"Humans are born as atheists"

[Scuba Pete]

No belief is necessary for atheism.

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnostics don't know and hence don't believe and don't disbelieve (Is there a God???). Theists actively believe (There is a God). Atheists actively disbelieve (There is no God). Theists and atheists both rely on their faith for their respective belief or disbelief. Only agnostics can claim to be without belief.

Yeah, I know that accusing an atheist of having faith is begging for a fight. Denial is not just another river in Egypt. That doesn't change the truth of it.

 

[Willamena]

..

No belief is necessary for atheism. That's my point. All that us required is the absence of belief. If a belief is not actively held, it is absent.

I misread. My bad.

The absence of a belief (a state or statement of belief) is a different context than the absence of belief (the assignment of "true" to a statement).

 

[Skwim]

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnostics don't know and hence don't believe and don't disbelieve (Is there a God???). Theists actively believe (There is a God). Atheists actively disbelieve (There is no God). Theists and atheists both rely on their faith for their respective belief or disbelief. Only agnostics can claim to be without belief.

Yeah, I know that accusing an atheist of having faith is begging for a fight. Denial is not just another river in Egypt. That doesn't change the truth of it.

(Pssst! leibowde84 has his very own definition of "atheism.")


.

 

[Willamena]

What is this supposed to mean. Batman is a name, but what does that have to do with this thread.

This is off-topic, but God isn't God's name. It's a title or arbitrary label.
http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

 

[leibowde84]

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnostics don't know and hence don't believe and don't disbelieve (Is there a God???). Theists actively believe (There is a God). Atheists actively disbelieve (There is no God). Theists and atheists both rely on their faith for their respective belief or disbelief. Only agnostics can claim to be without belief.

Yeah, I know that accusing an atheist of having faith is begging for a fight. Denial is not just another river in Egypt. That doesn't change the truth of it.

You are incorrect, and have fallen to a common misconception. Agnosticism deals with knowledge of God. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. An agnostic atheists is one who lacks belief in God while recognizing that knowledge of God's existence is unattainable.

I would strongly urge you to actually do some research on the term "agnosticism" and what it actually means.

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God ..."

I am an agnostic theist, as I believe in God, but I don't think knowledge of God is possible (in this life, at least). The misconception that one must either be a theist, agnostic, or atheist and they are mutually exclusive is prevalent, but incorrect.

 

[leibowde84]

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnostics don't know and hence don't believe and don't disbelieve (Is there a God???). Theists actively believe (There is a God). Atheists actively disbelieve (There is no God). Theists and atheists both rely on their faith for their respective belief or disbelief. Only agnostics can claim to be without belief.

Yeah, I know that accusing an atheist of having faith is begging for a fight. Denial is not just another river in Egypt. That doesn't change the truth of it.

I'm not an atheist, btw. I just actually tool time to do research on the subject before posting.

 

[leibowde84]

..

I misread. My bad.

The absence of a belief (a state or statement of belief) is a different context than the absence of belief (the assignment of "true" to a statement).

How so?

 

[leibowde84]

(Pssst! leibowde84 has his very own definition of "atheism.")


.

Nope, even Google agrees with me.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

To "lack" means to "be without". No contemplation is necessary to be without any belief. Pretty simple.

 

[leibowde84]

This is off-topic, but God isn't God's name. It's a title or arbitrary label.
http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

He didn't say it was God's name, he said it was a name. Which is true.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, that's precisely what it DOES mean. If you cannot assign a truth value to a claim, you disbelieve the claim by default. Not believing the claim "the number is even" does not equal belief in the claim "the number is odd" - it merely means you don't assign truth value to one prong of a two-pronged dilemma.

For all cases, disbelieving is being unable to assign a truth value for a thing. As in the case of the infant, not being able to assign (truth value or otherwise) is incidental to disbelieving.

I stated it wrong above. My apologies. 'Disbelieve' is being unable to believe. Being unable to assign a truth value is agnostic. (Now I'm getting them mixed up.)

A case could be made for them being the same thing, but it wouldn't be a case about atheism.

Agreed, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Being different things, it would be difficult to make them exclusive.

So does a baby disbelieve the claim that God exists?

The baby has no concept of "god" to assign a truth value to. The baby's state is ignorance.

 

[ArtieE]

That's not correct, Artie.

My original statement was:

We think
1. Theism = with belief
2. Atheism = without belief since the word atheism literally means "without belief"

Willamena thinks
1. Theism = with belief
2. Atheism = believing the opposite of what 1 believes even though the word atheist literally means "without belief"."

If this is not a correct representation of what you think then rewrite it in your own words.

 

[ArtieE]

And "being without belief" in it isn't the same as not believing in it.

It isn't? Isn't everybody who is "without belief" also not believing in it and isn't everybody who is not believing in it also without belief in it?

 

[Willamena]

My original statement was:

We think
1. Theism = with belief
2. Atheism = without belief since the word atheism literally means "without belief"

Willamena thinks
1. Theism = with belief
2. Atheism = believing the opposite of what 1 believes even though the word atheist literally means "without belief"."

If this is not a correct representation of what you think then rewrite it in your own words.

Dictionary definitions work well enough for me.
1. Theism is belief in the existence of god or gods.
2. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.

It's the terms disbelief and lack of belief that have filled most of this thread. The definitions say nothing about a state of belief, or the capacity to believe, which is the context for a baby to be "without" belief.

 

[Willamena]

It isn't? Isn't everybody who is "without belief" also not believing in it and isn't everybody who is not believing in it also without belief in it?

The crux of our disagreement, Artie, is what "without belief" refers to.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not an atheist, btw. I just actually tool time to do research on the subject before posting.

You don't need to be a FIGJAM in a discussion with me. You're creating hybrids of an agnostic and treating those as the definition. Babies aren't theists or atheists: they're agnostic! They don't even possess a concept of God. Consequently, they don't know about God to either believe or disbelieve.

 

[ArtieE]

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Agnostics don't know and hence don't believe and don't disbelieve (Is there a God???).

You can have both agnostic theists and agnostic weak atheists and agnostic strong atheists. Agnostics can believe whatever they want. An agnostic can say "I am an agnostic. I don't actually know if God exists or not but since I believe he does I'm an agnostic theist."

 

[ArtieE]

The baby has no concept of "god" to assign a truth value to. The baby's state is ignorance.

And if the baby can't assign a truth value to "God exists" he can't be a theist, hence he's not a theist and the word atheist literally means "not theist". For that matter, he can't assign a truth value to "God doesn't exist" either and is also not a strong atheist. Which leaves us with weak implicit atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

You don't need to be a FIGJAM in a discussion with me. You're creating hybrids of an agnostic and treating those as the definition. Babies aren't theists or atheists: they're agnostic! They don't even possess a concept of God. Consequently, they don't know about God to either believe or disbelieve.

Again, I provided the definition of the term, and i took it straight from google. All you have to do is search for "agnostic definition". It is also the meaning given to the term by the man who coined it. He did not intend it to merely mean being without belief either way. It refers to knowledge of God and is not mutually exclusive to atheism, as they speak to different things.

Further, you have failed to provide any support for you claim that one cannot be both agnostic and atheist. Can you do that without using circular reasoning, assuming that your definition of agnosticism is correct?

 

[ArtieE]

Dictionary definitions work well enough for me.
1. Theism is belief in the existence of god or gods.
2. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods.

It's the terms disbelief and lack of belief that have filled most of this thread. The definitions say nothing about a state of belief, or the capacity to believe, which is the context for a baby to be "without" belief.

Yes I'm fine with those definitions you presented. 2 doesn't say anything about having to believe that gods don't exist to be an atheist.

 

[Skwim]

Nope, even Google agrees with me.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

To "lack" means to "be without". No contemplation is necessary to be without any belief. Pretty simple.

.