Are people born inherently atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'll respond with the same point I raised to another poster earlier: if you think that lack of capability implies that a label denoting the lack of a thing doesn't apply, try telling parents of a newborn baby that their child isn't a virgin and see what happens.

It depends on one's definition of atheist I suppose.

Yes, that was what I was getting at.

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.

Don't worry - it's relevant. You'll have to trust me on this. Once you've provided a definition for "atheist" that's workable and reasonable, I'll tie the conversation back to babies.

 

[Willamena]

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

 

[idav]

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

However many times you assert something without any backup or proof. I said I don't know what babies think but you seem to be sure that it isn't anything to do with beliefs. Why?

 

[Willamena]

"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.

Truth for me is a "yes/no" business, too. The magic is that a response occurs at all when we ask ourselves the question, "Is this true?" or "Do I believe this?"

Belief is a "yes/no" business too, but because mind is divorced from the object of belief, we get the third state, "no comment," and all the degrees between. Truth doesn't have the luxury of that divorce.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Truth for me is a "yes/no" business, too. The magic is that a response occurs at all when we ask ourselves the question, "Is this true?" or "Do I believe this?"

Belief is a "yes/no" business too, but because mind is divorced from the object of belief, we get the third state, "no comment," and all the degrees between. Truth doesn't have the luxury of that divorce.

Truth is just belief asserted as a 1 or a 0.

Prophets shout the truth. Wise people accept their own fallibility. So it seems to me.

Mind is divorced from the object of belief? Is mind also divorced from the object of knowledge/

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'll respond with the same point I raised to another poster earlier: if you think that lack of capability implies that a label denoting the lack of a thing doesn't apply, try telling parents of a newborn baby that their child isn't a virgin and see what happens.

There's nothing stopping an infant from being sexually molested and no longer being a virgin. There are no infants who are capable of being theists. Understand the difference?

Don't worry - it's relevant. You'll have to trust me on this. Once you've provided a definition for "atheist" that's workable and reasonable, I'll tie the conversation back to babies.

The specific definition of atheist is irrelevant to my argument as long as newborn infants aren't capable of holding any beliefs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

However many times you assert something without any backup or proof. I said I don't know what babies think but you seem to be sure that it isn't anything to do with beliefs. Why?

Because, as far as I know, newborn humans are not cognitively developed or conscious enough to form or hold beliefs. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, my argument stands.

 

[Willamena]

Truth is just belief asserted as a 1 or a 0.

In a very real sense, yes. It's because of "yes/no" truth that we believe.

Prophets shout the truth. Wise people accept their own fallibility. So it seems to me.

Ah, but what's so fallible about it? When things fail, we get a 0 and discard that piece of the picture, and replace it with a better 1.

Mind is divorced from the object of belief? Is mind also divorced from the object of knowledge/

The "object of knowledge" is the object of belief.

Where JTB says "knowledge is justified true belief," it acknowledges belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's nothing stopping an infant from being sexually molested and no longer being a virgin. There are no infants who are capable of being theists. Understand the difference?

That atheism is ensured while virginity is expected?

The specific definition of atheist is irrelevant to my argument as long as newborn infants aren't capable of holding any beliefs.

Except if it turns out that atheism does not need the holding of any beliefs or is impossible in that case. And it turns out that the first case holds true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The specific definition of atheist is irrelevant to my argument as long as newborn infants aren't capable of holding any beliefs.

Unless an 'atheist' is simply 'anything or anybody not a theist.'

In which case, rocks, human infants, and potatoes would all be atheists.

The definition business is fraught with peril.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That atheism is ensured while virginity is expected?

No, that virgin/non-virgin could be a meaningful distinction, whereas belief/non-belief is not.

Except if it turns out that atheism does not need the holding of any beliefs or is impossible in that case. And it turns out that the first case holds true.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Unless an 'atheist' is simply 'anything or anybody not a theist.'

In which case, rocks, human infants, and potatoes would all be atheists.

This still doesn't affect my argument, which is that such a definition is meaningless. However, the example of rocks, infants, and potatoes being atheists does highlight why such a defnition is meaningless.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, but what's so fallible about it? When things fail, we get a 0 and discard that piece of the picture, and replace it with a better 1.

The more we insist that a thing is truth, the harder it becomes to replace it with a better truth.

The "object of knowledge" is the object of belief. Where JTB says "knowledge is justified true belief," it acknowledges belief.

I'm lost already. It doesn't take much for me.

 

[Willamena]

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

 

[Willamena]

The more we insist that a thing is truth, the harder it becomes to replace it with a better truth.

It's not like we have a choice in the matter.

Unless, as I suspect, you're talking about make belief, which may include mistakes and delusions.

I'm lost already. It doesn't take much for me.

Sorry.

Where JTB says "knowledge is justified true belief" it acknowledges belief, but the "true" part strips away all but the 1 or 0 belief. No degrees.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This still doesn't affect my argument, which is that such a definition is meaningless. However, the example of rocks, infants, and potatoes being atheists does highlight why such a defnition is meaningless.

I think that any and all definitions of 'atheism' are pretty meaningless. Certainly any such definition under 5,000 words or so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's nothing stopping an infant from being sexually molested and no longer being a virgin. There are no infants who are capable of being theists. Understand the difference?

My point holds for all sorts of similar terms. "That baby is not unemployed" implies that the baby has a job. It doesn't imply that the baby is too young to work.

The specific definition of atheist is irrelevant to my argument as long as newborn infants aren't capable of holding any beliefs.

The definition is relevant if it doesn't require belief on the part of the atheist. Let's have a look at your definition and see whether it does or not.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Where JTB says "knowledge is justified true belief" it acknowledges belief, but the "true" part strips away all but the 1 or 0 belief. No degrees.

Yeah. It's why the JTB definition of knowledge doesn't work. It requires us to believe in magic.

 

[idav]

Because, as far as I know, newborn humans are not cognitively developed or conscious enough to form or hold beliefs. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Otherwise, my argument stands.

You haven't given an argument, you've simply asserted that babies cannot hold beliefs.

In light of the fact that babies are born with instincts and such, I find it hard to believe that babies are not at least capable of intelligent thought. Their brains are certainly capable which should go without saying. Studies show that babies are already capable of doing math which shows a propensity for intelligent thoughts.

Also babies naturally show emotions like fear and hope which in themselves are forms belief. Tell me, can a baby be scared without holding any sort of belief?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My point holds for all sorts of similar terms. "That baby is not unemployed" implies that the baby has a job. It doesn't imply that the baby is too young to work.

Infants are capable of being employed (paid for work). Infants are not capable of holdling beliefs. Again, employed/unemployed could be a meaningful distinction, whereas belief/non-belief is never a meaningful distinction in regards to infants. Are you finally getting this, or do you want me to address more examples?

The definition is relevant if it doesn't require belief on the part of the atheist. Let's have a look at your definition and see whether it does or not.

Okay, here's my definition of atheist: an atheist is someone or something, which is capable of holding beliefs, which doesn't hold the specific belief that god or gods exist, or holds the specific belief that god or gods do not exist.