"Humans are born as atheists"

[Valjean]

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."

the "a" in atheism doesn't denote "anti," it denotes simple absence. You're redefining our working definition. Likewise, "~ism" doesn't denote a cognitive formation, it denotes a state of being.

You asked, what qualifies someone as an atheist?
I say, someone who rejects theism.

That's fine, but it's not the definition the atheists here are working from, and it's not the definition the "born atheist" OP is working from.

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."

Again, the "a" in atheism does not denoteanti, it denotes without.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, belief is a choice, but a lack of belief is not.

Yes, it is. Belief or not is a choice, because both stances are the same cognitive function.

Full requires a content, empty does not.

yes it does. Do. The. Math. The value of "empty" might be 0, but it's still an assignable and understandable value that defines "empty."

Atheism, as it's being used here, is the default position; the empty box.

The emptiness still has a value, and, as such, is not a "default position." If you've never seen the box, you don't know whether it's empty or full. if you've never heard of deity, you wouldn't have any grounds to either believe or disbelieve.

Most of the atheists you talk with in a general forum like this are working from a definition of lack of belief, including lack of awareness or ignorance. Atheism, as it's being used here, is the default position; an empty box.

"Lack of awareness" and "lack of belief" are two different things. That's why we have two different terms for them. Atheism is a lack of theism, not a lack of knowledge of theism.

 

[sojourner]

Going in circles. It all comes down to this: Babies do not have a belief in a god or gods. If they don't have a belief, they have a lack of belief. The only way you can get around that is through mental gymnastics. End of story.

No. Babies do not have an awareness of deity. A "lack of belief" isn't the same thing as a "lack of theism" to begin with. "Belief" and "theism" aren't the same thing, either. People are atheists precisely because they have heard about the concept of deity and they cognitively reject that idea. It's a completely different function of the brain from a baby blithely playing with its toes, completely unaware of the concept. Unawareness and disbelief are two different functions of the brain.

 

[sojourner]

You don't disbelieve in it, you just don't believe in it. You have no belief in it. It's impossible to believe in something you've never heard of.

Just as it's impossible to disbelieve something you've never heard of. and that's what atheism is: disbelief in the concept of deity. If you don't know the concept, you can't disbelieve it.

 

[Valjean]

Religion existed when the stage came when humans (to be) were known to be human and called as such, in that sense humans believed in G-d as soon as they became human.
Regards

And where did you get your anthropology degree?
In primitive societies there is no "religion," as such. Worldview, custom, tradition, religion and propriety are all inextricably intertwined. It's only in more complex cultures that life divides into separate compartments.

I am not sure. It is like saying that crying all night and throwing spaghetti sauce all over the place is the default position

Sorry, I don't see the analogy.

Natural is very natural. Belief in G-d is very natural, not believing in G-d is artificial or man-made.
Regards

I think you've got that backwards, Paarsurrey. Religious beliefs are learned.

 

[sojourner]

the "a" in atheism doesn't denote "anti," it denotes simple absence. You're redefining our working definition. Likewise, "~ism" doesn't denote a cognitive formation, it denotes a state of being.

Again, the "a" in atheism does not denoteanti, it denotes without.

'K. Let's run with that, then. How in the world can one be "without" a concept they don't know exists? "Without" is a position relative to something else (the opposite of "within"). If the qualifying something doesn't exist, there is no position to be taken, hence, the person cannot, by definition, be "without" something they have no awareness of.

If someone presents a completely new concept to me, say, someone says, "There exists a life-form composed of a heretofore unknown element and possessing a sex that is neither male nor female. Do you believe that?" I'd have to honestly answer, "I don't know. I'd have to learn the unknowns before I can either believe or disbelieve it." to just dismiss something out of hand, because it "sounds wonky" isn't responsible cognition, it's laziness. Most atheists I know have taken a look at the theology, find it sorely lacking, and make a value judgement based on that lack. IOW, they take a position, or stance, on a known entity. Babies just don't do that. Therefore, if the former is an "atheist," babies must be something ... else. I have suggested "ignorant."

 

[Valjean]

No, that would make "ignorance" not "disbelief" the default. One can't make a value judgment of belief either way if a thing is unknown.

"Disbelief " is ambiguous. If you mean rejection of a belief, then it's not the default. If you mean lack of belief, then it is.
"Ignorance," it seems to me, is always a default position. One starts out gnorant, and learns. A box starts out empty, then is filled.

No, I don't have a "lack of belief." What I have is a "lack of knowledge." Belief is a function of assigning value. One can't assign value, either plus or minus, to something that is not conceived.

Belief is awareness or knowledge, not value.

 

[Willamena]

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.

That doesn't make sense. If you've never heard of them they effectively don't exist, so you can't believe in them. "Can't believe" is not equal to "don't believe."

 

[Willamena]

To believe in it, you'd have to know about it. There are an infinite number of things, real and imaginary, that you don't know about, and therefore, don't believe in.

Not just infinite--it invokes the principle of explosion.

 

[Valjean]

I think the people who first made up gods were the first people trying to figure out what life and the cosmos were all about. They were not scientifically minded and saw no problems with jumping to impressive conclusions. Whoever's story sounded the best to the rest of the tribe, their story would stick and a hierarchy is started.

Many people have an overactive agent-detection system. It's a relic of our Pleistocene evolution. Safer to assume a rustle in the bushes is a saber-tooth than a bird. Safer to overreact.
A tendency to accept the possibility of invisible beings has become hard-wired into our brains. Google "psychology: princess alice."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21377689

the inhibitory effects of being told about Princess Alice were equivalent to having a real adult present.

This leaves us ripe for belief in the imaginary, sans evidence.

Wrong.
One is not entitled to inherit disbelief because it is artificial, not a permanent property/ownership of a child.
Regards

Only when you define "dis" as a rejection of an extant belief.

 

[Demonslayer]

How in the world can one be "without" a concept they don't know exists?

If you don't know it exists, of course you are without the concept. Before penicillin was discovered no one knew it existed. We were all without the concept of penicillin.

 

[`mud]

I still like the nipple concept the best !
~
'mud

 

[Augustus]

Lots of people here like to claim that atheism is a 'lack of belief', and that they themselves 'lack belief' in the existence of god, rather than hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

They also then claim that babies are atheists, as babies also 'lack belief'. To presuppose that babies 'lack belief', implicitly requires one to believe that there is no god though, as if there were a god then it is indeed possible for babies to believe in god.

If you accept there is a possibility that god exists, no matter how improbable, then do you not also have to accept that babies could believe in god, no matter how improbable this is?

If you withhold judgement on the existence of god, then to remain logically consistent you should also withhold judgement on whether or not babies believe in god should you not?

To claim babies are atheists you have to both believe atheism in general is a 'lack of belief', and also hold the personal belief that god doesn't exist. This is a logically defensible position. The alternative is not.

 

[PackJason]

No. Babies do not have an awareness of deity. A "lack of belief" isn't the same thing as a "lack of theism" to begin with. "Belief" and "theism" aren't the same thing, either. People are atheists precisely because they have heard about the concept of deity and they cognitively reject that idea. It's a completely different function of the brain from a baby blithely playing with its toes, completely unaware of the concept. Unawareness and disbelief are two different functions of the brain.

Look at those mental gymnastics go!

 

[PackJason]

That doesn't make sense. If you've never heard of them they effectively don't exist, so you can't believe in them. "Can't believe" is not equal to "don't believe."

I have no idea what this means.

 

[lovesong]

No, atheism is not a stance. I wouldn't call a baby pro-democracy, but I would call them apolitical.

I agree. Atheist means a lack of a belief in deity. Atheists have go god, and babies indeed have no god. Claiming that because they don't know there are any gods to have a disbelief in doesn't change the fact that they still don't believe in them. Someone who doesn't know that meat is edible is still a vegetarian.

 

[McBell]

(It should be pointed out that mere lack of belief doesn't necessarily make an atheist; dogs and cats also lack a belief in god.) .

I have to disagree.
I have a lack of belief either way, but I am still an atheist.

Don't get me wrong.
Saying a baby, a cat, a dog, a rock, a computer, etc. is atheist is meaningless.
Except to those who get all up in arms over it.
But people who get all up in arms over it are usually not able to carry on a meaningful, productive conversation on the topic anyway.

 

[Valjean]

...if you've never heard of deity, you wouldn't have any grounds to either believe or disbelieve.

????
You start out without belief -- that's the default position. If you've never heard of deity then you 'disbelieve' -- in the sense of lack, not in the sense of reject.

"Lack of awareness" and "lack of belief" are two different things. That's why we have two different terms for them. Atheism is a lack of theism, not a lack of knowledge of theism.

But lack of awareness presupposes lack of belief. It's hard to believe in something you're not aware of.
Yes, atheism is a lack of theism, and theism is learned. Lack of knowledge of theism presupposes a lack of theism.

No. Babies do not have an awareness of deity. A "lack of belief" isn't the same thing as a "lack of theism" to begin with. "Belief" and "theism" aren't the same thing, either. People are atheists precisely because they have heard about the concept of deity and they cognitively reject that idea. It's a completely different function of the brain from a baby blithely playing with its toes, completely unaware of the concept. Unawareness and disbelief are two different functions of the brain.

You're doing it again, Sojourner. Using alternate definitions and confusing things.
How many times do I need to re-iterate? Atheism isn't being used here to mean rejection. Our working definition implies simple absence. Atheists rarely use atheism to mean rejection of theism, that would be strong atheism, a small, specilised subset.

'K. Let's run with that, then. How in the world can one be "without" a concept they don't know exists? "Without" is a position relative to something else (the opposite of "within"). If the qualifying something doesn't exist, there is no position to be taken, hence, the person cannot, by definition, be "without" something they have no awareness of.

So, if I have no idea what "flugmith" is, then, the trunk of my car can't be empty of/without flugmith?
You really don't get the blank slate' or 'default' concepts.

If someone presents a completely new concept to me, say, someone says, "There exists a life-form composed of a heretofore unknown element and possessing a sex that is neither male nor female. Do you believe that?" I'd have to honestly answer, "I don't know. I'd have to learn the unknowns before I can either believe or disbelieve it." to just dismiss something out of hand, because it "sounds wonky" isn't responsible cognition, it's laziness. Most atheists I know have taken a look at the theology, find it sorely lacking, and make a value judgement based on that lack. IOW, they take a position, or stance, on a known entity. Babies just don't do that. Therefore, if the former is an "atheist," babies must be something ... else. I have suggested "ignorant."

Most atheists you know are clearly strong atheists. We're not talking about strong atheism here. We're talking about basic, weak atheism; atheism per se. The atheists here, and the atheists who hold that babies are atheist, are not working from this definition.
Those who are ignorant of God or theism are, by the definition most of us are using, atheist.

That doesn't make sense. If you've never heard of them they effectively don't exist, so you can't believe in them. "Can't believe" is not equal to "don't believe."

If one can't believe, wouldn't it logically follow that they don't believe?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet there are no Mayans today.

That is not true. They still exist today, though their numbers are much smaller.

Two wrongs do not make a right. A culture that is barbaric in the modern age is allowed to be called "barbaric". Actually going in, arresting or reforming elements of it is a different beast to tame.

What do you consider our own culture? We are our own greatest threat to each other, cities like Chicago and Indianapolis have frightening murder rates, we repress entire nations for our own economic gains, and we're destroying the planet for a dollar.
But that's going off topic.

 

[McBell]

No, I'm sorry, but they aren't. I have no idea where this idea could have come from other then poor reasoning or ignorance of psychology. The entire concept of there being or not being a god is abstract, and requires abstract reasoning. An object that cannot think about such questions, such as plants, would never be considered atheists with intellectual honesty. Yet babies are the same way, entirely mechanistic and bound to conditioning et al, unable to even understand that their parents can be wrong about things. They can only even understand the concept of right and wrong, on their own, once abstract reasoning begins to develop (7-12). I'd go as far as to say a first grader rambling about Jesus is not even Christian, they're simply running on a program. If I make a program that always responds to questions from an atheistic perspective, the program and computer are still not atheists.

Beside the simple fact that kids have no idea what we're even really discussing, the fact is that atheism requires making a judgement call. I'm not saying anything more than atheists consciously weight evidence and arguments to decided there probably is no god, so please save the straw men. A baby cannot make a judgement call, as we said they can't even really grapple with morality and values anyway. If you explain the cosmological argument to a baby, and explain why it's invalid/valid, they won't understand. They're incapable. They're going to **** their pants then wander the room aimlessly. While I'd love to make a joke right now, this is not what the atheist does.

I wonder just how many threads will have to be started before people are able to grasp the idea that not only is there more than one definition of "atheist", but that one of those definitions is "lack of a belief in or against any and all deities"...?