Are people born inherently atheist?

[outhouse]

It is erroneous to extend the definition of atheists to infants, not because of what "atheist" means but because of what a "belief" is.

False

Atheism is ONLY about what one is not. A theist

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And it's the second time you've dismissed my point without really speaking to it.

Maybe I wasn't clear:

No self-descriptive label is.

What I meant is that there is no label that exists that can only be self-applied. I can label anyone a hardcore conservative and I can label anybody a woman. However, In order for a person to be a Neo-Nazi, they have to have certain internal mental "contents" (propositional attitudes, beliefs, disbeliefs, thoughts, opinions, etc.). I don't even thing the person has to use the label themselves. I am not saying that a person who says they're a theist because they believe that humans are gods should be corrected, but when we are attempting to talk about words as they relate to language and communication, we cannot simply accept a self-description or self-applied label as legitimate in general.

So, to answer your question, a label that refers (at least in part) to mental "contents" is only accurately if the mental states exist. This includes everything from being a soccer fan to being a radical environmentalist.

think you've come across as very insulting and at times belligerent

You mean, like calling someone dishonest, accusing them of deliberate distortion, or using fallacious reasoning deliberately as a conscious ploy? Like you did?

Your straw man tactics aside.

What strawman?

... by employing distorted versions of it, i.e. straw men.

I asked you several posts ago to say what you meant by that

It does, as I've explained repeatedly

For the sake of argument, let's say you have. Can you quote specifically what I said that you are labeling as a straw man and why it is a straw man (including what it is you believe I intended to show by it, which, if it was a straw man you know already)? We both keep repeating the same things and we clearly think we both are showing things the other isn't.

Nobody owes you a reply.

You don't think my arguments were any good and I think you clearly didn't understand what I was saying. But only one of us called the other a lying, distorting, dishonest participant feigning interest:

I've tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're interested in an honest discussion, but I can't maintain the illusion any more. Your straw man antics were bad enough.

That kind of accusation deserves a reply, and had you pointed out specifically where and when and with respect to what I used a straw man argument as I asked then much might have been avoided. Maybe you thought it was very clear:

after a few times of explainibg why I thought you were arguing against a straw man

The first time you accused me of using a straw man argument it seems you believed I was saying something about the definition of theism. I wasn't, as I tried to explain:

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.

Your response:

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

I only said that granting all definitions of theists doesn't fix the problem of defining atheism because there would be overlap. I did not say nor did I imply that the solution was to say certain theists weren't actually theists. You assumed that.

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

This didn't just read into what I said, it contradicted the definition of atheism I gave that you quoted in your response to me:

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.

In other words, if a theist says the sun is a god, an atheist can believe in the sun because they don't believe that's what "the concept refers to".

The point was never to define self-described theists as non-theists, but you continually acted like I was claiming this. I wasn't. Quite the opposite. The issue was what your definition meant about atheists:

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

The problem is that we can't define atheism by theism if we don't have a definition for theism (even if it is "anybody who says they are one). You apparently thought that I was suggesting one, although I specifically stated I was defining atheism:

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.

If a theist believes Zeus is a god, an atheist doesn't believe Zeus exists, and if a theist believes humans are gods, then an atheist thinks that they exists but aren't gods.

If we define atheism only in terms of theism AND require no overlap, then

either atheists don't believe in humans or the word atheist means "people who don't use the word god to describe things".

I even skipped a step here because really this definition says that an atheist can believe in god as long as they say they aren't a theist. The point was why the definition of atheism failed, yet even though you didn't realize I wasn't defining theists, you called it a straw man argument:

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.

My argument wasn't against the above it required the above to be true. If we accept that theists are theists because they say so, then atheists can believe anything (even believe in god) if they don't use the word "theist" to describe themselves. The point was never to argue anything about who we can/can't call theists, but what we can say of atheists if we BOTH define atheist only as not theists AND require that the self-applied label of theist is what makes one a theist. The point was that we shouldn't define atheist as "not theist" and I was explaining why, not that we should call polytheists "not theists".
Instead of ever having these points addressed, you continually talked about how theists are defined and insulting me in the process:

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.

As I didn't do any google searches, didn't mention any, and never even hinted that such searches are authoritative as there is no way they could be, how is this not an insult?

I didn't feel like repeating myself

I don't want you too. Your responses never addressed any of my points as you continually misunderstood what I was trying to say.

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

Once again you ignore what I say in order to make an argument that has nothing to do with mine. I'm talking about the ways in which we can show that "non-belief" in adults is the same as belief, requires belief, and differs from ignorance of the type a baby has.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The rock is also a non-golfer. It is also a virgin. Does that have any meaning? To say the rock is a virgin? The rock has never had sex. Regardless of its ability or inability to have sex it is still a virgin by the definition of the word. He means this kind of useless labeling has little to no meaning when prescribed to human beings with sentience and the ability to contemplate such things.

If lack of ability means a label doesn't apply, try arguing to a parent that their baby isn't a virgin and see how long it takes for the police to arrive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess, but this doesn't apply to atheism.

Huh? How do you determine whether someone is theist/atheist except by their assent to a proposition?

You just look at them and decide? I think most people see theism/atheism as a matter of what the people believe.

They can't at the time.

So then they are atheists, the comatose? Since they 'lack belief in God'?

Depends on what they believe.

It's as if you and I are speaking different languages. Can you tell me, in short easy words, how a person under general anesthesia can 'believe' anything at all??

I generally don't think of most people as theists or atheists. That doesn't make it meaningless to talk about them as such in certain contexts, though.

It might be meaningful to discuss it, but it is intellectual error to believe that people can be easily categorized by the nature of their thought. Really, I haven't seen anyone here yet talking about an objective way to determine belief. It can only be done by assent or the withholding of assent to some specifically-worded proposition, can't it?

Hmm...then I'm not sure your view on this would be meaningful.

Yeah, it's like the debates between Jews and Christians over whether Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. I consider that fight to be bizarre and absurd, like people fighting over the number of angels which can dance on a pinhead. So I usually stay out of it, but every once in awhile I drop by those debates just to wonder aloud if any of them can explain why they believe that the future can be foretold.

Same here. Some people seem to believe that words actually mean things, in some objective way. And that there are actually such things as atheists and theists.

It's like believing that God can whisper future events into the ears of his selected spokesmen, isn't it? Seems awfully strange to me, anyway.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Another way to look at it: consider the spectrum of adult atheists; when did each of them become atheists?

Take me: I can't remember ever believing in any gods. When I was first exposed to prayer, I didn't think of it as literal communication with God; I almost approached it as a game I'd play when I stayed with my grandmother. This is my recollection at least as far back as age 5. Was I an atheist then? If I was, but I wasn't an atheist when I was born, when did I make the transition? What denotes this transition? What should I look for in my past that will let me say "aha! That's when I became an atheist"?

I suspect the answer to this question varies widely among people. Additionally, we could get into a discussion about when meaningful beliefs can be held, and how this would affect one's perception of when "atheism" would apply.

However, none of this speaks to the fact that we're discussing newborn infants, not what they may or may not become. At birth, we are newborn infants, not something else, and the question the OP poses is whether we are born atheists. We can have all sorts of discussions about defining when people may or may not hold particular beliefs, but those aren't discussions about the state of newborn infants.

 

[idav]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about comatose people -- people who are in comas.

They can't figure anything out. They have little or no brain activity. They're vegetables.

Are they atheists since they lack belief in God?

People in comas are not conscious. Questions pertaining to belief have to do with beliefs and people who are in a coma can't answer. If they could answer they would answer according to their conscious awareness. A person in a coma isn't going to lose their experience and beliefs unless they lose their memories and lose who they are. That is like asking if I become atheist when I go to sleep, the answer is no.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

False

Atheism is ONLY about what one is not. A theist

Ok, fine. Ignoring for the moment how we determine what a theist is other than belief in god (whatever that may mean and however many they may believe in), if an atheist is anyone who isn't a isn't a theist, what does this definition entail?
That is, we'll assume that an atheist is someone who isn't a theist. Then:

1) If a person believes god exists, then they are a theist| Definition

2) If a person is not a theist, then they are an atheist |Definition

3) If a person believes god does not exist, then they are not a theist | True by modus tollens given 1)

4) If person is an atheist, they believe god does not exists | True by 2) and 3)


So, defining an atheist only as not a theist, we end up with a belief claim an atheist necessarily must make of god. As I have said so often, asserting that atheism isn't theism simply means that atheism is defined by the definition of theism.

 

[Willamena]

False

Atheism is ONLY about what one is not. A theist

This doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

1) If a person believes god exists, then they are a theist| Definition

3) If a person believes god does not exist, then they are not a theist | True by modus tollens given 1)

However, the contradictory of "believes god exists" can also be stated as "doesn't believe god exists."

 

[Willamena]

Another way to look at it: consider the spectrum of adult atheists; when did each of them become atheists?

The moment they snorted, however lightly, at the mention of a "god."

Take me: I can't remember ever believing in any gods. When I was first exposed to prayer, I didn't think of it as literal communication with God; I almost approached it as a game I'd play when I stayed with my grandmother. This is my recollection at least as far back as age 5. Was I an atheist then? If I was, but I wasn't an atheist when I was born, when did I make the transition? What denotes this transition? What should I look for in my past that will let me say "aha! That's when I became an atheist"?

Do you remember any snorts?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

People in comas are not conscious. Questions pertaining to belief have to do with beliefs and people who are in a coma can't answer. If they could answer they would answer according to their conscious awareness. A person in a coma isn't going to lose their experience and beliefs unless they lose their memories and lose who they are. That is like asking if I become atheist when I go to sleep, the answer is no.

Let's make it easier and talk about Alzheimer's patients (APs). They get their brains eaten away little by little and lose most all their memories. They lose themselves. Some of my closest relatives have had it.

So if Billy Graham has Alzheimer's, he becomes an atheist at the point where he loses his memories and can't assent to the proposition 'God exists"?

Once he lacks belief in God, he becomes an atheist?

 

[idav]

Let's make it easier and talk about Alzheimer's patients (APs). They get their brains eaten away little by little and lose most all their memories. They lose themselves. Some of my closest relatives have had it.

My dad has that so I'm aware. At the point they lose themselves, asking them questions about who they are may not go over so well. A persons belief can change at any moment and it is up to that individual and it will be based on that individuals memories and experience. If they lost the experience they may not remember that they were a hard core maltheist.

These questions about being asleep or in a coma don't make any sense because belief is based on what a person gathers from the conscious awareness.

Any more red herrings?

 

[outhouse]

Ok, fine. Ignoring for the moment how we determine what a theist is other than belief in god (whatever that may mean and however many they may believe in), if an atheist is anyone who isn't a isn't a theist, what does this definition entail?
That is, we'll assume that an atheist is someone who isn't a theist. Then:

1) If a person believes god exists, then they are a theist| Definition

2) If a person is not a theist, then they are an atheist |Definition

3) If a person believes god does not exist, then they are not a theist | True by modus tollens given 1)

4) If person is an atheist, they believe god does not exists | True by 2) and 3)


So, defining an atheist only as not a theist, we end up with a belief claim an atheist necessarily must make of god. As I have said so often, asserting that atheism isn't theism simply means that atheism is defined by the definition of theism.

#3 is not required, nor #4

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

These questions about being asleep or in a coma don't make any sense because belief is based on what a person gathers from the conscious awareness.

Any more red herrings?

Just one more: Newborn infants. Are they atheists?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However, the contradictory of "believes god exists" can also be stated as "doesn't believe god exists."

In English, sure. Not in logic, though, but of course as is the proof can't be put into classical logic. As I said a while back, you can't use regular predicate calculi for mental state predicates because they trigger indirect speech. But the point was more to show that one doesn't escape that things must hold true for an atheist simply by defining them as 'not theist". Unfortunately, epistemic logics (at least those I'm familiar with are for agent-oriented computing, and wouldn't serve well here. That said, something occurred to me when I wrote this post the first time. The world was spared a long and boring discussion on why we can't use "doesn't" that I cut out (when the proof itself is "informal", that means it doesn't prove anything). I am not sure if I can use a true formal proof that would be understandable to anybody, but I can at least do a better informal one which, I think would highlight structural differences that matter more than the one you correctly noted. So I think I'll try one or two that include at least some formal representation to highlight the importance of structure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect the answer to this question varies widely among people. Additionally, we could get into a discussion about when meaningful beliefs can be held, and how this would affect one's perception of when "atheism" would apply.

However, none of this speaks to the fact that we're discussing newborn infants, not what they may or may not become. At birth, we are newborn infants, not something else, and the question the OP poses is whether we are born atheists. We can have all sorts of discussions about defining when people may or may not hold particular beliefs, but those aren't discussions about the state of newborn infants.

It's entirely relevant. If you accept that there are adult atheists (and you do, right?), then arguing that babies aren't atheists means that at some point, every adult atheist went through a transition from "not an atheist" to "atheist". It implies that this point exists even for the atheists (like me) who say they've never believed in any gods.

So... when does this point occur? Does it depend on level of cognitive development?

Does it depend on rejecting all gods? If so, is this even possible?

Does it depend on rejecting a single god? If so, is there any overlap between theism and atheism?

If you're right, then the point must be there somewhere... so where is it? How old, intelligent, knowledgeable, etc. does a child have to be before we can call them an atheist?

 

[idav]

Just one more: Newborn infants. Are they atheists?

I think newborns are atheists in that they wouldn't have any set beliefs that they would put any faith in, but I'm not entirely sure if newborns think mom is an all powerful creator goddess.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think newborns are atheists in that they wouldn't have any set beliefs that they would put any faith in...

Well, OK. But neither do the comatose, the Alzheimer's, the sleeping, the surgery patients, etc....

I think we should just leave it up to God to sort the theists from the atheists, just as He sorts the fake Christians from the actual, true Christians.

 

[Curious George]

So the rock has had sexual relations?

What if someone raped the rock?

 

[Curious George]

Another way to look at it: consider the spectrum of adult atheists; when did each of them become atheists?

Take me: I can't remember ever believing in any gods. When I was first exposed to prayer, I didn't think of it as literal communication with God; I almost approached it as a game I'd play when I stayed with my grandmother. This is my recollection at least as far back as age 5. Was I an atheist then? If I was, but I wasn't an atheist when I was born, when did I make the transition? What denotes this transition? What should I look for in my past that will let me say "aha! That's when I became an atheist"?

The same could be said of theists.