledge to have of someone.
Implicit Atheism - That's completely useless knowledge to have of someone.

See my point?

I hope I don't, because so far it is failing to impress me.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
...however this doesn't change the accuracy of the term. Rocks don't have beliefs, it is accurate to say such.
It is not accurate as far as a belief could ever possibly be a property of a thing.

"I am an atheist" declares a set of properties for me (skepticism about claims of the existence of god, not having "god" as a "part of my life," not sparing much thought for god in daily life), and the blanket property of being a card-carrying member of a classifciation of people. That's a lot of positive things that being an atheist entails, properties that contribute to describing what it is to be me.

These properties are not a meaningful (essential) part of what it is to be a rock.

Edit: We could just as meaningfully declare having no feelings to be a essential part of being a rock.

But it isn't.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Well you're not very subtle are you...

It really depends on the circunstances. Subtlety would be unsuitable here, don't you think?

Don't know why you decided to get all huffy.

It may be in the eyes of the beholder. Truth is, I see no point in your previous post and it would lead us nowhere for me to make that less than clear.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It is not accurate as far as a belief could ever possibly be a property of a thing.

"I am an atheist" declares a set of properties for me (skepticism about claims of the existence of god, not having "god" as a "part of my life," not sparing much thought for god in daily life), and the blanket property of being a card-carrying member of a classifciation of people. That's a lot of positive things that being an atheist entails, properties that contribute to describing what it is to be me.

I guess that means that you see Atheism as an essential characteristic of yours.

It is just an accidental characteristic, or even a default one, for many others.


These properties are not a meaningful (essential) part of what it is to be a rock.

Indeed they aren't.

They do not have to be, either.


Edit: We could just as meaningfully declare having no feelings to be a essential part of being a rock.

But it isn't.

I don't know whether it is essential, but it sure seems to be a part of being a rock.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
That's a lot of positive things that being an atheist entails, properties that contribute to describing what it is to be me.
It is a lot easier to say properties that do describe you rather than things that do not.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
It does not add any useful information, because it is known "a priori".

It is still quite true.

Right, it may be technically true to label a rock as "atheist." However, it is not only meaningless, but also rather silly if one takes a step back and examines the idea. Same with infants.

Part of the separation between myself and others, may be due to my finding truth, itself, to have no value if it is not also meaningful and/or useful. In other words, it has to provide information which adds significance to what we already know. Saying that "Jupiter is unemployed," may technically be true. However, it adds no significant information to our knowledge (class of information) that planets are not capable of engaging in human activities.

Likewise, saying that "infants are atheists," may technically be true (according to some definitions). However, it adds no significant information to our knowledge that infants are incapable of holding beliefs. Both are examples of distinctions which add no significant information to more fundamental knowledge, and, thus, are not useful or meaningful.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
No one can redefine implicit atheism with credibility, and that is where this debate has gone.

What is Implicit Atheism?

Definition:

Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of theism or the absence of belief in gods without the conscious rejection of it.



Does it have value? in some cases it does. Others very little. It is the context of how it is used that defines the value.


In this statement, "we are all born atheist" it goes without saying yet for some people it can have value. Others will not find value and will argue the definition inanely.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
In this statement, "we are all born atheist" it goes without saying yet for some people it can have value. Others will not find value and will argue the definition inanely.

We are all born without the ability to hold any beliefs, so specifying the absence of one particular belief adds no significant information. Rocks are also formed without the ability to hold any beliefs, so, specifying the absence of one particular belief adds no significant information. Some may find value in inanely labelling rocks and infants as atheist and will attempt to argue themselves out of sounding silly.
 

Thana

Lady
Right, it may be technically true to label a rock as "atheist." However, it is not only meaningless, but also rather silly if one takes a step back and examines the idea. Same with infants.

Part of the separation between myself and others, may be due to my finding truth, itself, to have no value if it is not also meaningful and/or useful. In other words, it has to provide information which adds significance to what we already know. Saying that "Jupiter is unemployed," may technically be true. However, it adds no significant information to our knowledge (class of information) that planets are not capable of engaging in human activities.

Likewise, saying that "infants are atheists," may technically be true (according to some definitions). However, it adds no significant information to our knowledge that infants are incapable of holding beliefs. Both are examples of distinctions which add no significant information to more fundamental knowledge, and, thus, are not useful or meaningful.



Thank you.
I don't understand why this is so hard for the others to grasp.
 
Top