Atheist by birth?

[KovertKitty]

The default position IMO is not atheism but ignosticism, because ignostocism by definition just simply means they don't know just by virtue of the fact the very concept has never entered an infant's mind in the first place, like what black holes and neutron stars would mean to Gallileo. The same applies to lesser animals as a concept of god has never entered their minds as well. Whereas with agnosticism you are aware of the concept in which you are discussing and cannot make up your mind one way of the other, but with ignosticism you have no idea about what others may be discussing about.

:clap

 

[Willamena]

The default position IMO is not atheism but ignosticism, because ignostocism by definition just simply means they don't know just by virtue of the fact the very concept has never entered an infant's mind in the first place, like what black holes and neutron stars would mean to Gallileo. The same applies to lesser animals as a concept of god has never entered their minds as well. Whereas with agnosticism you are aware of the concept in which you are discussing and cannot make up your mind one way of the other, but with ignosticism you have no idea about what others may be discussing about.

I can't agree with that. Ignosticism, agnosticism, non-theism and the like each have their image that springs from a theistic image of "God", as well as their image that springs from no image of "God". How you understand the theism (including atheistically) will shape how you understand each of them.

 

[Splarnst]

Based on induction of what?

Based on my experiences. I've never encountered anything which required a supernatural explanation, so based on my decades of life, I think it's more likely than not that the supernatural does not exist.

Therefore weak atheism wouldn't apply, since you are invoking a positive belief that no gods exist.

That's the thing. I'm not invoking a positive belief because I'm not advancing a claim. Essentially, if I'm forced to pick heads and tail—naturalism or supernaturalism—then I pick naturalism. But I'm not out there saying, "Naturalism is true because X, Y and Z."

even though you just did?

No, I didn't say atheism was true. I just revealed my hunch, my guess. It's not a claim. There's a difference. It's like if I grilled someone and forced them to reveal their belief and then demanded that they defend it. They simply didn't make a claim. It's the same difference between saying, "God exists" and "I believe God exists." The latter isn't a claim—well, not beyond claiming belief. Mine is weaker than that because I don't say I believe no gods exists; it's just if I had to choose one option, I would guess that no gods exist.

To me, even if you entertain the idea(s) of God's existence (or deities, or divinity), that is no longer in domain of "lack of belief." And if it is, for you, in that domain even still, as if you firmly believe you are 'lacking belief' while entertaining existence to help make point about what you think gods ought to do, or not do, then I am prone to call it psuedo atheism.

And to me, entertaining hypotheticals doesn't entail any such thing. I can talk about what would happen if Candidate X were president, but that doesn't mean I think that he or she actually is president.

 

[idav]

The default position IMO is not atheism but ignosticism, because ignostocism by definition just simply means they don't know just by virtue of the fact the very concept has never entered an infant's mind in the first place, like what black holes and neutron stars would mean to Gallileo. The same applies to lesser animals as a concept of god has never entered their minds as well. Whereas with agnosticism you are aware of the concept in which you are discussing and cannot make up your mind one way of the other, but with ignosticism you have no idea about what others may be discussing about.

I can partly agree but agnosticism would mean not having knowledge of God which also qualifies for an unlearned individual. Ignosticism is more specific for introduction to a specific god. Also they still will qualify as atheist since knowledge and belief are two different issues.

 

[Alceste]

Agnosticism: the specific belief that the question of god's existence is unanswerable.
Ignosticism: the even more specific belief that the reason the question can't be answered is that our puny human minds can't formulate an accurate conception of what god actually is.
Atheism: the absence of belief in a deity or deities.

I'm still going with atheist.

 

[KovertKitty]

I can partly agree but agnosticism would mean not having knowledge of God which also qualifies for an unlearned individual. Ignosticism is more specific for introduction to a specific god. Also they still will qualify as atheist since knowledge and belief are two different issues.

I wouldn't say that Ignosticism is specific in introduction because it encompasses the 'god' concept as a whole... They haven't gotten past the first step of defining 'god'... So an Ignostic wouldn't really be theist or atheist due to that lack of knowledge... A baby can easily fall under that category...

 

[idav]

I wouldn't say that Ignosticism is specific in introduction because it encompasses the 'god' concept as a whole... They haven't gotten past the first step of defining 'god'... So an Ignostic wouldn't really be theist or atheist due to that lack of knowledge... A baby can easily fall under that category...

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. IOW, they can both be true without contradicting. The fact that you are able to give the knowledge argument but not the belief argument is telling. Babies are agnostic atheists.

 

[Acim]

Based on my experiences. I've never encountered anything which required a supernatural explanation, so based on my decades of life, I think it's more likely than not that the supernatural does not exist.

If analyzing things here, which I'd be glad to do with you, I reason that we'd be working with a whole bunch of beliefs you have (about deities, divinity, etc.), thus establishing that you don't really really lack a belief, or lack beliefs.

That's the thing. I'm not invoking a positive belief because I'm not advancing a claim. Essentially, if I'm forced to pick heads and tail—naturalism or supernaturalism—then I pick naturalism. But I'm not out there saying, "Naturalism is true because X, Y and Z."

But I would argue that you have beliefs about supernaturalism which lead you to denying veracity of larger point (belief in ANY god(s)). Furthermore, and related to same point, is beliefs about naturalism would be part of this picture as well, which influences the other. Like for you God may be only that which is supernatural, while for me, and perhaps other theists, divine things could be (for me are) natural.

No, I didn't say atheism was true. I just revealed my hunch, my guess. It's not a claim. There's a difference.

What you said, exactly:

It's my opinion, based on induction, that no gods exist, but I never claim that no gods exist

Like saying, it is my opinion, based on reason, that TOE is fiction, but I never claim that TOE is fiction.

It's like if I grilled someone and forced them to reveal their belief and then demanded that they defend it. They simply didn't make a claim. It's the same difference between saying, "God exists" and "I believe God exists." The latter isn't a claim—well, not beyond claiming belief. Mine is weaker than that because I don't say I believe no gods exists; it's just if I had to choose one option, I would guess that no gods exist.

Well, we are splitting hairs then over what 'claim' means. Most, if not all statements show up to me as claims. Many claims may not be convictions. I claim Michael Jordan is the best NBA player ever. I'm not convinced by this claim, since there are umpteen factors that would likely be considered in determining 'best ever' but for now, it is a claim I have.

And to me, entertaining hypotheticals doesn't entail any such thing. I can talk about what would happen if Candidate X were president, but that doesn't mean I think that he or she actually is president.

Nor does it mean you lack a belief about Candidate X. Which is point I was making.

 

[outhouse]

what part of belief in deities is a learned behaviour, some choose to unlearn. Dont some people understand?

it does not matter why a person does not believe, do you understand this? A atheist is a atheist if one has or has not learned about ancient mans culture and fears and beliefs.

 

[Splarnst]

Like for you God may be only that which is supernatural, while for me, and perhaps other theists, divine things could be (for me are) natural.

It's true I've only been speaking about supernatural beings. I'm not an atheist with respect to the definition of, say, the sun as a god because I clearly believe the sun exists. (I just don't find such definitions useful or desirable.)

Well, we are splitting hairs then over what 'claim' means.

And I've never seen a satisfactory resolution of a disagreement about whether something is splitting hairs, so let's just leave it there.

 

[Acim]

It's true I've only been speaking about supernatural beings. I'm not an atheist with respect to the definition of, say, the sun as a god because I clearly believe the sun exists. (I just don't find such definitions useful or desirable.)

Then isn't it arguable that you are not a true atheist?

I noted on another thread that by narrow definition of (weak) atheism, I too am (sometimes) atheistic, say in relation to 'punishing God.' Or other models of God. But if there is model that I have beliefs about or in, while discounting others, I think 'true atheists' would say, you are not an atheist.

And then from there, some atheists want to claim ridiculous things like, "because you are a theist, this automatically means you believe in sky daddy and that he will punish you for being homosexual. You believe this. And you have no defense for this belief, but it is your belief and how you think about everything." Which perhaps a majority won't do that sort of presuming, but IMX, many actually do. They gravitate to one model of divinity and project that onto all theists thinking they get what theism is all about.

Based on their beliefs.

 

[idav]

Then isn't it arguable that you are not a true atheist?

There is no such thing as a "true" atheist. It is like asking "are you sure you believe what you say you believe".

 

[logician]

We are born with no opinions on the existence of some god, most parents will push their children towards their own belief through the teachings of their religion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wasn't born an atheist. It took a number of years to develop the intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom for me to meaningfully be an atheist.

 

[work in progress]

Dawkins has a point. It's a leap from the sort of animism we seem have a predilection for to theism. It is also not entirely clear at what stages in child development these predilections manifest themselves at. Or to what extent they manifest themselves. It would be jumping the gun at this point to insist Dawkins was wholly wrong.

I'm not saying we have a predisposition towards belief in God or organized religions. But these things are cultural developments that arise from superstitious or magical thinking.

In Kelemen's and Hood's estimation, we start out using teleological thinking to explain everything around us. In fact, Hood points out that when very young children talk about the Sun, they see its purpose as something that pertains specifically to them, while later on, they realize that the Sun may have a larger role for the benefit of others. It takes a higher level of sophistication to be able to think through the question using logic. What's also interesting is that Hood mentions in the later pages of "Supersense" that from his research on elderly patients suffering from dementia, there is a return to teleological thinking, as rational logical thinking goes into decline.

Dawkins's explanation for the problems of irrational beliefs are all based on bad information. I don't know if he's completely given up on his notion of memes being tiny, self-propagating bits of information, but if he hasn't changed since he wrote "Viruses Of The Mind" about 20 years ago, it sort of goes like: we come into this world as blank slates (born atheist) and our minds are hungry for knowledge and are eager to be filled by either good or bad memes. If we have been filled with dangerous, destructive religious memes, we can be stuck spending our lives wasting time, energy, resources and causing needless suffering serving these religious viruses of the mind! And the cure is to cleanse the infected mind of those bad religion memes by replacing them with correct scientific memes, which he describes using one example.

Dawkins's explanation is total horse****, and based on bad science itself, considering that the new research on cognition has no use for memes, and infers that we never outgrow superstition - we just employ a higher order of thinking to avoid being led by it. The implications of research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience leads to a better understanding of the way people think. Instead of being either totally rational or enslaved by religious delusions, we have a sliding scale of intuitive and rational thinking. Some of us go mostly with intuitions, and are more prone to believe in the supernatural, and accept whatever religious training they've grown up with. While others become skeptics and question everything.

It's not a matter of one side being totally superior to the other, as Dawkins and new atheism contends, since skeptics and rationalists who want to think through everything, are also prone to procrastination and slow in making decisions....sometimes that's not always a good thing! An interesting study from Kelemen regarding subjects looking for patterns in white noise images was that intuitive, superstitious thinkers were prone to see patterns that didn't exist (think of the satan-in-the-9/11 smoke images or similar religious apparitions); but the skeptics were more prone to miss actual images in the static than the intuitive thinkers because of their skepticism.

The takeaway for me is that it is stupid to expect religion to disappear, or belief in God or angels to go away. The important thing is to keep religion and religious beliefs from being used in situations where they can cause conflict or do harm to people.

 

[Splarnst]

Then isn't it arguable that you are not a true atheist?

If you completely redefine the terms of a discussion, then you can reach any conclusion you want. I could argue that you're a Martian because you've presumably seen Mars in the sky at some point in your life, but such a discussion would be pointless. I'm telling you right now that I don't believe in anything supernatural. Label me as you will. I don't care anymore.

 

[outhouse]

I wasn't born an atheist. It took a number of years to develop the intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom for me to meaningfully be an atheist.

did you believe in a deity at birth?

 

[Storm]

did you believe in a deity at birth?

So, basically, you're saying atheism doesn't even require the mental capacity of a rock?

 

[outhouse]

So, basically, you're saying atheism doesn't even require the mental capacity of a rock?

Theism requires being old enough to make the fantasy stick within your own mind. Atheism requires nothing at all. Atheism is the default program. Theism is the learned behaviour. Atheism can be learned if one is a theist. Atheism cannot be taught to someone who has no concept of a deity because they are already a atheist.


life cycle of a atheist = your are born with no belief, at a early age your taught to believe in something not there. One day you wake up and go, yep there was nothing to start with and nothing now.

Atheism is not a lack of belief, its knowledge that ancient men in power had always created deities to match their specific needs, wants, and desires and hopes for life and a mythical afterlife.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I call it psuedo if you move from "lack of belief" into anything that reflects ideas, thoughts (aka beliefs) about deities. To me, even if you entertain the idea(s) of God's existence (or deities, or divinity), that is no longer in domain of "lack of belief." And if it is, for you, in that domain even still, as if you firmly believe you are 'lacking belief' while entertaining existence to help make point about what you think gods ought to do, or not do, then I am prone to call it psuedo atheism. At least for the time being. You can always come back from the argument and claim, "hey look at me! Now I'm once again a person lacking belief in God."

Seems like many of you are confused about atheists' lack of belief. You do know that it only refers to one specific belief that we by definition, do not hold, right? We lack belief IN THE EXISTENCE OF GODS!

I don't know why so many theists seem to hold the mistaken notion that lacking belief in (the existence of) god should equate to not having an opinion about the claims about god put forth by its followers. Who says I don't/can't have an opinion? Of course I do! I have a lot to say about your (general "you") claims about your god, and may tell you that your claims are not convincing or do not make sense, or whatever. So? Do you think god's existence is dependent on the claims that men make about him?

Let's assume you're a christian for the sake of argument: Your god has revealed himself to others and many even claim to have a relationship with him. Who's to say whether or not this could happen to me? I may find your claims to be unconvincing, but if god himself revealed himself to me, I would then at least have some kind of evidence, and possibly be convinced to believe. So, I am not asserting that god does not exist. How should I know? But the concept that many theists put forth about their god, including what their god thinks about such and such, and how their belief affects our country (laws, rights, etc), is worth debating.

Also, even if I totally believed that your particular god did not exist, that would not mean that I believed that all gods did not exist. I actually find it "believable" that there could be an impersonal, creator type deistic god that we cannot perceive and has no interaction with us. I have not yet found any evidence to convince me to believe that such a god does in fact exist, but I do not hold the belief that such a god does NOT exist. You seem to be under the impression that if atheists have an opinion about your god, or argue with you about your unconvincing claims, that we hold the belief that all gods do not exist. Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the world does not believe in your triune god (again, assuming you're christian). There are plenty of other gods out there besides just yours.

Let's look at the following statements:

Statement A: God exists
Statement B: God does not exist

I lack belief in Statement A. Simply debating people about their claims about their various god concepts and the unconvincing evidence, does not change the fact that I still lack belief in Statement A. Have I suddenly started believing statement A just because I am debating you? No. It also does not mean that I believe Statement B.