Are people born inherently atheist?

[Enai de a lukal]

However, people are born as either atheists or non-theists, depending on our definitions; people are not born believing in God, but they are not born disbelieving in God either. They simply lack any belief about the matter.

 

[idav]

Claiming that a person is born atheist as silly as claiming they are born liberal. After all, being open to new ideas is what babies do.

That's not the same thing. It is more like saying a person is born not republican, a person has to choose to be republican, and as long as they go through life not making that choice then they remain not republican. Same for theism. A person is born 'not theist' until such a time that they have an active belief in some sort of deity. It could be an active atheist belief but not until they are introduced to the concept of theism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't think anyone is saying that atheists don't have beliefs.

The issue I have is whether claiming that a "lack of belief", particularly defined in so ad hoc a manner that by extending this definition arguably there is no basis for ever saying anybody actually believes something, somehow resolves the problem that supposedly exists if one believes atheism is the denial of all gods. Supposedly, it is impossible to define atheism as a disbelief in gods existence because this will mean that somehow some atheists are actually theists but if we make up a definition of belief that isn't consistent with how belief is used s.t. that we can then assert atheism is a lack of this belief applied to god, magically a problem that didn't exist to begin with is resolved.

It isn't. If an issue of defining atheism is the possibility that people can be defined as atheist or theist due to ambiguities in the definition, then this issue exists regardless of whether atheism is defined as a lack of belief or not. One cannot claim to lack belief in "god" s.t. one can say one does not overlap with theists without the same problems as claiming that one does not believe in god. Either way, one runs the risk of having beliefs that some would say are theistic. Moreover, the entire impetus for avoiding overlap is that atheism is partially defined in opposition to theism. Theism entails a belief in god. The only way to ensure that an atheist cannot also be considered a theist is to define what it is that a theist must believe in order to be one.

This dogmatic, pointless desire to claim some special epistemic status is such a complete waste. First, it involves the invention of a term to describe an epistemic evaluation that is largely absent from usage in English around the world and exists in the narrow way it does to define atheism only for those seeking to defend that definition. Second, descriptions about what such a lack entails (or worse, why it can be meaningful) generally involve simply replacing words like "belief" or similar epistemic commitments with their equivalents. If people rely on such paltry, trivial, and problematic means to argue that the basis for their epistemic justification is not equivalent to that of theists (which is true) because it doesn't entail the same kind of faith (also true), then we're simply replacing poor argumentation with inconsistent semantics.

Simply put atheists don't have to have a belief against a deity to be labeled atheist.

Concepts are defined both physically and linguistically in relation networks. If one uses a word like "god" or "teapot" or "unicorn" or whatever, and one knows how this word is used, then we can quite literally show the effects of beliefs concerning these concepts in the brain. We can also look at useful definitions of "belief" and what follows if we say that a person can have a concept of "god" (which follows from being capable of using the word correctly as this entails relating it properly in constructions with or in relation to other concepts that are semantically "close" to the term in conceptual space). To say that for some word in some language it either exists as a concept for the speaker or should be said to correspond to a concept represented in the brain (i.e., the speaker is able to use the word effectively from a communicative and pragmatic standpoint), but that this does not entail the speaker has any belief about the concept implies that one can use a word correctly, meaningfully impart information to others about it or concerning it, and in general do what everybody does with concepts. In other words, somehow "god" gets special status as a word to justify a bad definition.

An infant is born atheist

It's true that infants lack any beliefs about god. If that's the definition, that atheism really is a lack of belief, then anyone capable of using the word "god" correctly in conversation and is e.g., capable of correcting a child who incorrectly says "god" while pointing at a "guard" is not an atheist.

 

[outhouse]

However, people are born as either atheists or non-theists, depending on our definitions; people are not born believing in God, but they are not born disbelieving in God either. They simply lack any belief about the matter.

Which is the definition of implicit atheism.

One is either a theist or one is not a theist.

If one is not a theist, he is a atheist. Once that is determined, we can label said person a implicit or explicit atheist.

While there is no real value in just stating newborns are not theist, it is obvious. There is value in stating atheism is our default status, and not everyone returns to atheism after theism.

As well a child is born and never finds religion, becomes a boy and becomes a man, it would be silly to say he was not an atheist since birth, as the man was never a theist.


Anything else is flat perverting the broad definition.



Most of the fight here is people not wanting to recognize IMPLICIT atheism as a credible definition, they have no leg to stand on. :slap:

 

[outhouse]

It's true that infants lack any beliefs about god. If that's the definition, that atheism really is a lack of belief

.

It is only the broad definition under "implicit atheism".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Which is the definition of implicit atheism.

One is either a theist or one is not a theist.

If one is not a theist, he is a atheist. Once that is determined, we can label said person a implicit or explicit atheist.

While there is no real value in just stating newborns are not theist, it is obvious. There is value in stating atheism is our default status, and not everyone returns to atheism after theism.

As well a child is born and never finds religion, becomes a boy and becomes a man, it would be silly to say he was not an atheist since birth, as the man was never a theist.


Anything else is flat perverting the broad definition.



Most of the fight here is people not wanting to recognize IMPLICIT atheism as a credible definition, they have no leg to stand on. :slap:

I don't see that either definition has any intrinsic superiority, but once we decide on one, the question of whether people are born atheists is settled by extension.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I'm trying to clarify them and what they entail.

People who are trying to clarify someone else's position usually ask questions about that position, not take off half-cocked with their misunderstandings.

It is not impossible to reject every single god anymore than it is to say that atheists lack any belief about "god". If we are dealing with certain theists and their conceptions of gods, such as that in which humans with the right mindset are gods, or with atheists who believe in supernatural entities that some consider to be gods (like spirits), we find that there is overlap. So we need a definition for theist, atheist, and god regardless of belief simply because some definitions of god all atheists believe in (like that mentioned in which humans are said to be gods) and some atheists believe in entities that others consider gods. Without definitions of the type you seek to avoid we still have overlap. Also, if by a disbelief in every god we must have a clear picture of what this is apart from a few properties that describe every deity I'm familiar with, then we run into the problem of whether any definition of theist is tenable. And you bolster this by claiming that you yourself can't even conceive of god (making god basically completely indescribable in any way). If conceptions of god vary so greatly and the concept is so inconceivable than theists can't be said to believe in god. We can't determine whether a given conception of god should qualify.

However, we can fix much of this by saying that atheists don't believe in any gods. Why? Because then we can have atheists say what properties they can't believe a god would have. If there is a theist who believes in a god with none of these properties, there is no reason to say that atheists cannot respond that this isn't what the concept refers to. Problem solved.

So Sun-worshippers, panentheists, and all other theists who believe that "natural" things are gods are actually atheists?

People who believe in ghosts but not gods aren't atheists?

This doesn't match how people actually use the term "atheist".

And it's necessary just to prevent the overlap. If we can't have a theist be an atheist, then it cannot be the case that atheists simply lack a belief about whatever conception of god they choose. That allows overlap.

No, it doesn't. When "atheist" is defined as "a person who is not a theist", then there is necessarily no overlap between "atheist" and "theist".

It is possible for an atheist to decide that they believe the universe itself has a purpose and a kind of mind (I've met one) but believe this is not god. For many theists, although not most, that's what god is. We have overlap. This game of phrasing it as a lack of belief still allows for overlap because atheists still have beliefs about things even if you were correct about this whole "lack" argument. Some of the things they believe are considered gods by some. The only way to avoid overlap is to determine that there are certain properties ascribed to the prototypical exemplars of "god" cross-culturally and surprise surprise there is!

You just illustrated why we define theism in terms of the believer's own beliefs about what "god" means. A Sun-worshipper is a theist; a person who believes the Sun exists but doesn't consider it a god is an atheist (provided he doesn't believe in anything else he considers a god, of course). We don't need to make some objective determination of whether the Sun really is a a god or not; we just go by whether each person considers it to be a god.

That's why we have a word for it that serves quite well to describe things as diverse as a god of corn and a single god with three distinct selves one of which was a 1st century Jewish peasant turned messianic preacher and reformer. Classification is central to cognition (one might even say that in many ways it is cognition) and it involves categorizing things as similar as much as it does things as different. We have one word because there is enough overlap in vastly distinct uses for us to determine that, in order for terms like atheism or theism to have any meaning, we have to rely on more general meanings rather than each and every possible one.

But as I've been trying to say, there is no overlap. There can't be. Not when we call Muslims who believe in angels "monotheists" but Pagans who believe in "gods" with similar attributes to angels "polytheists". What possible set of objective characteristics for "god" could you ever pick that will include Thor and Apollo but exclude Gabriel and Michael?

The definition of the term "god" has implications beyond just the question of whether a person is a theist or an atheist.

The clear picture is a rejection of supernatural entities that possess abilities, powers, or a nature that is incompatible with physics and that some theists believe to describe a deity. There's your picture.

This isn't clear at all, for the reasons I just explained: the definition of "god" necessarily excludes certain supernatural things: believing in ghosts, angels, demons, etc. doesn't turn a monotheist into a polytheist. You're coming up with a special definition of "god" to use for the word "atheist" that isn't used in any other context. This is a big red flag to me that the way you're defining terms is contrived.

It is unreasonable to assert that properties, some subset of which is ascribed to every deity I know of, may somehow suddenly fail and yet the word "god" still be useful (i.e., meaningfully applied). If someone tells you they saw a ghost, do you wonder whether or not they saw Godzilla or perhaps a mouse? Or do you have a pretty good sense of properties that the entity referred to by the word "ghost" is usually said to have and don't immediately wonder how far from your own some conceptions of "ghost" may be?

If a person who you know to believe in God tells you that he saw an angel, would you conclude that he's now a polytheist?

It hinges on a description that doesn't make any sense. You aren't the only one who's used it but I can't recall ever hearing applied to things other than in a debate in which atheism being a belief comes up. A belief can be formulated as a proposition that we hold to be true. There are things we might say we lack any belief in. Most are concepts which have no linguistic representation, but another big category are words that we don't recognize. If I ask you whether you believe you have a plesion, you probably lack any belief regarding the truth of the proposition "I [you] have a plesion" because there is no conceptual content for you in the vital part of the proposition. But as soon as I tell you it means "neighbor" you now have a belief about it. There is some conceptual content that you can relate to the world as you understand it. If I tell you that in an experiment not that long ago 430 atoms were put into a superposition state of being in two places at once, you either believe me or you don't. This "lack a belief" you use as a defiiyion characterizes and epistemic stance about the concept "god" in relation to ontology. That's belief.

You continue to either misrepresent or misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't know how to explain it differently.

If you can't "even conceive" of it you can't have any beliefs about it. That would be a true lack of belief. However, it isn't accurate. For to say that there is something you believe about this "thing" means that there is some property it has you can conceive of.

That's what atheist means. It would be one thing if your suggested definition worked, but it is simply different words to mean the same thing. You are able to use the word "god", which means there is a conceptual representation that corresponds not only to that word but related words you associate with that word. If one is capable of using the word "god" in ways consistent enough with common usage to be understood, it is quite literally impossible to lack any belief about this concept.

I define "god" in terms of a conceptual list of gods: for instance, Thor and Jehovah are gods, Superman and the Archangel Gabriel are not. I don't think there's any set of characteristics (other than membership of that list) shared by all gods that isn't also shared by non-gods.

I did a study that split participants along one axis into a spiritualism-materialism continuum to see how concepts even as seemingly unrelated to spirituality as "professor" and "farmer" have a physical representation in the brain that is influenced by the degree to which the participant (mostly unconsciously) classifies these concepts along this axis. You've been using the word for years in relation to multiple different things from names of deities to beliefs held by the catholic church. It is impossible to do this without having beliefs regarding the concept that for you underlies the word "god".

If you think that "god" is a coherent objective concept, then please explain it. What's a god? Be sure that your definition includes all gods but excludes all things that are not gods (e.g. ghosts and angels).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So Sun-worshippers, panentheists, and all other theists who believe that "natural" things are gods are actually atheists?

You tell me. Do you believe in the sun?

 

[idav]

Theism entails a belief in god. The only way to ensure that an atheist cannot also be considered a theist is to define what it is that a theist must believe in order to be one.

There isn't anything a theist must believe other than belief in a deity or god. Atheists don't have a belief in god, that is the only qualification, they could be animist and theists could consider that theism but it doesn't matter. It depends on whether the person believes in a deity and if they say they believe it is up to that individual to define their deity, cause it's their deity not anyone elses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You tell me. Do you believe in the sun?

Of course. Does this make me a theist or an atheist?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

People who are trying to clarify someone else's position usually ask questions about that position, not take off half-cocked with their misunderstandings.

I don't typically ask questions unless I have little to no idea where to go. When it seems like a person is implying something I find that the best way to clarify this is to see what it entails. This not only ensures that, if I misunderstood, I will be corrected but also can contribute to a discussion in a way questions cannot.

So Sun-worshippers, panentheists, and all other theists who believe that "natural" things are gods are actually atheists?

There are also those (the one's I'm familiar with might be subsumed under the category "new agers" although many of them would probably dispute this) who believe that humans are gods or at least those with certain properties that humans are capable of having (i.e., they are not supernatural) are gods. I've yet to meet an atheist who didn't believe in humans. If the disagreement is that humans aren't gods, than the way to define gods s.t. atheism is the beliefs no gods exists is simple: whatever things that theists call gods atheists either don't believe exists or isn't a god.

No, it doesn't. When "atheist" is defined as "a person who is not a theist", then there is necessarily no overlap between "atheist" and "theist".

Great! So either atheists don't believe in humans or the word atheist means "people who don't use the word god to describe things". Atheists can believe Jesus rose form the dead and that Krishna will destroy the cosmos and that Zeus throws thunderbolts just so long as they don't use the term "god".

How utterly meaningless.

 

[Willamena]

That's not the same thing. It is more like saying a person is born not republican, a person has to choose to be republican, and as long as they go through life not making that choice then they remain not republican. Same for theism. A person is born 'not theist' until such a time that they have an active belief in some sort of deity. It could be an active atheist belief but not until they are introduced to the concept of theism.

Atheism is no different, for some people at least, than republicanism or liberalism.

Edit: Or any of the other -isms.

 

[Willamena]

This whole thread could've been settled by post 2 if people had just agreed to some definitions. It really doesn't matter whether you want to define "atheist" as (positive) disbelief/rejection of God/gods, and "non-theist" as simply anyone/thing that lacks belief in God/gods, or if you define atheism more broadly to include non-theism. I don't see that it matters either way, and as soon as the definition is settled, the question is settled as well (if atheism is positive rejection/disbelief, the answer is no, if it is simply lack of belief, the answer is yes). Can't believe people have been arguing semantics for 30+ pages.

This debate is a favourite on the forums, and comes up at least two or three time a year.

 

[Magic Man]

Theism describes belief in god or gods, that is, as a word it is intended to represent an act of belief. If a person believes in a god or gods, theism applies. Theist, as a noun, is extrapolated from that to represent the people who enact this belief.

Atheism, as it describes disbelief in god or gods, is useful to describe people who reject the belief of theists. This use of the word does not make them "not theist," it simply allows for the rejection of a belief. It also represents a belief, the belief in "not god or gods, or not this particular god or gods."

That a person may believe or disbelieve is to address a particular statement with an attitude of either the investment in its truth or investment in its falsehood. The atheist who disbelieves in one particular Christian's concept of god needn't have to disbelieve in anything else to be exercising atheism. "Atheist" isn't him, rather he is atheist--"atheist" is just his practice of atheism.

Atheism describes more than just people who reject belief in gods; it includes people who simply lack such a belief. It's useful in that it differentiates someone who believes in a god and someone who doesn't believe in any gods.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This debate is a favourite on the forums, and comes up at least two or three time a year.

I don't doubt it, definitely have seen quite a few such threads on the phil of religion section of our philosophy site. I just don't understand why people love arguing, at length, about what is such a simple and trivial matter of simply settling on some definitions- or, barring any agreement, simply noting that on definition 1 the answer is X and definition 2 the answer is Y and so on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't typically ask questions unless I have little to no idea where to go. When it seems like a person is implying something I find that the best way to clarify this is to see what it entails. This not only ensures that, if I misunderstood, I will be corrected but also can contribute to a discussion in a way questions cannot.




There are also those (the one's I'm familiar with might be subsumed under the category "new agers" although many of them would probably dispute this) who believe that humans are gods or at least those with certain properties that humans are capable of having (i.e., they are not supernatural) are gods. I've yet to meet an atheist who didn't believe in humans. If the disagreement is that humans aren't gods, than the way to define gods s.t. atheism is the beliefs no gods exists is simple: whatever things that theists call gods atheists either don't believe exists or isn't a god.



Great! So either atheists don't believe in humans or the word atheist means "people who don't use the word god to describe things". Atheists can believe Jesus rose form the dead and that Krishna will destroy the cosmos and that Zeus throws thunderbolts just so long as they don't use the term "god".

How utterly meaningless.

Your straw man tactics aside, that's generally how it works:

- even people who don't consider the Sun to be a god consider Sun-worshippers to be theists because they recognize that the Sun is a god in the eyes of those who worship it.
- we consider Muslims to be monotheists and Pagans to be polytheists despite the fact that pretty much any objective set of criteria for the term "god" would either include or exclude both angels and Pagan gods in a similar way. It's the individual's beliefs about what is and is not a God that matter.

If you don't like it, then go do one of your Google searches to see how often Muslims and Jews are described as polytheists. You seem to find those authoritative.

 

[Willamena]

So Sun-worshippers, panentheists, and all other theists who believe that "natural" things are gods are actually atheists?

People who believe in ghosts but not gods aren't atheists?

This doesn't match how people actually use the term "atheist".

No, it doesn't, because the "atheist" is the one practicing atheism. For each instance of disbelief in god, there's atheism.

And only for those instances.

 

[idav]

No, it doesn't, because the "atheist" is the one practicing atheism. For each instance of disbelief in god, there's atheism.

And only for those instances.

Practicing Atheism? How does one go about doing that?

 

[Willamena]

I don't doubt it, definitely have seen quite a few such threads on the phil of religion section of our philosophy site. I just don't understand why people love arguing, at length, about what is such a simple and trivial matter of simply settling on some definitions- or, barring any agreement, simply noting that on definition 1 the answer is X and definition 2 the answer is Y and so on.

It's what we're here for.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism describes more than just people who reject belief in gods; it includes people who simply lack such a belief. It's useful in that it differentiates someone who believes in a god and someone who doesn't believe in any gods.

I thought Legion covered this quite well in 343. To differentiate someone with no beliefs so that we can point a finger at someone with no belief in god solves a problem that never existed.