"Humans are born as atheists"

[Willamena]

So in what way is defining theism as "possessing the thought that there is a god" a reference to something I said?

In the comparison of believers to collectors--as if beliefs were something we possess. If I was off the mark, just say so. It's okay to say so.

 

[atanu]

The definition of theist is: "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods". A baby is per definition a person. Hence a baby is per definition an atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods simply because a baby is too young to understand the concept of gods.

Yes. Artie. This is ridiculous. A baby is too young to understand the concept of God and hence he lacks belief and hence it is fit to be called an atheist?

It seems it is never enough to repeat that a baby holds neither a belief nor a disbelief about deity, since a normal baby is not expected to ponder on such a proposition.

(May be some babies were born with wisdom of atheism.)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well explained, thanks. The crux of the argument at the moment varies from author to author, but I think the real problem lies in that some want to interpret atheism as negating having a belief, while others want to negate the belief.

It's the same old story.

Yes, it very much is... Too bad, really.

 

[Willamena]

I think the crux is really that some have the opinion that implicit atheism is a functional term, while others, like me, don't think it's useful at all. My personal preference is that atheism was only to signify explicit atheism and up, and not implicit or default. Years ago, the "implicit atheist" were rather labelled non-believer or non-theist, to signify that they didn't belong to any particular group of "-ism"s. And I'm still stuck in that view that an -ism is something you become or pick, not something you're assigned by others.

Makes sense.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes. Artie. This is ridiculous. A baby is too young to understand the concept of God and hence he lacks belief and hence it is fit to be called an atheist?

Of course. Atheist is just a different way of saying "not theist" and the baby is not a theist...

It seems it is never enough to repeat that a baby holds neither a belief nor a disbelief about deity

Never said that a baby holds a belief or a disbelief. I just say a baby is not a theist. That is what the word atheist literally means. Not theist.

 

[atanu]

....t an -ism is something you become or pick, not something you're assigned by others.

Mostly funny and slanderous nicknames are assigned by others.

 

[Valjean]

If babies are neither theists nor atheists, at what point do they become become one or the other?
Theism is obviously taught, but what is acquired that would turn a baby into an atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

If babies are neither theists nor atheists, at what point do they become become one or the other?
Theism is obviously taught, but what is acquired that would turn a baby into an atheist?

How do you turn a not theist into a not theist?

 

[Willamena]

The word was coined as a riff on the idea of gnosis, but since we have plenty of explanat

Just because a person dislikes a term doesn't mean it can't apply to them.



You mean like the way I disagree with you using the term in a way that implies that a person has to be a fool to be an atheist?


If you want to know why someone who rejects gods believes what he does, you can just ask him in a straightforward way instead of imposing your definition on him and tarring an entire group of people with the same brush.


I believe that the term "god" is defined so incoherently that it can't be called a concept. What does this tell you about my belief in gods?


... if atheism was a belief.

There are plenty of beliefs that can result in atheism. Why not focus on those?


I question your history.

... but yes: when we have a theistic background, atheism stands out against it... like white space in a newspaper.

Atheism is a belief for the hard atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is a belief for the hard atheist.

Hard atheism is a belief.

 

[Willamena]

How do you turn a not theist into a not theist?

'Atheist' should properly be defined in terms of god, not theists.

'Atheism' is not about theists.

 

[Valjean]

How do you turn a not theist into a not theist?

My point exactly.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree that a baby neither believes or disbelieves. My argument is that "atheism" includes anyone who "lacks belief". To lack means to be without. Thus, a baby would be included as a baby is without a belief in the existence of God. The term atheism isn't very meaningful at all. It merely refers to those without belief in any deities.

Personally, I think the very fact that babies (or dogs or ants or rocks) can be included in this definition of atheism indicates that there is something wrong with the definition.

Problem 1
As you say above, the term isn't very meaningful. Why choose a definition that fails to impart meaning? Why purposefully make "atheism" a meaningless term? Wouldn't communication be better served by defining "atheism" in such a way that it imparts useful, meaningful information?

Problem 2
The "lack of belief" of atheists arguing in online debate forums is being equated with the "lack of belief" of babies.

This is borderline equivocation. The "lack of belief" of those who have come to a considered position regarding the existence of gods is quite different than that of a baby. It is not the same thing, and yet all get lumped together using this particular definition of "atheism". Thus we return to problem 1: this definition of atheism encourages conflation, which fosters misunderstanding, leading to the definition not being very useful as it fails to impart accurate information.

 

[Ouroboros]

Mostly funny and slanderous nicknames are assigned by others.

Or medical conditions, example "infantilism", behaving like a child.

 

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I think the very fact that babies (or dogs or ants or rocks) can be included in your definition of atheism indicates that there is something wrong with the definition.

Exactly. Sorry for butting in on your other response, but I just wanted to add support to your points.

It's become a definition that only labels a condition, and it's a condition of ignorance, i.e. not having a brain pattern or synapses that results in something. It's like having to declare the empty glass as "a-full" and make a deal out of it. I have the "a-full" glass, what do you have?

And how come Anthony Flew, considered one of the greater philosophers of atheism, write books about atheism if it's just a lack of something? How many books can a person write about the physics of the "a-full" glass? Flew gave argument to support atheism. He wrote about why and how and the pros and such, not a book about how to reduce belief to a "lack" in the brain. That's easy to do. Just get lobotomized and you're an atheist. No need to discuss. To Flew, atheism wasn't just lack of something, but rather a presence of arguments against religion. Atheism was something to him.

Problem 1
As you say above, the term isn't very meaningful. Why choose a definition that fails to impart meaning? Why purposefully make "atheism" a meaningless term? Wouldn't communication be better served by defining "atheism" in such a way that it imparts useful, meaningful information?

Agree. Why would people identify themselves under this label that only would qualify as a medical condition? It's not even a state of mind. It's the lack of a state of mind. It's a lack of view, which makes it strange that so many have a strong view about this. Why is there such a strong opinion about not having an opinion? I don't get it.

Problem 2
The "lack of belief" of atheists arguing in online debate forums is being equated with the "lack of belief" of babies.

This is borderline equivocation. The "lack of belief" of those who have come to a considered position regarding the existence of gods is quite different than that of a baby. It is not the same thing, and yet all get lumped together using this particular definition of "atheism". Thus we return to problem 1: this definition of atheism encourages conflation, which fosters misunderstanding, leading to the definition not being very useful as it fails to impart accurate information.

Yup. I actually think it's demeaning and derogatory to those who took their time and became atheists through a tough journey. Some atheists lost their faith and belief because they had an experience. They had reasons. They paid the price. Now, they identification is compared to ignorance. Atheists now are reduced to people who are ignorant about God/gods. Hence, the label doesn't fit those who spent the effort to become "atheists". A new label is needed for those who are atheists based on philosophical grounds.

 

[Willamena]

Hard atheism is a belief.

In that vein, everything is a belief.

 

[Falvlun]

Since we've already discussed the word "atheism" to death, I'll just focus on "agnosticism":

agnosticism: the belief that the existence of gods is unknowable.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. An agnostic is a person who doesn't know or claims it can't be known whether gods exist or not.

Just wanted to point out that both of these definitions for "agnosticism" are in circulation and both are useful.

ArtieE's definition is the one most often used by people in casual conversation, to denote someone who hasn't made up their mind yet regarding their belief in the existence of gods.

9-10th Penguin's version is the technical, philosophical version, and denotes a person's beliefs regarding our ability to know something or not.

Which definition is being used depends on context and audience, but if there's the possibility of confusion, I might clarify that I'm using "agnosticism in the philosophical sense" or "agnosticism in the casual sense".

Hope that clarifies!

 

[ArtieE]

Personally, I think the very fact that babies (or dogs or ants or rocks) can be included in this definition of atheism indicates that there is something wrong with the definition.

Personally, I think there is something very wrong with people who think that dogs or ants or rocks can be included in the definition of atheist when the definition of theist specifically mentions "person", "a person who believes in the existence of God or gods" and the word atheist is partly made up of the word theist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Problem 2
The "lack of belief" of atheists arguing in online debate forums is being equated with the "lack of belief" of babies.

This is borderline equivocation. The "lack of belief" of those who have come to a considered position regarding the existence of gods is quite different than that of a baby. It is not the same thing, and yet all get lumped together using this particular definition of "atheism".

It isn't equivocation if you keep it clear what "atheism" means.

We can talk about a baby being French in the same sense as an adult Frenchman is French even if the adult is very patriotic and has given a lot of thought to the French identity and history, and the French baby doesn't even know that he's French. A similar thing is happening with "atheism".

The bottom line: you can have any conversation you want about a person's beliefs without semantic re-jigging. If you want to know why a person rejects gods, just ask "why do you reject gods?" Why get pulled off into a side argument over semantics?

 

[ArtieE]

ArtieE's definition is the one most often used by people in casual conversation, to denote someone who hasn't made up their mind yet regarding their belief in the existence of gods.

Actually, an agnostic says "I don't know if gods exist or not." He says nothing about what he believes. He could be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist having made up his mind what to believe.