Are people born inherently atheist?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Worshipper of the most high certainly counts as theism

I would agree. That's one reason I don't find the proposed definition adequate.

The belief is on that person, a dictionary can't say what a person believes.

True. Dictionaries are not, in general, intended to define words but to help people understand what they mean by showing how they are used.

 

[ArtieE]

Theism describes belief in god or gods, that is, as a word it is intended to represent an act of belief. If a person believes in a god or gods, theism applies. Theist, as a noun, is extrapolated from that to represent the people who enact this belief.

Atheism

Strong atheism. Did you read my post number 337?

 

[ArtieE]

Claiming that a person is born atheist as silly as claiming they are born liberal. After all, being open to new ideas is what babies do.

We are born weak atheists without a belief in gods simply because we have no concept of gods yet so how can we possibly have a belief in them. This goes of course for everything else we are not yet able to have a belief in. We are 7 billion on this planet. Simply take away all theists and the rest must be either weak or strong atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

However, people are born as either atheists or non-theists, depending on our definitions; people are not born believing in God, but they are not born disbelieving in God either. They simply lack any belief about the matter.

Which is the definition of a weak atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

No, it doesn't, because the "atheist" is the one practicing atheism. For each instance of disbelief in god, there's atheism.

And only for those instances.

For each instance of disbelief in god, there's strong atheism. You really should learn to use the proper terms.

 

[ArtieE]

I thought Legion covered this quite well in 343. To differentiate someone with no beliefs so that we can point a finger at someone with no belief in god solves a problem that never existed.

You can point a finger at

1. A theist and say that this guy believes in gods.
2. A weak atheist and say that this guy doesn't have any beliefs about gods and couldn't care less about gods.
3. A strong atheist and say that this guy believes gods don't exist.

Pretty important difference if you ask me.

 

[Willamena]

That ignores the reasons that have already been given for applying the label "atheists" to babies.

That's because the reasons given were inadequate.

Strong atheism. Did you read my post number 337?

Yes, Artie. I'm arguing strong atheism.

 

[Willamena]

You can point a finger at

1. A theist and say that this guy believes in gods.
2. A weak atheist and say that this guy doesn't have any beliefs about gods and couldn't care less about gods.
3. A strong atheist and say that this guy believes gods don't exist.

Pretty important difference if you ask me.

No argument there.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, Artie. I'm arguing strong atheism.

OK. Then could you use the term "strong atheism" from now on to avoid misunderstandings?

 

[Willamena]

OK. Then could you use the term "strong atheism" from now on to avoid misunderstandings?

I could, but it's unnecessary. Weak atheism is agnosticism, so atheism as a term is applicable to those who don't believe in gods.

That's what I'm arguing.

 

[steeltoes]

Who would have thought that not being a theist would cause discussion?

 

[parkerpeter416]

hi
yes, people born atheist

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No. People are born Mormon.

 

[Willamena]

No, people are born love.

They learn other things.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are people born inherently atheist? If we never had all these religions would people "find god?" I know everybody would be curious about why things happen but if people were raised with the final conclusion of an inquiry as "we just don't know yet" rather than than saying "god, would the world be a better place?

"lack of belief" means that if they lack the belief for whatever reason...they are Atheists. Though I find the Baby and Rock arguments of Atheist terms to be nearly moot point. However I hope that no one is arguing against the idea that we are taught religion as a learned and indoctrinated event in our lives (especially early on).

 

[LuisDantas]

That's because the reasons given were inadequate.

That is circular reasoning.

 

[LuisDantas]

You can point a finger at

1. A theist and say that this guy believes in gods.
2. A weak atheist and say that this guy doesn't have any beliefs about gods and couldn't care less about gods.

Actually, that is not quite correct. A weak atheist may conceivably not be an apatheist.

3. A strong atheist and say that this guy believes gods don't exist.

Technically correct. Yet that amounts to saying that a strong atheist is also a weak atheist.

Pretty important difference if you ask me.

If we take as a premise that it is important to distinguish between atheism and theism, I suppose it might be.

 

[LuisDantas]

I could, but it's unnecessary. Weak atheism is agnosticism, so atheism as a term is applicable to those who don't believe in gods.

That's what I'm arguing.

Wait, what?

It has long been established that agnosticism is not weak atheism. There are agnostic theists, even.

 

[Valjean]

Have we exhausted the atheism brouhaha? Are we starting on agnosticism now?

 

[LuisDantas]

All forms of energy are eventually extinguishable. Except for the desire to debate, at least when it comes to just-barely-useful distinctions such as those among forms of agnosticism and atheism.

Now if we could only make it into electricity.