"Humans are born as atheists"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

When we call babies "American", I actually think it's demeaning and derogatory to those who took their time and became Americans through a tough journey. Some Americans chose to immigrate because they believed America is the greatest nation on Earth. They had reasons. They paid the price. Now, their identification is compared to ignorance. Americans now are reduced to people who are ignorant about America and its place in the world. Hence, the label doesn't fit those who spent the effort to become "Americans". A new label is needed for those who are Americans based on philosophical grounds.

Does this make sense? If not, why does your post?

 

[Ouroboros]

When we call babies "American", I actually think it's demeaning and derogatory to those who took their time and became Americans through a tough journey. Some Americans chose to immigrate because they believed America is the greatest nation on Earth. They had reasons. They paid the price. Now, their identification is compared to ignorance. Americans now are reduced to people who are ignorant about America and its place in the world. Hence, the label doesn't fit those who spent the effort to become "Americans". A new label is needed for those who are Americans based on philosophical grounds.

Does this make sense? If not, why does your post?

Not the same thing. Bad comparison.

 

[metis]

I disagree with both definitions.

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.

I'm going with Artie here because that's only one reason why one may be agnostic. Another reason may be that they really don't care, and another may be that they've never been exposed to the concept of "God(s)".

 

[leibowde84]

Its statement is in the dictionary.

How can the absence of something be a statement?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not the same thing. Bad comparison.

Why aren't they the same? From where I sit, the comparison is fair: people can be born American or can become American as a result of their beliefs. Similarly, people can be born atheist or can become atheist as a result of their beliefs. If this demeans the conscientious atheists, why doesn't it demean the conscientious Americans?

 

[leibowde84]

implication is not definition

That's not true. Many descriptive terms can be applied implicitly.

 

[leibowde84]

and babies smile when they dump in their diapers......it feels good and they don't know.....better.

So, what's your point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm going with Artie here because that's only one reason why one may be agnostic. Another reason may be that they really don't care, and another may be that they've never been exposed to the concept of "God(s)".

It isn't a reason to be agnostic; it's the definition of "agnostic".

The term "agnostic" is rather unique: it was coined recently and deliberately, and the term's inventor gave it a very specific definition that became widely accepted... so I accept T.H. Huxley's definition... and not yours.

 

[leibowde84]

To better facilitate this discussion, let me recommend using the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" instead of using "atheism" to cover both, and let me also recommend using these simple definitions:

atheism: a belief that there are no deities

agnosticism: an uncertainty as to whether there are any deities

That would take the discussion out if it, as we are arguing about whether agnosticism is pretty much equivalent to weak atheism.

 

[leibowde84]

To better facilitate this discussion, let me recommend using the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" instead of using "atheism" to cover both, and let me also recommend using these simple definitions:

atheism: a belief that there are no deities

agnosticism: an uncertainty as to whether there are any deities

Below is the meaning I am using for the term "agnostic" to illustrate further.

Full Definition of agnostic (Merriam Webster)

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."

 

[ArtieE]

That would take the discussion out if it, as we are arguing about whether agnosticism is pretty much equivalent to weak atheism.

Difficult to equate agnosticism with weak atheism when you can be both an agnostic theist and an agnostic strong atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

1. It isn't meaningless. The term "atheist" refers to someone who doesn't believe any deities exist. There are many varieties of atheists, just as there are with theism. There are monotheists, agnostic theists, polytheists, strong atheists, weak atheists, implicit atheists, etc.

2. This is a non issue, as a baby is an implicit atheist and many of the contributors here are strong atheists or even militant atheists.

Just as theism is an extremely general term, atheism has many subcategories.

 

[metis]

It isn't a reason to be agnostic; it's the definition of "agnostic".

The term "agnostic" is rather unique: it was coined recently and deliberately, and the term's inventor gave it a very specific definition that became widely accepted... so I accept T.H. Huxley's definition... and not yours.

No worries.

 

[Valjean]

Problems 1 & 2: How meaningful is "empty," "void," "colorless" or "ignorant?" Lots of words denote concepts of lack.
The OP references atheism in infants. It raises the question of atheism as an epistemic default position. Atheism as absence of belief is a meaningful concept in this context.

This whole thread consists of people talking past each other; one side insisting that weak atheism is a meaningless concept and that the term is only properly used to mean a considered theological stance. Another group insists that the sine qua non of atheism is just what the word literally means -- an absence of theism.
As long as this impasse persists this promises to be the never ending thread.

 

[metis]

Below is the meaning I am using for the term "agnostic" to illustrate further.

Full Definition of agnostic (Merriam Webster)

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."

Most two-year olds are probably agnostic but couldn't even begin to articulate something like that. Nor would one not versed in religion probably say anything like that.

Nah, I'll stick with my own definition because it is something simplistic enough for even my pre-two-year old mind to understand.

 

[Willamena]

How can the absence of something be a statement?

Atheism isn't absent.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism isn't absent.

Atheism is the absence of theism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why aren't they the same? From where I sit, the comparison is fair: people can be born American or can become American as a result of their beliefs. Similarly, people can be born atheist or can become atheist as a result of their beliefs. If this demeans the conscientious atheists, why doesn't it demean the conscientious Americans?

The difference is that to make it fit, we would have to claim: All babies are born American. Then later in life, they become German, Swedish, Korean, etc. But they're all born American. And they become German by believing that they're German.

It would be unfair to those who are American by birth or by immigration to call all babies in the world American and that it's based on unbelief in something. So what lack of belief makes someone an American? You're American because you lack belief in the other countries?

Also, it would mean that everyone in the world becomes an American when they die. Also, brain dead people are by default American as well, anywhere they live in the world, because they lack belief in the other countries.

In other words, dumb comparison.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is the absence of theism.

No, it's the disbelief or lack or belief in God or gods.

That's its statement, and it's not absent.

 

[leibowde84]

The difference is that to make it fit, we would have to claim: All babies are born American. Then later in life, they become German, Swedish, Korean, etc. But they're all born American. And they become German by believing that they're German.

It would be unfair to those who are American by birth or by immigration to call all babies in the world American and that it's based on unbelief in something. So what lack of belief makes someone an American? You're American because you lack belief in the other countries?

Also, it would mean that everyone in the world becomes an American when they die.

In other words, dumb comparison.

Your comparison here is completely off base. The analogy would only pertain to naturally born us citizens and those that immigrate here to get their citizenship. Other nationalities are irrelevant to the analogy.

I think literacy would be a better comparison. All babies are born illiterate. Some stay that way, some learn to read.