"Humans are born as atheists"

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

We start out not even knowing of our own existence as a self or individual. How can it be said we are born as atheists or theists when we don't even have a concept of "I?"

 

[PackJason]

We start out not even knowing of our own existence as a self or individual. How can it be said we are born as atheists or theists when we don't even have a concept of "I?"

I think you answered your own question.

 

[Valjean]

We start out not even knowing of our own existence as a self or individual. How can it be said we are born as atheists or theists when we don't even have a concept of "I?"

That's what atheism is -- a lack of a concept. They don't have a concept of politics, either. Therefore, they're apolitical.

 

[Serenity Now]

That's what atheism is -- a lack of a concept. They don't have a concept of politics, either. Therefore, they're apolitical.

Hmmm....maybe they should be disqualified to vote!

 

[Willamena]

????
You start out without belief -- that's the default position.

Despite how we use the word in English, belief isn't a commodity. It's your recognition of the truth of a thing, and we do not start out in a false world.

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

No. "Can't believe" is to ignorance as "don't believe" is to "may believe."

 

[Valjean]

Despite how we use the word in English, belief isn't a commodity. It's your recognition of the truth of a thing, and we do not start out in a false world.

A baby doesn't recognise the truth of anything.

No. "Can't believe" is to ignorance as "don't believe" is to "may believe."

Not sure I'm following.
Can't either expression apply both to ignorance of a thing or rejection of a thing?

 

[Willamena]

A baby doesn't recognise the truth of anything.

I imagine that until it learns to cognize it neither believes nor disbelieves.

Not sure I'm following.
Can't either expression apply both to ignorance of a thing or rejection of a thing?

No.
As evidenced by how calling the baby "atheist" sounds so absurd to some people's ears that they feel compelled to argue it on the Internet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's what atheism is -- a lack of a concept. They don't have a concept of politics, either. Therefore, they're apolitical.

Babies are more of a blank slate than anything. Left to their own, free of cultural influence, they may or may not develop atheist views or theist views. The idea of a god may never even cross their minds.

A baby doesn't recognise the truth of anything.

And they don't even realize that "I exist." How can we accurately apply any labels to an entity that is not even aware of its own existence? We can say there is a bundle of possibilities, we can deduce what is more likely based on culture, but a baby is nothing more than a baby until they begin mimicking behaviors and learning about their world/culture.

 

[Valjean]

I imagine that until it learns to cognize it neither believes nor disbelieves.

If by disbelieve you mean "does not believe." I'd agree -- and that lack of belief would make it an atheist.

No.
As evidenced by how calling the baby "atheist" sounds so absurd to some people's ears that they feel compelled to argue it on the Internet.

Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity. http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity
It may sound absurd, and it may be a rarely used concept, but it is apt. You hear it come up from time to time because it illustrates the idea of atheism as the ontological default position so strikingly.

 

[psychoslice]

To be comfortable with one's ignorance helps prevent the urge to prematurely
leap to answers about the ultimate question of life, the universe, & everything.

Yes that is certainly worth being ignorant about.

 

[Willamena]

If by disbelieve you mean "does not believe." I'd agree -- and that lack of belief would make it an atheist.

I suggested that the infant neither believes nor disbelieves.

Sounds like an argument from personal incredulity. http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity

It's not. It's evidence to support how the phrases are used.

It may sound absurd, and it may be a rarely used concept, but it is apt. You hear it come up from time to time because it illustrates the idea of atheism as the ontological default position so strikingly.

 

[Valjean]

I suggested that the infant neither believes nor disbelieves

See post 309. Disbelieve can mean two different things.
If you neither believe nor disbelieve, doesn't that make you without belief and, therefore, atheist?

 

[Willamena]

See post 309. Disbelieve can mean two different things.
If you neither believe nor disbelieve, doesn't that make you without belief and, therefore, atheist?

No, it doesn't.

 

[sojourner]

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.

But that lack of belief is a stance, because the person has been presented with the concept of deity, and takes a stance of non-belief in the face of having been presented with the concept. it's a cognitive exercise. It doesn't just happen by magic. One decides to not believe. Where I get stuck is when someone says that babies are atheists, just the same as an adult. The sticky wicket is that the infants' apparent "lack of belief" is not a product of the same mental process. They have not been presented with any concept, and have not cognitively decided not to believe the concept. The two processes are completely different. How? Where? Why?

The answer must be that, if we look at what constitutes belief, we find that belief is a cognitive "buy-in." It's a buy-in to a concept: "I believe in the God-concept." Unbelief, or "lack of belief," is a cognitive "buy-out" to a concept: "I don't believe in the God-concept." I looked at two definitions of "belief." They are:

1) an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 2) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

and:

1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. 2) something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group. 3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

All of these choices point to the truth of my assertion that belief is a cognitive process related to concepts. Look at the 3rd choice of definition #2: "Conviction of the truth of some statement (concept) or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence." The process of belief is tied to awareness of a concept, and an examination of that concept. Then one decides to either believe, or not. Unbelief must be similarly based in an examination of a concept. As I stated, people are presented with the God-concept and they decide to not believe it.

Babies have no such cognitive awareness. They cannot grasp such concepts. To them, the concept does not exist. Since they can't be presented with the concept and, since they can't examine the concept, they can't decide whether to buy in or buy out. Babies don't "lack belief." Because, for them, the concept doesn't exist in the first place. We can't talk "baby" and "God-concept" in the same breath. The two are incompatible, and "God-concept" does not exist where babies are concerned, meaning that their "belief" is a completely moot point. Since theism is a concept that babies cannot grasp, babies cannot be either theist or a-theist. Why? Because belief (and disbelief) are closely tied to awareness of a concept. Where there is no awareness, the belief process -- whether buy-in or buy-out is simply not possible.

I think we're getting hung up on the parsing out of terms, specifically, "lack of belief." Some here insist that "lack of belief" means what babies experience: a lack of the process of the buy-in. But that doesn't hold true in the case of adults. If babies are atheist (according to the prevailing understanding), then adults who have examined and decided not to believe what they have been presented with cannot, by definition, be atheist. Because there is no lack of the process. There is, for them, a process. Therefore, they must, by that definition, be ... something else. What? What are they, if not atheist? They actively dis-agree. Babies (atheist) passively have no concept. IOW, if "atheist" is a passive lack of concept, what is an active disagreement with a concept? It's not atheism, by the definition insisted upon here. Y'all can't have it both ways. Either babies are atheist and adults are not, or adults are atheist, and babies are not. I still think that "atheist" means more than simply "lack of belief." In order to be atheist, one must examine theism and reject it. And it is that process of action that defines "atheist."

 

[sojourner]

So, if I have no idea what "flugmith" is, then, the trunk of my car can't be empty of/without flugmith?

No. If you have never encountered "flugmuth," flugmuth is simply not available for you to either believe or not believe. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the trunk of your car. However, if someone brings up the concept of "flugmuth," then you have opportunity to examine the concept and not believe. That's atheism. Atheism is predicated upon an examination of a concept. There is no such thing as "weak" and "strong" atheism. It's the word "lack" that's hanging us up. In this case, "lack" relates closely to a negative, and not to nonexistence. A baby has a lack of belief, because a baby cannot engage the process of belief. An atheist has a disbelief, and not simply a lack of the belief process. Why? Because an atheist does examine the concept and actively rejects it.

 

[sojourner]

See post 309. Disbelieve can mean two different things.
If you neither believe nor disbelieve, doesn't that make you without belief and, therefore, atheist?

"Disbelieve" is an active, cognitive process. Babies don't "disbelieve." Babies simply have no concept.

 

[sojourner]

Saying a baby, a cat, a dog, a rock, a computer, etc. is atheist is meaningless.

Why? Why is saying that "meaningless?" Because the baby, cat, dog, rock, computer can't/don't/won't ... what??

 

[sojourner]

Belief is awareness or knowledge, not value.

Not according to the dictionary definition. "Awareness" and "knowledge" are not mentioned. According to the definition, belief is a position -- a buy-in. IOW, some value is given to the concept so examined, either positive or negative.

 

[Valjean]

But that lack of belief is a stance, because the person has been presented with the concept of deity, and takes a stance of non-belief in the face of having been presented with the concept. it's a cognitive exercise. It doesn't just happen by magic. One decides to not believe. Where I get stuck is when someone says that babies are atheists, just the same as an adult. The sticky wicket is that the infants' apparent "lack of belief" is not a product of the same mental process. They have not been presented with any concept, and have not cognitively decided not to believe the concept. The two processes are completely different. How? Where? Why?

The answer must be that, if we look at what constitutes belief, we find that belief is a cognitive "buy-in." It's a buy-in to a concept: "I believe in the God-concept." Unbelief, or "lack of belief," is a cognitive "buy-out" to a concept: "I don't believe in the God-concept." I looked at two definitions of "belief." They are:

1) an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 2) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

and:

1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. 2) something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group. 3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

All of these choices point to the truth of my assertion that belief is a cognitive process related to concepts. Look at the 3rd choice of definition #2: "Conviction of the truth of some statement (concept) or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence." The process of belief is tied to awareness of a concept, and an examination of that concept. Then one decides to either believe, or not. Unbelief must be similarly based in an examination of a concept. As I stated, people are presented with the God-concept and they decide to not believe it.

Babies have no such cognitive awareness. They cannot grasp such concepts. To them, the concept does not exist. Since they can't be presented with the concept and, since they can't examine the concept, they can't decide whether to buy in or buy out. Babies don't "lack belief." Because, for them, the concept doesn't exist in the first place. We can't talk "baby" and "God-concept" in the same breath. The two are incompatible, and "God-concept" does not exist where babies are concerned, meaning that their "belief" is a completely moot point. Since theism is a concept that babies cannot grasp, babies cannot be either theist or a-theist. Why? Because belief (and disbelief) are closely tied to awareness of a concept. Where there is no awareness, the belief process -- whether buy-in or buy-out is simply not possible.

I think we're getting hung up on the parsing out of terms, specifically, "lack of belief." Some here insist that "lack of belief" means what babies experience: a lack of the process of the buy-in. But that doesn't hold true in the case of adults. If babies are atheist (according to the prevailing understanding), then adults who have examined and decided not to believe what they have been presented with cannot, by definition, be atheist. Because there is no lack of the process. There is, for them, a process. Therefore, they must, by that definition, be ... something else. What? What are they, if not atheist? They actively dis-agree. Babies (atheist) passively have no concept. IOW, if "atheist" is a passive lack of concept, what is an active disagreement with a concept? It's not atheism, by the definition insisted upon here. Y'all can't have it both ways. Either babies are atheist and adults are not, or adults are atheist, and babies are not. I still think that "atheist" means more than simply "lack of belief." In order to be atheist, one must examine theism and reject it. And it is that process of action that defines "atheist."

Belief may be a cognitive buy-in, but I don't see why non-belief need be an active process at all. A lack of awareness is a lack of belief, and a lack, however it came about, choice or default, is to be without. Being without belief is the sine qua non of atheism.
Atheism is both a passive lack of concept and an active rejection; weak vs strong atheism. As long as there's no belief, it's atheism.
A new or erased slate is just as blank.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
The Christian people who follow the ideology of Paul, believe Jesus a god, while Jesus himself did not believe that he was god, he could not as he was a Jew. Just to differentiate from them I write G-d, omitting the vowel.
Thanks and regards

The funny part is that Paul is older than the gospels. Therefore, the concept that "Jesus is God" is older than the concept that "Jesus is not God." so, it's quite likely (since Paul was a Jew) that Jesus-as-God was a known concept while Jesus was alive.

This is because Paul and the Church got hold of anonymous accounts, doctored them as per their invented religion and published them later.
Regards