Atheist by birth?

[Storm]

Default position is no opinion on a matter that isn't first brought to your attention. Therefore default would be not having belief/opinion about it.

Atheism is at the very least an opinion. Otherwise it's just ignorance. Ignorance is not a position.

 

[idav]

Atheism is at the very least an opinion. Otherwise it's just ignorance. Ignorance is not a position.

Atheism is only an opinion once you claim it. If I was ignorant of god and religion and somehow managed to find this thread would I be atheist in the eyes of theists? That is why I like the term (a)theist or (not)theist which really isn't a position.

 

[Storm]

Atheism is only an opinion once you claim it.

And nobody else has the right to claim it on your behalf.

If I was ignorant of god and religion and somehow managed to find this thread would I be atheist in the eyes of theists?

It would depend on what you actually believed.

That is why I like the term (a)theist or (not)theist which really isn't a position.

That's not what you've been arguing, though.

 

[Willamena]

nope

theist is not the default position

Here's your cake.

(You can eat it, too. )

 

[outhouse]

Atheism is at the very least an opinion. Otherwise it's just ignorance. Ignorance is not a position.

lack of opinion.

theist requires a opinion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, whatever.

I thought you'd already answered those.

Yes, I've answered them. I'm just interested to hear your answer, since whichever way you go, it creates a conflict with what you've said in this thread so far.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I've answered them. I'm just interested to hear your answer, since whichever way you go, it creates a conflict with what you've said in this thread so far.

How so? And what have I said so far?

 

[laffy_taffy]

you were always a atheist, you just didnt realize it until that day

And what about the day a person recognizes their belief in "God"? Were they always a theist but didn't know it?

Are you suggesting that a person could believe in god, but not know that they believed? How would one have confidence/conviction in the existence of something if they don't even know that they believe? As opposed to atheism, where you are without a belief in (the existence of) god. One might have always been without a belief in god (say for instance, since birth), but not realize until many years later that there is a word (atheist) used to describe their absence of belief. This recognition of their non-belief being labeled as atheism, does not change the fact that they have always been without a belief in the existence of gods.

 

[Willamena]

Are you suggesting that a person could believe in god, but not know that they believed?

No. I honestly think they're a theist the day, and the moment, that they recognize "God."

How would one have confidence/conviction in the existence of something if they don't even know that they believe? As opposed to atheism, where you are without a belief in god. One might have always been without a belief in god (say for instance, since birth), but not realize until many years later that there is a word (atheist) used to describe their absence of belief, This recognition of their non-belief being labeled as atheism, does not change the fact that they have always been without a belief in the existence of gods.

If you were without a belief in dogs, would you know it?

It isn't about there being a word for it.

 

[outhouse]

debating this will get either side nowhere fast.

there is no clear cut definition of a atheist.

Nor will there be anytime soon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How so? And what have I said so far?

You've argued against the idea that mere lack of belief in gods makes a person an atheist.

And this creates a conflict with what you're saying now, because:

- if the hypothetical atheist you're talking about now hasn't rejected all gods, then his atheism still relies on lack of belief.

- if the hypothetical atheist you're talking about has rejected all gods, then you're talking about someone who doesn't exist, since it would be logically and physically impossible for a person to do this.

 

[laffy_taffy]

No. I honestly think they're a theist the day, and the moment, that they recognize "God."


If you were without a belief in dogs, would you know it?

You may, or may not.

It isn't about there being a word for it.

It sure appears to be that way for some people. There is no difference between an unbeliever or non-believer and an atheist. However, for some reason, many people think there is some magical meaning tied to the word atheist. That if you realize that there is this word (atheist) used to describe your unbelief, and you use it instead of the word unbeliever, for instance, that suddenly you have all of these "other beliefs" because of the label (which is not true).

 

[Willamena]

You've argued against the idea that mere lack of belief in gods makes a person an atheist.

And this creates a conflict with what you're saying now, because:

- if the hypothetical atheist you're talking about now hasn't rejected all gods, then his atheism still relies on lack of belief.

- if the hypothetical atheist you're talking about has rejected all gods, then you're talking about someone who doesn't exist, since it would be logically and physically impossible for a person to do this.

And what is "lack of belief" supposed to mean in this context, applicable to someone rejecting someone else's god? Surely "disbelief" is reasonable to describe such a position? I've no problem if "lack of belief" is just a figure of speech, if it's actually disbelief we're talking about.

I believe it's already been covered in this thread and others that one doesn't have to reject every image of god to have rejected the concept of god.

 

[Willamena]

There is no difference between an unbeliever or non-believer and an atheist.

Except, of course, all the differences.

 

[Falvlun]

The thought of any "god" never crossed my mind as a child until I was told what one was.

There are always exceptions to the rule, and a predisposition is only that-- it doesn't mandate.

You cite yourself as an exception to the claim that theism could be the default position. So, would one example of someone who always felt as if a god existed destroy the possibility that atheism is the default position?

The whole thing is silly. There is really no "default position". I believe that humans are predisposed to develop a belief in gods, but this doesn't mean we are all born theists. That's just a silly statement, much like the assertion that babies are atheists.

In a way I do agree with this. Only in that people can label themselves how they want whether they call themselves atheist or christian just depends on what that person thinks. That works to a certain degree until someone says they are atheist cause they only believe in FSM. Also it is pretty standard that we are able to label people based on standard definitions that we have for things which would also mean that to some degree someone might label themselves wrong when it comes to what the consensus says.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe labels mean something. So, if you do believe that a god exists, I don't think you should go around describing yourself as an atheist just because you want to.

But, I do not think we should be ascribing labels to children who have not voiced their opinion, and have no need of labels anyway.

As mentioned before, while "lack of belief in gods" can be ascribed to babies, simply because they have no beliefs in anything, it is not particularly informative or useful. Their atheism is different from the atheism of any of the atheists on this forum. To conflate the two is misleading, and waters down the meaning of the word. Labels about the beliefs of people should be limited only to entities capable of belief.

"Babies are not atheists" is also cheap semantics. Just as cheap as "Babies are atheists". Neither position seems to be supported by more than word usage.

As for your notion that god can be defined as a force behind events, well, so can ghost.

I would never argue for "Babies are not atheists!" either, for much the same reason. These labels simply do not meaningfully apply to people until they are capable of forming beliefs about the belief in question.

As for my definition, it's a supernatural force that has control over some aspect of reality. Ghosts, should they exist, would be a natural part of existence. They wouldn't be "above or beyond" nature, nor the sum of it.

 

[Falvlun]

I believe it's already been covered in this thread and others that one doesn't have to reject every image of god to have rejected the concept of god.

Yes Yes Yes!

People don't hold that standard to anything else they do not believe in, so why why why is disbelief in god put on such a pedestal of impossibility?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what is "lack of belief" supposed to mean in this context, applicable to someone rejecting someone else's god? Surely "disbelief" is reasonable to describe such a position? I've no problem if "lack of belief" is just a figure of speech, if it's actually disbelief we're talking about.

Pick any set of gods that any given atheist has rejected, and you can probably find a theist somewhere who's rejected all of them but just happens to believe in one (or more) that the atheist never heard of.

I believe it's already been covered in this thread and others that one doesn't have to reject every image of god to have rejected the concept of god.

But that's the thing: there is no single "concept of god". There are many different concepts, and I don't think that any one person has encountered all of them.

So far, the only shared characteristic of all god-concepts that I've been able to find is that a god is an object of worship. People generally believe that gods have other characteristics beyond this (I don't think many people would argue that anything that's worshipped must be a god), but I haven't yet figured out a way to actually learn of every god-concept (as would be required to actually reject them) other than speaking to every single person and learning what they believe. In practical terms, this is impossible.

It's also why the definition of atheism as the absence of belief in gods (and please don't get into your ridiculous interpretation of the word "absence" again - it doesn't have to mean a deficiency; regardless of how you decide to twist definitions, all I mean is that the belief isn't present) is the only one that's workable: I might not be able to reject the god-concept of someone on the other side of the world who I've never even heard of let alone talked to, but I certainly don't believe in the god-concept he's never shared with me.

 

[Willamena]

Pick any set of gods that any given atheist has rejected, and you can probably find a theist somewhere who's rejected all of them but just happens to believe in one (or more) that the atheist never heard of.

But is it disbelief?

But that's the thing: there is no single "concept of god".

Yes, there is! The only one that counts -- yours!

If I said that my left pinky toe is god, would you reject that? I expect so; any why? I expect because it doesn't fit your concept of god. That's the only concept of god that's significant, and the only one that has to be rejected.

PS: I'm done with this thread. Don't want to detract it any further with my red herrings and snipe hunts.

 

[laffy_taffy]

Except, of course, all the differences.

This is the whole underlying problem. If you think there is a difference between an nonbeliever and an "atheist" then, we'll forever be at an impasse. We have shown that atheism can encompass both definitions of one who has no belief in (the existence of) god as well as those who take it a step further and hold the belief that gods do not exist. The lowest common denominator definition that covers all atheists is that they do not hold the following belief:

Claim A: God exists.

A small minority of atheists in addition to not having a belief in Claim A, may believe in Claim B:

Claim B: God does not exist

IMO, this second definition is above and beyond the base definition that applies to all atheists.

As for suggesting that there are difference between nonbelievers and atheists, I sure would be interested in finding out what those are.

 

[idav]

But is it disbelief?


Yes, there is! The only one that counts -- yours!

If I said that my left pinky toe is god, would you reject that? I expect so; any why? I expect because it doesn't fit your concept of god. That's the only concept of god that's significant, and the only one that has to be rejected.

An atheist doesn't have to have a concept for god that counts because they are not theist. Bringing about a god concept or not doesn't make a difference. I really don't understand why an atheist has to have a god concept in mind to reject it whether it is Yahweh, flying spaghetti monster, the universe or your left pinky toe.

You say atheists don't have to reject all concepts yet you are saying one concept has to be brought up and rejected to count as atheism. Somethings not right there.