Atheist by birth?

[Willamena]

With that reasoning, everything that has no reasoning capabilities, beleives in everything o.0

Only if "mental capacity" equates to "no reasoning capabilities."

 

[Willamena]

One doesn't need to be told about something in order to affirm a non-belief or to not believe.

Of course not; but they do need to forumulate an idea of the thing for themselves. Else, there is nothing in which to claim non-belief.

The non-belief exists even before anything is mentioned. The believe part might need a target but not believing does not require a target. Why would it when there is no target to not believe in even after something is made up and brought to our attention to not believe in?

If non-belief exists, it requires something... Else, it's nothing. What does it require?

 

[Revoltingest]

If non-belief exists, it requires something... Else, it's nothing. What does it require?

When I was born, I didn't believe in gods.
When I learned of the concept gods, I still didn't believe in them.
My position remained the same....there was no change other than accumulation of experience.
Nothing was required other than thought....& not much of that.

 

[idav]

Of course not; but they do need to forumulate an idea of the thing for themselves. Else, there is nothing in which to claim non-belief.


If non-belief exists, it requires something... Else, it's nothing. What does it require?

Belief requires a target. Not believing does not require a target. There can be many things I have not come across that I do not believe in. I guess in that case the target is anything I haven't come across or imaginable.

That is precisely it. Not believing isn't really anything even after being introduced to that supposed something. It would still be nothing because it still would not something.

 

[idav]

Well a few people (myself included) have suggested crude animism, but I don't think you can really call that theism or atheism. It's sort of a grey area.

If theism were possible as default it would be the worship of Mom especially when that may very well be the only voice and world they know.

 

[Willamena]

Belief requires a target. Not believing does not require a target. There can be many things I have not come across that I do not believe in. I guess in that case the target is anything I haven't come across or imaginable.

That is precisely it. Not believing isn't really anything even after being introduced to that supposed something. It would still be nothing because it still would not something.

What you call "target" is the proposition in which one is investing belief. Not believing requires the same proposition, so that someone can honestly say, "It's this (expletive optional) that I have no belief about."

My atheism isn't nothing, it's very much something. (If it was nothing, why do we need another word for it? Why call it "atheism"? We already have "nothing.") Others can trivialize atheism as they see fit, but it actually means something to me.

 

[Willamena]

When I was born, I didn't believe in gods.
When I learned of the concept gods, I still didn't believe in them.
My position remained the same....there was no change other than accumulation of experience.
Nothing was required other than thought....& not much of that.

It was an ontological question. (And rhetorical --I didn't really expect an answer. )

 

[idav]

What you call "target" is the proposition in which one is investing belief. Not believing requires the same proposition, so that someone can honestly say, "It's this (expletive optional) that I have no belief about."

My atheism isn't nothing, it's very much something. (If it was nothing, why do we need another word for it? Why call it "atheism"? We already have "nothing.") Others can trivialize atheism as they see fit, but it actually means something to me.

The only difference is that once your exposed to the idea it becomes an opinion. Prior to that it is no opinion but belief still isn't there. In a sense an opinion is something but the "something" you don't believe in still isn't anything.

 

[Erebus]

If theism were possible as default it would be the worship of Mom especially when that may very well be the only voice and world they know.

Well like I said, I don't believe theism is the default. Nor do I believe that a complete lack of belief is the default (at least once the child is conscious anyway) I think it's a grey area where the basic principles needed to create a god concept are present, but not actually crystallised into theism.

*edit* Still, you have a point. "Mother is God in the eyes of a child" and all that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

did you believe in a deity at birth?

No, but neither did my dog. I wouldn't describe him as an atheist.

I am certainly of the position that atheism is an absence of a particular belief. However, unlike some other people, I think that you have to have an understanding of what that belief is for an absence of that belief to be meaningful. In other words, things that cannot hold beliefs cannot be atheists - this includes dogs, rocks, and human infants.

 

[blackout]

It could be argued that "Mother" Actually Is God
for a child. Especially a baby.

 

[idav]

No, but neither did my dog. I wouldn't describe him as an atheist.

I am certainly of the position that atheism is an absence of a particular belief. However, unlike some other people, I think that you have to have an understanding of what that belief is for an absence of that belief to be meaningful. In other words, things that cannot hold beliefs cannot be atheists - this includes dogs, rocks, and human infants.

From a christian viewpoint the non-believers that have not been shown the bible need to be shown that we they can be officially condemned for their non-belief.

 

[outhouse]

No, but neither did my dog. I wouldn't describe him as an atheist.

I am certainly of the position that atheism is an absence of a particular belief. However, unlike some other people, I think that you have to have an understanding of what that belief is for an absence of that belief to be meaningful. In other words, things that cannot hold beliefs cannot be atheists - this includes dogs, rocks, and human infants.

then you miss the complete point.

atheism is the default position we are born with.


Its as simple as this, your either a theist or a atheist. Were you born a theist????

 

[outhouse]

I believe that if we are born with a default position, it would be agnosticism.

How could a baby be not sure if a deity exist???

please explain this one a little better.

 

[Willamena]

From a christian viewpoint the non-believers that have not been shown the bible need to be shown that we they can be officially condemned for their non-belief.

I have no idea what you just said, but it might behoove me to point out that having an understanding of a belief isn't the same as believing.

Proposition
Proposition -> Understood
Proposition -> Understood -> Believed (or not)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

then you miss the complete point.

atheism is the default position we are born with.


Its as simple as this, your either a theist or a atheist. Were you born a theist????

No, you completely miss the point. My view is that the question of belief, or absence of belief, is moot when you're talking about something which cannot hold beliefs. It's meaningless to describe something as an atheist, when it is not able to hold any beliefs.

Trust me, I understand your simplistic point. Try reading for comprehension to understand mine.

 

[idav]

I have no idea what you just said, but it might behoove me to point out that having an understanding of a belief isn't the same as believing.

Proposition
Proposition -> Understood
Proposition -> Understood -> Believed (or not)

What I'm saying is that in the world of spreading the gospel there are two types of of non-believers. Those who haven't yet heard the gospel and those who have heard it and reject it. The bible does distinguish between the two and some denominations believe a person cannot be "officially" condemned unless they heard the truth and rejected it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

From a christian viewpoint the non-believers that have not been shown the bible need to be shown that we they can be officially condemned for their non-belief.

(smiles and nods)

 

[outhouse]

No, you completely miss the point. My view is that the question of belief, or absence of belief, is moot when you're talking about something which cannot hold beliefs. It's meaningless to describe something as an atheist, when it is not able to hold any beliefs.

Trust me, I understand your simplistic point. Try reading for comprehension to understand mine.

but your point fails

you dont need belief to be a atheist. You do not need to hold belief's to be a atheist.




look ,,,, were you born a theist??? the answer is no you were not. Your either a theist or a atheist. that is what it comes down to

 

[Kilgore Trout]

but your point fails

you dont need belief to be a atheist. You do not need to hold belief's to be a atheist.

look ,,,, were you born a theist??? the answer is no you were not. Your either a theist or a atheist. that is what it comes down to

Right, so you refuse to read for comprehension. Don't worry, I wasn't really expecting otherwise.