Are people born inherently atheist?

[ArtieE]

So when a person "does not believe," it carries with it all the weight of a very real negated belief, not the lack-of-weight of never having heard of a thing.

1. If a weak atheist says he "does not believe" in the existence of God he means "I lack belief in the existence of God but I don't claim he doesn't exist".
2. If a strong atheist says he "does not believe" in the existence of God he means "I believe God doesn't exist".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is no theist on the island, but also no atheist.

Indeed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They are born not believing in a lot of things. Goes without saying but at what point or age does the question become meaningful? Is there some magic point where it is safe to call them a non-believer?

I suspect this would vary depending on the person, the situation, and how one goes about defining the question being meaningful.

However, what we can say is that newborn infants, themselves, are atheists in the exact same way a rock is an atheist. So labeling infants as atheists is valid as long as one also labels rocks as atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

I'll pose this question again, as it was never addressed by anyone: How is a newborn infant's atheism meaningfully different from a rock's atheism?

There aren't any theist rocks and rocks can never become theists but an infant is "not a theist (yet)" but can potentially become one. What a question to ask... try using some common sense.

 

[idav]

I suspect this would vary depending on the person, the situation, and how one goes about defining the question being meaningful.

However, what we can say is that newborn infants, themselves, are atheists in the exact same way a rock is an atheist. So labeling infants as atheists is valid as long as one also labels rocks as atheists.

They both lack belief. Rocks will remain lacking belief I suspect while the newborn will grow up to hold many beliefs. Yes it is valid to say that a rock is not political and rocks are virgins too, the silliness of the statement does not negate the truthfulness.

While belief is one thing, knowledge is another, so it isn't as silly to say that babies lack knowledge. Babies are agnostic atheists.

Babies are heathens too until they are officially baptized or something.

heath·en

noun: heathen; plural noun: heathens

1. 1.
   a person who does not belong to a widely held religion
   
   
   
   

 

[ArtieE]

Proofs in logic are often called derivations. We start with certain premises, in this case the parts I labeled as definitions. We then use these and the rules of logic to show what must follow from the premises. If you can show where I violated a logical rule, please do. To help you out, I'll explain the ones I used.

Try another, but this time use the terms theism, weak atheism and strong atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

They are born not believing in a lot of things. Goes without saying but at what point or age does the question become meaningful? Is there some magic point where it is safe to call them a non-believer?

A non-believer is a strong atheist. "Is there some magic point where it is safe to call them "not a believer"?"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes it is valid to say that a rock is not political and rocks are virgins too, the silliness of the statement does not negate the truthfulness.

However, it does negate its usefulness and meaningfulness. "The planet Jupiter is unemployed," may be true. However, the statement provides no significant or meaningful information. Same as infant atheists.

 

[outhouse]

. So labeling infants as atheists is valid as long as one also labels rocks as atheists.

wrong

Your strawman and red herring cannot ever be a theist.

That makes them complete opposites.

Calling a rock a atheist is absurd.

Calling my child a atheist because she is not atheist is quite valid, as it is a true statement.

 

[outhouse]

However, it does negate its usefulness and meaningfulness. "The planet Jupiter is unemployed," may be true. However, the statement provides no significant or meaningful information. Same as infant atheists.

Wrong.

When used as our default status, makes it meaningful to SOME people.

We don't really care that you personally don't find any meaning in it. The world does not revolve around you and your personal opinion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Calling a rock a atheist is absurd.

Just like calling a newborn infant an atheist is absurd.

It's absurd to point out one, specific non-belief of something which is not capable of holdling any beliefs. Of course, absurdity isn't really a sticking point for many people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We don't really care that you personally don't find any meaning in it. The world does not revolve around you and your personal opinion.

Never said it did. Unlike other people, I'm perfectly fine with other people holding opinions differing from my own. Even absurd opinions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, this is an invalid comparison because it equates properties that can't be. Citizenship cannot be given to one's self but is necessarily granted by others. This is the second time you've equated properties like this.

And it's the second time you've dismissed my point without really speaking to it. Is "atheist" the only label that can ONLY be self-applied?

If we define atheism as "not being a theist", then we are defining it in terms of what particular people believe. We can ascribe to people properties that describe mental states/beliefs, but in order to be correct that person has to actually have those mental states/beliefs. This is not true of citizenship.

Again: is atheism the ONLY word that you hold to this standard? Any label could potentially be wrong. When we use language, we express assessments of how things are. We're fallible, so sometimes these assessments are wrong. This doesn't render all language meaningless. I could describe someone as "healthy" when the actually have an illness I don't know about, for instance. I may have been wrong, but what I said would have still been meaningful.

I don't believe I've insulted anybody. I've described definitions as meaningless and used all sorts of negative terms about them and the reasons for using them. However, if I am correct, it does not follow that people who believe or use these definitions are stupid or whatever.

I'm on my phone, so I can't easily cut and paste examples, but I think you've come across as very insulting and at times belligerent in this thread. It's gotten to the point where I'm close to assuming that you're deliberately trying to poison the well.

What I find insulting is when people accuse me of deliberately presenting arguments that they think don't (or that actually don't) address the points they raised deliberately. But that doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that they not only that from my perspective they are doing the same thing, they continue to assert I am presenting invalid arguments without addressing most of what I have said at all even just to say it is incorrect.

Nobody owes you a reply. And speaking for myself, after a few times of explainibg why I thought you were arguing against a straw man, I didn't feel like repeating myself. One you've shown you aren't going to listen, I just assume you aren't going to listen.

I tried repeatedly to explain how on a physical level "non-belief" isn't actually "non-belief", or at least not that of an infants. This was ignored. So, in a post designed mainly to actually address the OP, I included studies important to the OP but also to this debate as they demonstrate how "non-belief" isn't really "non-belief". That was ignored.

Because it's irrelevant. Nobody's arguing that a self-described atheist adult will have a similar brain scan to that of a baby.

So I responded to specific posts making claims that an atheist can really have no beliefs about gods with studies that demonstrate this isn't so. These were ignored.

When you did this with me, I didn't ignore them; I pointed out how they're based on a misunderstanding on your part. I even offered to draw you a Venn diagram.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Try another, but this time use the terms theism, weak atheism and strong atheism.

It wouldn't make any difference. It is a proof of what follows from your definition of weak atheism and therefore in order to be incorrect you have to show how it is logically invalid. The proof CANNOT be wrong because a line/step in the proof says something you consider wrong as this is what inference rules in logical proofs are for: to show what is necessary according to logic itself.

Let me attempt more clearly. Most swans are white, but there are black swans (in Australia, if memory serves).

Imagine I argue the following:

All swans are white birds (premise)
If a bird is not white, then it isn't a swan.
If bird is a swan, then it is white.

The argument is wrong, but it is only wrong because the premise isn't true. The other two statements are justified entirely and completely on logic itself and the premise. My premises were your definitions. For me to be wrong logic itself must be wrong.

Let me be a little more comprehensive. When logicians say that an argument or proof is valid, it means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion or conclusions are necessarily true. What I said above about swans is valid, because if the premise were true, then logic itself necessitates that the other two statements are true. The only reason they can be wrong is if the premise is, and indeed it is (there are black swans).

When confronted with a proof like the one I gave you, there are only two possible ways the conclusion could be wrong. One is if the premises are not true. However, they're you're definitions, so presumably that isn't an option. The other way is for the proof to contain an inference (going from one line to another) for which there is no inference/logic rule. For example:

If a bird is a crow, then it is black (premise)
**If a bird is black, it is a crow. (false conclusion)

The reason the conclusion is incorrect is because it is illogical, meaning there is no inference rule to justify the step
If A then B
therefore
if B then A

However, there is one which says
If A then B
therefore
If not B, the not A

For the proof to be wrong you'd have to show what step or steps were illogical, meaning there is no inference rule that can justify that step or steps.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Calling a rock a atheist is absurd.

Calling my child a atheist because she is not atheist is quite valid, as it is a true statement.

The next time a young mother shows you her baby, chuck the little darling under his chin and coo, "Oh, what a cute little atheist you are!"

If the mother gives you a look of fear and confusion, try not to be surprised.

 

[idav]

However, it does negate its usefulness and meaningfulness. "The planet Jupiter is unemployed," may be true. However, the statement provides no significant or meaningful information. Same as infant atheists.

Comparing the employment of a planet to the belief of a baby is not in the same realm. The belief of a baby is much more meaningful than anthropomorphizing the planet Jupiter. So no, not the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, it does negate its usefulness and meaningfulness. "The planet Jupiter is unemployed," may be true. However, the statement provides no significant or meaningful information. Same as infant atheists.

If we say "John is an atheist" and John is an adult, does this communicate useful and meaningful information?

How about if John is a teenager? Tween? Kindergartener? Toddler?

Infancy is nothing more than an edge case. Focusing on it when criticizing the definition is trying to get the tail to wag the dog.

 

[idav]

1. If a weak atheist says he "does not believe" in the existence of God he means "I lack belief in the existence of God but I don't claim he doesn't exist".
2. If a strong atheist says he "does not believe" in the existence of God he means "I believe God doesn't exist".

I saw you mention that a strong atheist means rejecting at least one god concept but a person might be both 1 and 2. They may reject some specific concept like the FSM deity but still remain open minded to other deity concepts. A strong atheist puts faith in the belief that there is no deity, faith because it is impossible to reject every single concept.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If we say "John is an atheist" and John is an adult, does this communicate useful and meaningful information?

How about if John is a teenager? Tween? Kindergartener? Toddler?

Infancy is nothing more than an edge case. Focusing on it when criticizing the definition is trying to get the tail to wag the dog.

However, the question posed in the thread is whether we are born atheists. When we are born, we are infants, so in order to meaningfully answer the question, we have to discuss atheism in regards to infants, not what they may eventually become. Now, we can redefine infants as something else (as many have done in this thread). However, we then no longer discussing infants, and not addressing the question posed in the OP.

 

[Magic Man]

When we are born, we are infants, so in order to meaningfully answer the question, we have to discuss atheism in regards to infants, not what they may eventually become.

OK, well, an infant is a person with no belief in gods, which qualifies him/her for the classification "atheist".