"Humans are born as atheists"

[ArtieE]

.

How many other expressions can we come up with that are technically correct but not used colloquially?

Not married. "Amarried"
Non-smoker. "Asmoker"
Not adult. "Aadult"

 

[leibowde84]

.

Now you are getting into the definition of personhood, as the term atheist seems to apply only to people, according to its definition.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Again

You feel there's only ONE definition of agnostic? Of Atheist? Of Theist? There's all sorts of flavors in addition to different perspectives on all three terms. From www.Dictionary.com

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

OK, it's a bit simplistic, and if we were to follow this definition to the letter, we could label babies as infidels. Whatever. I'm not sure why this is even needed.

Further, you have failed to provide any support for you claim that one cannot be both agnostic and atheist.

Why would I provide support for something I never claimed? Moreover, why are you putting claims in my mouth? You hybridized the terms, which is OK, but it's not the end all of definitions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The "B" claim is not mutually exclusive of anything. It's the "I don't know" claim.

Not knowing that the subject hasn't counted the beans, I can only assume that if they disbelieve that the number of beans is even, they have some means of knowing it is odd.

In the case of "God," as an agnostic I do not presume that a theist doesn't know what he's talking about.

You seem to have completely missed my point. Disbelief means simply "to not believe". I've already explained that disbelieving a claim does not require a belief in it's opposite. Do you or do you not understand why the position "I don't believe the number of beans in the jar is even" does not equate to "I believe the number of beans in the jar is odd"? Your example falls perfectly into the category of not believing one while not believing the other.

 

[Scuba Pete]

as the term atheist seems to apply only to people,

My cat Bobo denies my supremeness. In that respect, he's def an atheist. Actually, he's probably a demon from hell, but I digress.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.)

Erm, nope. Disbelief is the position of being unable or unwilling to assign truth value (in short, any position which does not assign truth value to a claim). Agnosticism is a position whereby, specifically, the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable. Many people interpret agnosticism as a position of uncertainty. However, an agnostic can still assign truth value to a claim, they just don't claim to know the claim is true, or to be certain of their position.

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

Not really. They are two completely different subjects.

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

A state of ignorance is still a state in which you haven't yet assigned truth value to a claim. A belief is any claim which you accept as true. To disbelieve means to not accept a claim as true. If you are in a state of ignorance about a claim then you have yet to assign truth value to the claim and hence do not accept the claim as true.

Is there something about this that is confusing to you? How can I explain it better?

 

[ArtieE]

You feel there's only ONE definition of agnostic? Of Atheist? Of Theist? There's all sorts of flavors in addition to different perspectives on all three terms. From www.Dictionary.com

The point is that to understand what something actually means you have to read tons of definitions and explanations and books and then boil all the information down to something short and sweet, logical, rational and easy to understand. Of course you can always find something that contradicts something else but at least you should be able to form an overall picture of what is meant.

 

[leibowde84]

You feel there's only ONE definition of agnostic? Of Atheist? Of Theist? There's all sorts of flavors in addition to different perspectives on all three terms. From www.Dictionary.com


OK, it's a bit simplistic, and if we were to follow this definition to the letter, we could label babies as infidels. Whatever. I'm not sure why this is even needed.

Why would I provide support for something I never claimed? Moreover, why are you putting claims in my mouth? You hybridized the terms, which is OK, but it's not the end all of definitions.

I'm just going by the definition of the term "atheist", which includes everyone who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. No contemplation is required.

 

[leibowde84]

My cat Bobo denies my supremeness. In that respect, he's def an atheist. Actually, he's probably a demon from hell, but I digress.

Unless your cat is a person, I don't think he fits the bill (see definition below).

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[leibowde84]

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.


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


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

A state of ignorance of God is certainly atheism implicitly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My cat Bobo denies my supremeness. In that respect, he's def an atheist.

I'm pretty sure most cats are autotheists.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm just going by the definition of the term "atheist", which includes everyone who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. No contemplation is required.

That would be an infidel. All the atheists I know actively deny God's existence. I know a lot of 'em too.

Unless your cat is a person

Bobo is certain he's a person. Who am I to disagree?

I'm pretty sure most cats are autotheists.

Which makes Bobo very special.

 

[Valjean]

What are the alternatives for a person who has not taken an examination? He has neither passed nor failed. Does he say "I lack belief that I have passed"? Ha. Ha. Ha.

I don't see the equivalence, Atanu. I ask again, what would you call someone who neither believes nor does not believe? What other category is there?

Serious discussion? Yes some who believe themselves to be weak atheists believe so.

Again, what are you talking about? In serious discussions of atheism a simple lack of belief is the definitive understanding. Where are you having a problem with this?

That is the point. And it is not a difficult point. Some have shown definition of Theist from Thiest.com and pointed out that Atheist and Non Theist are exactly the same. Okay.

But a baby does not even know the term 'Theist'.

And why would it need to know it to be a non-theist? In fact, anyone completely unaware of a concept must needs be without it.
Why is this hard to grasp?

 

[leibowde84]

That would be an infidel. All the atheists I know actively deny God's existence. I know a lot of 'em too.

Bobo is certain he's a person. Who am I to disagree?

Which makes Bobo very special.

I'm not doubting you, but the vast majority of atheists I know, and even many on this forum, merely lack belief in God due to lack of evidence. But, since there is no conclusive evidence that God cannot exist, they do not hold the active belief that God does not exist. Which is why I feel this is an important issue to discuss. Many wrongfully assume that atheists all hold the belief that God does not exist.

And, infidel refers to anyone who doesn't adhere to your own religion, I think.

That would be an infidel. All the atheists I know actively deny God's existence. I know a lot of 'em too.

Bobo is certain he's a person. Who am I to disagree?

Which makes Bobo very special.

 

[Willamena]

Erm, nope. Disbelief is the position of being unable or unwilling to assign truth value (in short, any position which does not assign truth value to a claim).

Since the assignment of truth value occurs unconsciously, it's highly unlikely that an unwillingness to assign it would be described by the same word as the inability to assign it. They are completely different ideas.

I would class the unwillingness to assign it as a form of dogmatism, perhaps inspired by doublethink.

Disbelief is the position of being unable to assign the truth value "true" to the statement (belief). That leaves only the other truth value, "false." The characterization of incredulity associated with it is indicative of this.

Agnosticism is a position whereby, specifically, the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable. Many people interpret agnosticism as a position of uncertainty. However, an agnostic can still assign truth value to a claim, they just don't claim to know the claim is true, or to be certain of their position.

Agnosticism is the inability to assign a truth value, either "true" or "false," because the attempt resolves into "unknown" or "unknowable." If the issue is whether or not there is actually a tea cup in orbit around Mars, and no reasonable means is given to determine it, it must resolve into unknown. If the issue is whether or not there is a foundation supporting reality, or anything else for which the argument for is necessarily circular or self-referencing, it must resolve into unknowable. An agnostic can still claim a belief, but not in the same sense. It must be conditional. "I don't know if there's a tea cup orbiting Mars, but the unlikelyhood leads me to disbelieve it." In other words, it is the claim plus a bit more information that resolves in belief.

A state of ignorance is still a state in which you haven't yet assigned truth value to a claim.
A belief is any claim which you accept as true. To disbelieve means to not accept a claim as true. If you are in a state of ignorance about a claim then you have yet to assign truth value to the claim and hence do not accept the claim as true.

Is there something about this that is confusing to you? How can I explain it better?

I disagree. There is no expectation that a person might assign a truth value someday that is implied in the word ignorance.

Ignorance, in terms of belief, can be found in having nothing to assign a truth value to.

 

[Willamena]

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.

You do not have to believe that gods exist to be an atheist.

However... that said, if you are arguing whether gods exist you darned well better assume it or you have nothing to argue.

 

[Valjean]

I humbly disagree. An atheist KNOWS that there is no God, A theist KNOWS that there is. That's a conclusion/decision by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, an agnostic doesn't know and may not even care. Since a baby doesn't know and almost certainly doesn't care I would categorize them as agnostic. You may not agree with me on this, but that's not my problem.

Pete, you're ignoring how atheists are defining themselves, you're ignoring how philosophers and theologins are defining atheism, you're ignoring the meaning generally used in serious discussions about atheism almost everywhere. You're trying to define all atheists as Strong Atheists in a discussion where the atheists have clearly been explaining, over and over again, that that's not the definition they're using

That would be an infidel. All the atheists I know actively deny God's existence. I know a lot of 'em too.

Most of the atheists you know probably haven't revealed to you that they're atheists How often does the subject come up in everyday discussion?

 

[Willamena]

A state of ignorance of God is certainly atheism implicitly.

All forms of atheism have their foundation in that the claim "there is a god" is false. It may be explicitly false, as in the person who actually believes that there is no god, or its falsity may be implied in a person's being, attitude, statements, or deeds cannot include that god. It all depends on having an idea of god, but in the latter case it's the idea of a third party observer. Still, the child is better described as being ignorant of god rather than disbelieving of god.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since the assignment of truth value occurs unconsciously, it's highly unlikely that an unwillingness to assign it would be described by the same word as the inability to assign it. They are completely different ideas.

You already described disbelief as being "unable to believe". That means exactly the same thing. But, if it helps, all you need to do is divide them into "implicit disbelief" and "explicit disbelief". Problem solved.

I would class the unwillingness to assign it as a form of dogmatism, perhaps inspired by doublethink.

Why? Unwillingness to believe doesn't mean you are indoctrinated into disbelief. It just means you aren't willing to believe.

Disbelief is the position of being unable to assign the truth value "true" to the statement (belief). That leaves only the other truth value, "false." The characterization of incredulity associated with it is indicative of this.

Again, you are wrong, and I have repeatedly explained why. Just because you don't hold the claim "the number is odd" to be true doesn't mean you believe it to be false - the truth value can be not yet determined. Why do you not understand this yet? What is complicated about it?

Agnosticism is the inability to assign a truth value, either "true" or "false," because the attempt resolves into "unknown" or "unknowable."

No it is not. I have already explained precisely what agnosticism is and how it is defined. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and the concept of whether the existence of God can be known.

If the issue is whether or not there is actually a tea cup in orbit around Mars, and no reasonable means is given to determine it, it must resolve into unknown.

So, do you believe that there is a tea cup in orbit around Mars? Please note that this is a yes or no question.

An agnostic can still claim a belief, but not in the same sense. It must be conditional. "I don't know if there's a tea cup orbiting Mars, but the unlikelyhood leads me to disbelieve it." In other words, it is the claim plus a bit more information that resolves in belief.

Again, you are just plain wrong here. Agnosticism says nothing bout the likelihood of a given claim, it simply asserts the not knowing with regards to a specific claim (God's existence), or the position that such a claim cannot be known. Why did you completely ignore this when I explained it earlier?

I disagree. There is no expectation that a person might assign a truth value someday that is implied in the word ignorance.

I never was there was any such "expectation". Point is, a person who has never even heard of the concept of God is yet to assign truth value to the claim of God's existence.

Ignorance, in terms of belief, can be found in having nothing to assign a truth value to.

Hence, it is a position in which a person hasn't assigned a value of "true" to a claim.

Again, I ask, what are you finding difficult to understand about this? What are you not getting?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All forms of atheism have their foundation in that the claim "there is a god" is false.

Utterly and completely wrong. Why are you ignoring everything that has been explained?