"Humans are born as atheists"

[First Baseman]

paarsurrey said: ↑
They have to provide evidence as they would require of the Believers of G-d.

I believed in G-d very naturally when I was born, as naturally as I believed in my mother and the father.
Regards

Why do you use the word "G-d"?

 

[sojourner]

I am no G-d.
I believe/d in G-d as naturally as I believe/d in my mother and father.
Did one not believe/d in one's mother and the father? Please
Regards

And I'm saying that theistic belief is a higher cognitive function than babies are capable of.

 

[Jumi]

And I'm saying that theistic belief is a higher cognitive function than babies are capable of.

Muslims commonly believe everyone is born Muslim.

 

[sojourner]

I disagree.



A rock is not a theist, certainly. So what is a rock?

A rock is a rock. Babies are human beings. Until they have the ability to decide what they believe, no reference toward that end should be made. It's a self-identity, not an objective identity. Hitchens is an atheist, because he says so. There is no way to tell, apart from his self-identity as such. Babies don't self-identify. They identify through their parents.

 

[First Baseman]

And I'm saying that theistic belief is a higher cognitive function than babies are capable of.

Well, yeah.

 

[sojourner]

Muslims commonly believe everyone is born Muslim.

Doesn't matter what they believe about everyone. What matters is what everyone is able to cognate about themselves.

 

[Demonslayer]

And I'm saying that theistic belief is a higher cognitive function than babies are capable of.

That's why they have the absence of theistic belief. And what do we call a person with the absence of theistic belief?

 

[PackJason]

And yet people seem to have no problem with calling a baby a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child."

 

[First Baseman]

Doesn't matter what they believe about everyone. What matters is what everyone is able to cognate about themselves.

In this case what matters is that a baby just isn't capable of believing much of anything concerning spirituality or conceiving what it is, regardless of what Muslims think about it. To think everyone is born a Muslim is just incorrect thinking.

 

[sojourner]

That's why they have the absence of theistic belief. And what do we call a person with the absence of theistic belief?

Babies experience an absence of any form of belief. Therefore, they can't be pro- or anti- belief in anything. Atheism is an "ism," denoting that it's a system of cognitive formation. Before there is that ability, there is no "ism," hence, the child isn't an "atheist."

 

[sojourner]

And yet people seem to have no problem with calling a baby a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child."

That, too, is incorrect.

 

[Demonslayer]

Hitchens is an atheist, because he says so.

In my opinion the main problem here is that such a high percentage of the population believe in a God or Gods. This makes being an "atheist" seem like it's something. Like it's a stance or a position, rather than just an absence of a certain belief.

No one calls people who don't believe in the boogeyman "aboogeymanists" or those who don't believe in levitation "atelekinesisists." That's because for the vast majority, the idea of the boogeyman or moving objects with your mind is immediately rejected. There doesn't seem to be a need to associate yourself with a lack of belief in these things because no one believes in these things. You're not an aboogeymanist because you say so, you're an aboogeymanist because you don't believe in the boogeyman, regardless of whether you say so or not.

But since so many people believe in God being an atheist seems like something more than being an aboogeymanist, when really it isn't anything more.

But don't mind me, I can argue about nonsense all day.

 

[Yerda]

- what's a god? What theists believe in.
- what do theists believe in? Gods.

You don't agree that theists believe in god(s)? That the characterising feature of theism is belief in at least one deity?

Going back to the beginning of all this, you said that a person becomes an atheists by rejecting gods. Your circular nonsense does nothing to help us understand what you mean by "god". So far, your approach fails.

If you disagree with what I think this is fine. I'm having a difficult time trying to work out what you want from me here.

You asked, what qualifies someone as an atheist?

I say, someone who rejects theism.

You then took issue with the quantity of ideas that someone has to reject in doing so and requested (for reasons I can't determine) that I supply you with an idea that:
-can be rejected
-applies to theism as a whole.

I then voluntered the proposition, there is a god. Why do I have to define god? Do you not agree that this proposition applies to every theist and can be rejected?

A quiet theist, maybe?

You don't concede that there are theists who don't tell others about their god-beliefs?

I certainly do concede this, but I am wondering how we might know a person is a theist if they are unable to express their beliefs.

Do you actually think it's possible for a human being to hear of every god-concept... let alone know enough about it to evaluate it and decide that it's false?

Not at all.

 

[sojourner]

In my opinion the main problem here is that such a high percentage of the population believe in a God or Gods. This makes being an "atheist" seem like it's something. Like it's a stance or a position, rather than just an absence of a certain belief.

No one calls people who don't believe in the boogeyman "aboogeymanists" or those who don't believe in levitation "atelekinesisists." That's because for the vast majority, the idea of the boogeyman or moving objects with your mind is immediately rejected. There doesn't seem to be a need to associate yourself with a lack of belief in these things because no one believes in these things. You're not an aboogeymanist because you say so, you're an aboogeymanist because you don't believe in the boogeyman, regardless of whether you say so or not.

But since so many people believe in God being an atheist seems like something more than being an aboogeymanist, when really it isn't anything more.

But don't mind me, I can argue about nonsense all day.

We don't call babies "anti-trust," or "pro-democracy," or anti-communist," or "anti-abortion." Why? because those are stances with regard to concepts. So is atheism. You're likewise an atheist because you don't believe in a deity. but you have to actually be able to cognate "deity" before you can "not believe in it."

 

[PackJason]

you have to actually be able to cognate "deity" before you can "not believe in it."

This doesn't make sense.

You don't believe in countess things/ideas/creeds that you have never heard of precisely because you have never heard of them.

 

[Grumpuss]

And yet people seem to have no problem with calling a baby a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child."

Perhaps those poor children are afflicted with parents of a wrong or abusive religion.

 

[viole]

And yet people seem to have no problem with calling a baby a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child."

Yet, I never heard of an atheist child, in case of a child born into an atheist family.

Belief seems to be inherited, while disbelief does not seem to be.

I always wondered why.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Grumpuss]

This doesn't make sense.

You don't believe in countess things/ideas/creeds that you have never heard of precisely because you have never heard of them.

This is precisely why missionary work is so important to me. Through incredible sacrifice, priests were delivered by God to places like South America and Africa to deliver those poor savages from their unknowing sin into His graces!

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
G-d always existed.

I know that's what people believe in your religion.

That is what every human should naturally believe. Muslims are very natural, true.
Regards

 

[PackJason]

Belief seems to be inherited, while disbelief does not seem to be.

Exactly. Disbelief is the default position.