"Humans are born as atheists"

[leibowde84]

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

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

But, to "lack" means to "be without". Thus, atheism can be the absence or lack of belief in god or gods.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

All babies are born atheists, but only those who are not? Doesn't all babies pertain to all babies? So all babies born in American are Americans, but we exclude all other babies in this particular comparison? That's not right. That's why the comparison is flawed.

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

So you have people becoming illiterate later in life and make a good point about it? Writing books about how beneficial it is to be illiterate and that literate is a stupid thing to be?

Don't think that's any better. In other words, atheists are ignorant and illiterate, that's the conclusion. And I find that to be offensive to those who became atheists through real life experience and made a decision to call themselves atheist, because it used to mean something. Now it doesn't. You can believe whatever you want about these things, but I only share my view.

And when we die, we all become atheists... isn't that great? Or more accurate, we become illiterate ignorant atheist Americans, if we should believe these analogies.

--

Besides, my post was a response to Falvlun that 9/10Penguine responded to. I know where you stand. And I know where 9/10th and Artie stand. Hopefully, you know where I stand. We have nothing to really contribute to each other in this discussion. I rather discuss it with other people who I never talked with before about this. Neither you or I will change our mind about this anyway. So I'm not going to argue fitness of analogies or not.

 

[Willamena]

But, to "lack" means to "be without". Thus, atheism can be the absence or lack of belief in god or gods.

The question was about atheism's statement.

If it's to be that belief in god or gods is absent, then that's it. That's the statement.

 

[ArtieE]

And I find that to be offensive to those who became atheists through real life experience and made a decision to call themselves atheist, because it used to mean something. Now it doesn't.

Oh boohoo. Call yourself a strong atheist then and tell everybody about your life experiences and why you decided to call yourself a strong atheist. Problem solved.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh boohoo. Call yourself a strong atheist then and tell everybody about your life experiences and why you decided to call yourself a strong atheist. Problem solved.

You know where I stand. I know where you stand. My response was to Falvlun here, and I'm more interested in sharing views with him.

And your derogatory attitude has been noted.

 

[Willamena]

Oh boohoo. Call yourself a strong atheist then and tell everybody about your life experiences and why you decided to call yourself a strong atheist. Problem solved.

Because it's not like we can call ourselves atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Because it's not like we can call ourselves atheists.

That's right. I effectively stopped calling myself atheist after all these debates.

 

[Falvlun]

Hey the more the merrier!

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.

In addition to ignorance (those who have never heard of a god concept), I would include inability (like a baby), apathy (someone who hasn't bothered to think about it), and possibly indecision ("casual" agnosticism). These groups can legitimately be said to have a "lack of belief" in regards to the existence of gods.

I don't find these conditions to be inferior or worthy of derisision. But like you, neither can I comprehend how someone who has come to a considered decision can (or want to) label it as a "lack of belief", as if their decision is the same as being unable to make a decision, or not understanding the decision, or never thinking about the decision.

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.

Interesting point, and evidence that atheism is in fact something to people who self-describe as atheists.

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.

Me neither. Why argue so passionately about why you don't believe in gods if you then just turn around and claim that your position is no different than that of a baby?

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".

My concern lies more with those who have bought into this "lack of belief" label. I think it is an inaccurate representation of what is going on, and represents a misunderstanding of what belief is.

Belief has become a dirty word to many atheists-- I think there is a sentiment that it somehow makes their position sound less logical, or too akin to religious belief, or makes them too committed. But belief isn't the sole realm of religion; it encompasses our entire worldview. Beliefs can be, and ought to be, supported by reason and evidence. And importantly, you do not need to be 100% certain of something-- you do not need to claim knowledge-- to believe something.

A new label is needed for those who are atheists based on philosophical grounds.

I think "atheism" is a fine label, if only we could hijack it back from those who wish it to be a meaningless term.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I specifically used the word "atheism" there, not "atheist". The definition for "atheism" presented was the condition of lacking a belief in the existence of gods. It's been reiterated ad nauseum that this is the only criteria.

Again, perhaps you should examine your preferred definition rather than getting upset with me for its implications. If your definition for atheism (and perhaps more importantly, the arguments made in support of it), allows for rocks, then maybe the problem is with the definition.

But you are more than free to ignore the rocks and dogs and ants and just concentrate on babies. The problem persists even without the addition of rocks.

 

[Ouroboros]

Belief has become a dirty word to many atheists--

Very true. I think that's part of the problem or reason to this trend.

I think "atheism" is a fine label, if only we could hijack it back from those who wish it to be a meaningless term.

I wish. I gave up after the umpteenth ad hominem posted my way.

 

[leibowde84]

Very true. I think that's part of the problem or reason to this trend.


I wish. I gave up after the umpteenth ad hominem posted my way.

The other side of that coin is the fact that atheists who merely lack a belief in God's existence due to lack of evidence (withholding belief) will be wrongly characterized.

 

[Falvlun]

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?

The question that is left unanswered by the "lack of belief" definition isn't "why do you reject gods?" It's "What do you believe?" The whole purpose of such a label (IMO) is to answer that question. If it fails to answer it, then it fails as a useful label.

 

[leibowde84]

The question that is left unanswered by the "lack of belief" definition isn't "why do you reject gods?" It's "What do you believe?" The whole purpose of such a label (IMO) is to answer that question. If it fails to answer it, then it fails as a useful label.

This is where your reasoning seems flawed. Atheism is not a label that signifies belief, but, rather the absence of specific beliefs.

The term theism doesn't answer that question well either, as there are a multitude of deities that the subject might believe in.

 

[Willamena]

The other side of that coin is the fact that atheists who merely lack a belief in God's existence due to lack of evidence (withholding belief) will be wrongly characterized.

We don't have to characterize everyone in a term about belief in god. We don't have to characterize the guy on the desert island who's never heard of a "god," or rocks, or babies.

 

[Ouroboros]

The other side of that coin is the fact that atheists who merely lack a belief in God's existence due to lack of evidence (withholding belief) will be wrongly characterized.

I don't consider them straight out atheists. To me, the term we used to use in the past was non-believers, simple as that. No need for a philosophical categorization. Atheism was and is a philosophy, and I will maintain and continue to see it that way. We studied atheism in philosophy class, not preschool. Generally speaking, -ism are to describe people's position, attitude, status of mind, etc, not the lack thereof. Sure, there might be exceptions (I'm not sure of any, but you can provide one if you so like), but in most cases, an -ism/-ist is something that people become in one way or another. Not something they're by default.

 

[leibowde84]

We don't have to characterize everyone in a term about belief in god. We don't have to characterize the guy on the desert island who's never heard of a "god," or rocks, or babies.

I agree, we don't have to. I just think it is most accurate to use the word generally.

 

[Willamena]

We don't have to characterize everyone in a term about belief in god. We don't have to characterize the guy on the desert island who's never heard of a "god," or rocks, or babies.

Further to this: yes, if you have a need to characterize the guy on the island in terms of god, then calling him "atheist" can be appropriate. But only if you have that literary need.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Are you denying that "agnostic" is used by many people to indicate that they haven't made up their minds as to whether they believe gods exist or not?

Your last sentence follows from the philosophical" definition. but what about the "casual" definition?

 

[Willamena]

Further to this: yes, if you have a need to characterize the guy on the island in terms of god, then calling him "atheist" can be appropriate. But only if you have that literary need.

I guess you could say he is "born" an atheist when the literary need arises for him to be addressed in terms about belief in god.

Amen.

 

[Sapiens]

The default is atheism. You need to develop a specific idea of God, what that being is like, etc. to be considered a theist. babies have no such ideas until they are taught.

So are you saying that they are born believing in God?

Because if not, they are atheists until they are indoctrinated by parents, religious leaders, etc.

I agree.

Belief in imaginary agents seem to be an evolutionary adaptation.

Ciao

- viole

Babies are born with "gods," they are called parents. I have long suspected that the use of familial terms for deities, "Earth Mother," "Our Father", etc. are carry-overs from the infintile state, not unlike other evolutionary carry-overs that despite having fulfilled their purpose of raising the fitness of the young organism do not, at older age, reduce fitness enough (or at all) to be selected against.

If babies are born with souls of awaiting angels, then they most certainly are not atheists.

The critical word in your sentence is "if." If my grandmother had two wheels she'd be a bicycle, she doesn't and isn't.

Do babies believe there is no god? Do babies deny there is a god? Do babies reject the claim that god exists? Do babies dismiss the idea of god? Do babies challenge the notion of god?

These are all things atheists commonly do. Name one thing babies do that puts them in the same camp as atheists. (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.).

Cats are solitary, they have no gods (if a cat lives in your house you know that you are there to serve), unlike dogs, who have a "god" figure, their pack leader.