Are people born inherently atheist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sorry. I meant "A strong atheist claims to believe gods don't exist. He doesn't claim to know they don't exist. Then he would be a gnostic atheist."

I 'bout fell out of my chair when I read this.

Just thought you'd like to know that.

My, my.

 

[Willamena]

But what is a thing? How would you respond to the sorites paradox? Are likert scales inherently unsound?

My response to the sorities puzzle is that a vague predicate is a vague predicate. A "heap" has neither a precise amount of grains of sand, nor one, nor is it intended in language to mean that.

A "thing" is an object that is translatable into a noun.

I don't know likert scales.

It seems that your objection to non-classical logics isn't just an issue of ontology, as it is one thing to say that god(s) must exist or not exist, and another to say that one can either believe they exist or disbelieve. But I'm confused by your use of "non-existent things" because here we are talking about beliefs, which are properties not things, and so I am not sure what precisely you are objecting to.

Let's say that I'm expressing my belief that my team will win a game that can't end in a draw (insert any team and sport as I couldn't care less). If I say I believe there's a 50% chance they'll win, can that not be true? If so, doesn't it imply that I don't I believe they will win? However, I also don't believe they will lose. I disbelieve that they will win and disbelieve they will lose. However, those are the only possible outcomes. Can I not say that I neither believe they will win nor disbelieve that they will win because my belief is I am uncertain?

To say that, "I don't believe in non-existent things," is not really an objection. It is both whimsical and a commentary on a rigid ontology.

 

[Willamena]

You just said "I do not believe I said that. Which is to say that I disbeleieve I said that" You have always "not believed" in a god you've never heard of but to disbelieve in this god you must have heard of him. You really don't understand the difference?

I understand it, Artie. I just don't agree with that use of the language.

 

[ArtieE]

I understand it, Artie. I just don't agree with that use of the language.

Oh. It's just that if people had agreed on that use of the language and understood the difference we would always know and understand what weak or strong atheists meant when they said they were weak or strong atheists and avoided much of the confusion.

 

[Willamena]

I'd be curious if anyone here would like to present his personal definition of 'belief'.

"Belief" is an atittude; it is the attitude towards a proposition that acknowledges its truth. "Belief" is also the proposition that is believed.

 

[Willamena]

Oh. It's just that if people had agreed on that use of the language and understood the difference we would always know and understand what weak or strong atheists meant when they said they were weak or strong atheists and avoided much of the confusion.

But the distinctions are arbitrary and unnecessary. They create confusion.

...They create the very confusion they are alleged to resolve.

 

[ArtieE]

But the distinctions are arbitrary and unnecessary. They create confusion.

No, you create confusion when you argue that the distinctions are arbitrary and unnecessary.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

"Belief" is an atittude; it is the attitude towards a proposition that acknowledges its truth. "Belief" is also the proposition that is believed.

Good answer, I think. My problem is that I don't 'acknowledge the truth of a proposition' on the one hand or else 'refuse to acknowledge the truth of that proposition' on the other hand. Truth, for me, if not a Yes/No business.

I really don't think it's Yes/No for most other folks, but we are fooled by the language into thinking that we can only 1) believe or 2) disbelieve or 3) have no opinion.

That isn't so. We can more-or-less, kinda-sorta believe. For me, 'belief' means an attitude toward a proposition which is more in favor of that proposition than opposed to that proposition.

So all this talk about (a)theists '(dis)belleving in God' is pretty nonsensical to me. Some people seem to be talking as if belief and disbelief are polar opposites.

 

[Willamena]

No, you create confusion when you argue that the distinctions are arbitrary and unnecessary.

Let's pretend, just for a minute, that when a person says, "I don't believe in gods," what they mean is something like, "I think what you said about 'gods' is untrue."

And let's call this attitude "atheism." Having this attitude makes this person an "atheist."

If this were all there were to being an atheist (as it used to be, in the olden days) then we have simplified the picture, not complicated it; we have reduced confusion, not increased it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

I have no idea. As I already answered, I suspect the answer varies. As I also already stated, this thread is about our state at birth, not at some later point, when we are no longer newborns.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism is a belief.
As far as I can tell, rocks don't have beliefs. If this is true, rocks can't be atheists. Newborns, certainly might have beliefs. Being capable of having beliefs is significantly different than being incapable of having beliefs.

If you have a link to any studies which provide evidence that newborns are cognitively developed and conscious enough to hold beliefs, I'd be extremely interested in reading them.

 

[idav]

No, you create confusion when you argue that the distinctions are arbitrary and unnecessary.

Strong atheism is the same as gnostic atheism. I don't think it is too confusing, the position simply answers a different question.

If we asked does God(s) exist?
Weak/Agnostic Atheist would say "I don't know but I don't believe so".
Strong/Gnostic atheist would say "no God(s) don't exist".

If we asked do you believe in god(s), they would both answer no.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea. As I already answered, I suspect the answer varies. As I also already stated, this thread is about our state at birth, not at some later point, when we are no longer newborns.

Even so, I think you and the people with similar arguments are coming at the question backwards: instead of asking, effectively, whether we should care whether babies are atheists or not, I think a better approach is to identify a reasonable definition of "atheist" that works in general and then consider whether the definition we arrived at would or wouldn't include babies.

It's not that I care whether babies are atheists; it's that any definition for "atheist" that's been crafted to exclude babies has serious flaws when used for adults.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's not that I care whether babies are atheists; it's that any definition for "atheist" that's been crafted to exclude babies has serious flaws when used for adults.

I'd argue that all definitions for 'atheist' have serious flaws.

Same with 'Christian' and various other words which try to label people according to their thought.

 

[Willamena]

Even so, I think you and the people with similar arguments are coming at the question backwards: instead of asking, effectively, whether we should care whether babies are atheists or not, I think a better approach is to identify a reasonable definition of "atheist" that works in general and then consider whether the definition we arrived at would or wouldn't include babies.

It's not that I care whether babies are atheists; it's that any definition for "atheist" that's been crafted to exclude babies has serious flaws when used for adults.

It's not "atheist" you have to define--that occurs naturally, in language, because atheism occurs. It's "atheism" you have to define.

"Atheist" is just "the person who does (insert what 'atheism' means here)."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Even so, I think you and the people with similar arguments are coming at the question backwards:

And I, you.

instead of asking, effectively, whether we should care whether babies are atheists or not, I think a better approach is to identify a reasonable definition of "atheist" that works in general and then consider whether the definition we arrived at would or wouldn't include babies.

Either way you approach it, if atheism can only be meaningfully applied to something which is capable of holding beliefs, then the label "atheist" cannot be meaningfully applied to newborn infants.

It's not that I care whether babies are atheists; it's that any definition for "atheist" that's been crafted to exclude babies has serious flaws when used for adults.

Adults are capable of holding beliefs. Infants are not. I fail to see how not applying belief/non-belief to things which are not capable of holding beliefs has any ramifications at all for adult humans - which are clearly capable of holding beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Either way you approach it, if atheism can only be meaningfully applied to something which is capable of holding beliefs, then the label "atheist" cannot be meaningfully applied to newborn infants.

You say "if". Are you actually arguing this? If so, please provide some support for it.

Adults are capable of holding beliefs. Infants are not. I fail to see how not applying belief/non-belief to things which are not capable of holding beliefs has any ramifications at all for adult humans - which are clearly capable of holding beliefs.

If we're talking about an adult, what would make that adult an atheist?

 

[idav]

Either way you approach it, if atheism can only be meaningfully applied to something which is capable of holding beliefs, then the label "atheist" cannot be meaningfully applied to newborn infants.

However newborn infants are capable of holding beliefs. What makes you think they are not able? They are humans after all with brains with such capabilities.

Adults are capable of holding beliefs. Infants are not. I fail to see how not applying belief/non-belief to things which are not capable of holding beliefs has any ramifications at all for adult humans - which are clearly capable of holding beliefs.

You keep asserting infants are not capable. How do you know? Babies are humans so they do have beliefs, thoughts, fears and hopes cause that is what the brain does for us. I couldn't say what a newborn thinks of mom or being fed but I can say with certainty that the newborn isn't just some vegetable, and it isn't just feeding and crying but learning constantly like a sponge. A human brain doesn't come into this world aware without soaking in an ever changing worldview.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You say "if". Are you actually arguing this? If so, please provide some support for it.

If you think that applying the category of "belief/non-belief" to things which are not capable of holding beliefs, such as infants and rocks, is somehow meaningful, that's your prerogative. If you've read any of my posts this entire thread, you'd have learned that I don't find such categorizations useful or meaningful, which has been my primary point throughout the thread.

If we're talking about an adult, what would make that adult an atheist?

It depends on one's definition of atheist I suppose. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the state of newborn infants - the state we are in at birth - which is what this thread is about.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

However newborn infants are capable of holding beliefs. What makes you think they are not able? They are humans after all with brains with such capabilities.

Again, if you have any links to studies which provide evidence that newborn human infants are coginitively developed and conscious enough to hold beliefs, then I'd love to read them.

How many effing times do I need to repeat myself when talking to you people?