"Humans are born as atheists"

[Willamena]

With regards to all gods?

Any god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any god.

And are all atheists "strong explicit atheists"?

IMO, "strong explicit atheism" is only possible in one of two cases:

- the person disbelieves in much more than gods to the point that questions about what counts as a god or not become moot, since the person disbelieves in absolutely anything that they think could reasonably be called a god.

- the person has their own definition for what "god" means to them, and it allows them to reject gods as a group.

Either of these approaches have problems when we try to apply them to atheism generally.

 

[Willamena]

And are all atheists "strong explicit atheists"?

No. But atheists are atheists, whether they deny god or not.

IMO, "strong explicit atheism" is only possible in one of two cases:

- the person disbelieves in much more than gods to the point that questions about what counts as a god or not become moot, since the person disbelieves in absolutely anything that they think could reasonably be called a god.

Like everyone, they know only as much as they know, and are exposed to only as much of the world as their experience allows. They are required to deny nothing more than their own limited existence allows. To allow for more than that is to indulge a realist fantasy about what it means to be a human.

- the person has their own definition for what "god" means to them, and it allows them to reject gods as a group.

As we all do.

Either of these approaches have problems when we try to apply them to atheism generally.

What problem does the second impose (for you)?

 

[atanu]

Please, for the sake of effective communication, go back and actually READ my post before you hit the quote button. I'm only willing to put up with so much of you arguing against positions I haven't taken before I'll just give up on trying to explain things to you.

I have read your post. I am arguing that since you possibly can have no idea about God/gods, defining yourself in terms of lack of belief is not reasonable.

If I do not know what love is, I cannot take a position in terms of its lack.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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 can't say I disagree. Atheism requires a concept of god and the good sense to reject it.

Babies are born with a blank slate! First it's filled with 99% crap and 1% truth. Then the arduous task of filtering out the crap begins. Atheists aren't born. They are a product of continuous thought and reason.

 

[Falvlun]

Wasn't "born atheist" the original assertion being proposed and countered?

This whole discussion comes up regularly, like clockwork, with atheists insisting that atheism, per se, is simply a lack of belief and opponents insisting it's a philosophical denial of God.

Am atheist. Oppose the "lack of belief" definition for atheism. Just wanted to clarify that not all atheists are on board with your preferred definition.

 

[Valjean]

All strong atheists are also weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are strong atheists. There's a definitive feature that runs through the various types of atheism, ie: a feature unique to all members of a class.

 

[LuisDantas]

One does not have to hold any clear understanding of a concept - even such a supremely vague one such as "God" - to know that one is not a believer in its literal existence.

 

[atanu]

Depends on the context, but generally... sure: the fact that babies aren't born believing in gods doesn't really matter for much.

... but I find the way that people make this point about atheism - and generally *only* atheism - interesting. After all, when talking about, say, civilians affected by a war, we can include the babies without anyone questioning whether we should be calling someone a "civilian" if they've never even thought about joining the military.

This helps to focus on the actual problem. With categories like 'civilian' versus 'non civilian', there is no decision making involved on part of the parties that are being classified.

But to similarly classify babies as 'atheists' is irrational. Babies have not decided on the issue.

 

[atanu]

One does not have to hold any clear understanding of a concept - even such a supremely vague one such as "God" - to know that one is not a believer in its literal existence.

Then say directly "I do not believe ...."

 

[ArtieE]

This helps to focus on the actual problem.

There is no problem.

With categories like 'civilian' versus 'non civilian', there is no decision making involved on part of the parties that are being classified.

There is no decision making necessarily involved in 'theist' versus 'not theist' either on the part of the 'not theist'. See the video in post number 488.

 

[ArtieE]

Then say directly "I do not believe ...."

That is what (weak) atheists are saying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have read your post. I am arguing that since you possibly can have no idea about God/gods, defining yourself in terms of lack of belief is not reasonable.

Even someone who lives in New York can say that you don't need to live in New York to be an American.

It seems like you're getting hung up on the characteristics of individual atheists, and that's not what I'm talking about. At this point, I'm not questioning anything about any individual atheist's beliefs; I'm talking specifically about which of an atheists beliefs qualify or disqualify a person as an atheist.

I'm saying that anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist. Many atheists hold strong opinions about gods; I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT. What I'm saying is that those strong opinions aren't what makes these people atheists; they were atheists before they adopted those opinions and will remain atheists until and unless they start believing in one or more gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Am atheist. Oppose the "lack of belief" definition for atheism. Just wanted to clarify that not all atheists are on board with your preferred definition.

If you have managed to reject the existence of all gods, I'd love to hear how you did it... and if the definition of "god" you had to adopt had any unintended consequences (e.g. implying that Christians are polytheists).

Personally, I've run into a few god-concepts that seem to be unfalsifiable (and apparently designed to be so). I know how to reject arguments for these gods, but also I know that true conclusions can be argued for using invalid arguments. I know how to recognize that belief in these gods isn't justified, but I also know that the fact that a belief is unjustified doesn't mean it can't be a serendipitously correct guess.

How have you managed to deal with this problem?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This helps to focus on the actual problem. With categories like 'civilian' versus 'non civilian', there is no decision making involved on part of the parties that are being classified.

But to similarly classify babies as 'atheists' is irrational. Babies have not decided on the issue.

Just as there is no decision that makes a person a civilian, there is no decision that makes a person an atheist.

In either case, the person might adopt a reasoned stance later in opposition to military service or theism, respectively.

Talk to any adult civilian about why they didn't enlist and they'll be able to give you specific reasons... but this doesn't mean that they had to come to these conclusions in order to become a civilian.

It's exactly the same for atheism.

 

[viole]

If you have managed to reject the existence of all gods, I'd love to hear how you did it... and if the definition of "god" you had to adopt had any unintended consequences (e.g. implying that Christians are polytheists).

Personally, I've run into a few god-concepts that seem to be unfalsifiable (and apparently designed to be so). I know how to reject arguments for these gods, but also I know that true conclusions can be argued for using invalid arguments. I know how to recognize that belief in these gods isn't justified, but I also know that the fact that a belief is unjustified doesn't mean it can't be a serendipitously correct guess.

How have you managed to deal with this problem?

Why do we need to reject the existence of all gods? If I say: I believe there is no God, then it is not clear why I have to provide evidence that there is, indeed, no god. I think we are much too scared to inherit the burden of proof and to use the word "belief". For instance, I am not shy in admitting that I believe in extra-terrestrial life even without any evidence that there is life outside this planet.

By the way, the two statements "I believe there is no God" and "there is no God" are logically different. The first could be true and the second could be false without any contradiction. Therefore, the only burden of proof I might suffer here concerns the nature, or justification, of my belief (that there is no God) and not that there is no God.

With "I" is meant here a hypothetical "strong" atheist. My real "I" is a gnostic atheist, for which different justifications apply.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do we need to reject the existence of all gods?

Because many of the people who reject most gods are theists.

If I say: I believe there is no God, then it is not clear why I have to provide evidence that there is, indeed, no god. I think we are much too scared to inherit the burden of proof and to use the word "belief". For instance, I am not shy in admitting that I believe in extra-terrestrial life even without any evidence that there is life outside this planet.

I never said anything about evidence. I'm just talking about beliefs, pretty much like what you describe.

By the way, the two statements "I believe there is no God" and "there is no God" are logically different. The first could be true and the second could be false without any contradiction.

I agree: people can sincerely hold false beliefs.

BTW: I think you're confusing matters by capitalizing "God" in this context.

Therefore, the only burden of proof I might suffer here concerns the nature, or justification, of my belief (that there is no God) and not that there is no God.

Again: I haven't gotten into burden of proof or evidence at all.

When I talk about rejection of gods, all I'm talking about is someone deciding "that's false" or "I think that doesn't exist" in response to some god-concept (or set of god-concepts). I haven't even touched the issue of the person's reasons for their decision.

With "I" is meant here a hypothetical "strong" atheist. My real "I" is a gnostic atheist, for which different justifications apply.

I have no idea what you're trying to express here.

 

[Willamena]

All strong atheists are also weak atheists..

Which is contradiction if weak atheism is defined in terms to place them on a par with rocks and babies.

...but not all weak atheists are strong atheists. There's a definitive feature that runs through the various types of atheism, ie: a feature unique to all members of a class.

Which is... ?

 

[`mud]

That first slap on my arss, reminded me that:
I'm powerless, I feel pain, and I'm really dumb !
Other than that.....fill my gnosis,
with yours !
and then the lightning.....CRAP!!!!!!
Comes the fear.....and the nipple....and GOD.
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

That is what (weak) atheists are saying.

Weak atheism has no voice.