Are people born inherently atheist?

[Willamena]

By lacking a conception of god, one is rendered unable of believing in it.

It really is that simple.

So simple it's absurd.

I propose we need a new word for "people who don't believe in something that is nothing, that effectively does not exist."

Edit: Especially as it can have nothing to do with gods.

 

[Willamena]

Let's do an experiment.

(whispers something to the person on her left) and (mumbles something to the person on the right).

You are ignorant of both; tell me, what is the difference between those two things? Then tell me which of those things you don't believe in. And as a bonus, tell me which one was "god"?

 

[Me Myself]

Let's do an experiment.

(whispers something to the person on her left) and (mumbles something to the person on the right).

You are ignorant of both; tell me, what is the difference between those two things? Then tell me which of those things you don't believe in. And as a bonus, tell me which one was "god"?

Who cares? If you dont have a belief in a god, you are an atheist as per oxford dictionary standards.

 

[Me Myself]

You dont have to know yu dont believ ein god to be an atheist either.

If you dont posses the believe in a god and never heard of something like that, you likely dont know what an atheist is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Let's do an experiment.

(whispers something to the person on her left) and (mumbles something to the person on the right).

You are ignorant of both; tell me, what is the difference between those two things? Then tell me which of those things you don't believe in. And as a bonus, tell me which one was "god"?

I tried posing your question to my infant niece. However, I didn't get any response since she doesn't understand language, let alone concepts like belief. She just sat there. I posed your question to a rock on the ground and got the same response. What could it mean?

 

[Me Myself]

I tried posing your question to my infant niece. However, I didn't get any response since she doesn't understand language, let alone concepts like belief. She just sat there. I posed your question to a rock on the ground and got the same response. What could it mean?

Just because an OE creationist doesnt understand he evolved from ape like beings doesnt mean he didnt.

Likewise, just because someone doesnt understand what an atheist is doesnt mean s/he is not.

A person lacking belief in god=atheist.

 

[idav]

What could it mean?

You don't speak rock or infant.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A person lacking belief in god=atheist.

Again, if you find it meaningful to ascribe a particular non-belief to something which is not capable of holding any beliefs, that's your prerogative. Personally, I prefer to use meaningful categorizations which actually provide informational significance. I realize that not everyone is as interested in organization, efficiency, and applicability as I am though.

 

[Willamena]

A person lacking belief in god=atheist.

There is no significant difference, the way you use the definition, between the god that the person is ignorant of, the Eiffel Tower that the person is ignorant of, and the teapot oribiting Mars that the person is ignorant of. Each of these things* occupies precisely the same place in the same nowhere. In fact, they are effectively precisely the same thing.

Nothing.

*and everything else that they are ignorant of

 

[Me Myself]

Again, if you find it meaningful to ascribe a particular non-belief to something which is not capable of holding any beliefs, that's your prerogative. Personally, I prefer to use meaningful categorizations which actually provide informational significance. I realize that not everyone is as interested in organization, efficiency, and applicability as I am though.

Meaningful is subjective. Meaningful depends on purpose or message that we desire to send depending on circumstance.

It seems like an applicable label according to its actual meaning in accordance with the OD.

I understand in all your awesomeness you may overlook other people will have their own ways to organize express and apply meaning

There is no significant difference, the way you use the definition, between the god that the person is ignorant of, the Eiffel Tower that the person is ignorant of, and the teapot oribiting Mars that the person is ignorant of. Each of these things* occupies precisely the same place in the same nowhere. In fact, they are effectively precisely the same thing.

Nothing.

*and everything else that they are ignorant of

Yes, it seems like you have that clear.

The baby doesnt believe in god therefore he is an atheist by OD definition.

If there was any label for aeiffeltowerist ot sumething, the baby would likely also be it.

Atheist can be a silly weird label to begin with. It actually is a silly weird label to begin with.

If you dont want to use ODs definition, that's cool.

 

[Willamena]

There's no meaningful distinction between the baby's "lack of belief in god" and his "lack of belief in the Eiffel Tower," or his "lack of belief in a teapot orbiting Mars."

There's no meaningful way to relate this definition only to "god."

Atheism loses all meaning.

 

[Me Myself]

There's no meaningful distinction between the baby's "lack of belief in god" and his "lack of belief in the Eiffel Tower," or his "lack of belief in a teapot orbiting Mars."

There's no meaningful way to relate this definition only to "god."

To you.

One of the arguments for using the label atheist on a baby is precisely to make it clear that not having a belief in a god does not make one evil or less pure.

Its okay if you cant understand the meaning of that. I do though, so I wouldnt pretend it is "meaningless"

I find it curious how the word meaningless can mean so different things to every person

 

[Willamena]

To you.

One of the arguments for using the label atheist on a baby is precisely to make it clear that not having a belief in a god does not make one evil or less pure.

How does that factor in?

Its okay if you cant understand the meaning of that. I do though, so I wouldnt pretend it is "meaningless"

I find it curious how the word meaningless can mean so different things to every person

I understand it, I'm just not buying it.

 

[Me Myself]

How does that factor in?


I understand it, I'm just not buying it.

Ha does that factor in is irrelevant to the thread.

What is relevant is that the actual meaning of the word atheist according to the OD, is meaningful for others in various contexts.

It is meaningful for others to use the actual meaning of the OD as it applies to babies. It maybe meaningless to you to use it that way but it is not so for everyone.

So your argument of it being inherently meaningless doesn really hold water.

 

[Willamena]

Ha does that factor in is irrelevant to the thread.

What is relevant is that the actual meaning of the word atheist according to the OD, is meaningful for others in various contexts.

It is meaningful for others to use the actual meaning of the OD as it applies to babies. It maybe meaningless to you to use it that way but it is not so for everyone.

So your argument of it being inherently meaningless doesn really hold water.

OD = original definition? You mean, "one who doesn't believe in god"? That certainly isn't meaningless by my argument.

 

[Me Myself]

OD = original definition? You mean, "one who doesn't believe in god"?

OD meant Oxford dictionary. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Meaningful is subjective. Meaningful depends on purpose or message that we desire to send depending on circumstance.

Sure, if someone finds it meaningful to ascribe a specific non-belief to something which is incapable of holding any beliefs, that is their prerogative. I find that extraneous information provides no meaningful significance or value, and thus can be ignored.

This process contributes to an improved ability to understand and organize information by removing irrelevancies. Then again, both my employment and personal interests involve the use and application of complex systems, so I may find efficiency, relevance, and applicability to be of higher importance than many people.

 

[Willamena]

OD meant Oxford dictionary. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I have no argument with the Oxford Dictionary, just with those who would promote that babies and people who have never heard of god are atheists when there can be no meaningful way to objectively relate what they are ignorant of to one thing they are ignorant of.

 

[Willamena]

I have no argument with the Oxford Dictionary, just with those who would promote that babies and people who have never heard of god are atheists when there can be no meaningful way to objectively relate what they are ignorant of to one thing they are ignorant of.

Let me try to explain it another way.

There's this group of people. They are ignorant of some things. They are ignorant of a lot of things. But you want to make them ignorant of only one particular thing--god--in order to group them with "atheists."

That's not an objective definition, as a dictionary definition must be. It's actually subjective (see, there's "you" in there).

 

[Me Myself]

Sure, if someone finds it meaningful to ascribe a specific non-belief to something which is incapable of holding any beliefs, that is their prerogative. I find that extraneous information provides no meaningful significance or value, and thus can be ignored.

This process contributes to an improved ability to understand and organize information by removing irrelevancies. Then again, both my employment and personal interests involve the use and application of complex systems, so I may find efficiency, relevance, and applicability to be of higher importance than many people.

Again, what is irrelevant to you on all circumstances that you have thought of is not necessarily irrelevant to others on all circumstances.