"Humans are born as atheists"

[Valjean]

Both these views stem from "atheism/atheist" being defined in terms of "theism/theist," but good definition is not tautological or self-referencing. Atheism, atheist, theism, and theist are each properly defined in terms of "belief in god or gods." Atheism, in my example, isn't "being without the lottery winnings," it's "losing the lottery."

A good definition applies a single unique feature distinguishing the referent from all other things. How it does this doesn't matter, as long as it succeeds in distinguishing the thing defined from all other things.

The infant does not disbelieve, which is what "not believe" and "unable to believe" are intended to refer to.

The infant is without belief; he lacks belief, which is congruent with a definition you, yourself have posted here several times.

"Disbelieve" is ambiguous. It can mean either (passively) lacking a belief or rejecting a belief. Don't we already have enough semantic problems here just with "atheist?"
This is why we prefer "absence of, " "without" or "lack."

 

[Scuba Pete]

that that's not the definition they're using

Actions speak louder than words. They can use any definition they want, but they don't act that way. Not at all.

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?

Often enough. Many atheists are not only overly proud of their disbelief, they're often quite condescending to theists. Like I said, their actions speak louder than words.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would say that if an entity is unable or unwilling to be self labeled, then it's futile to do it for them. As someone pointed out, and much to his dismay, that Bobo could not be an atheist even though he snubs me, then an infant lacks the ability to make the same distinction.

 

[Willamena]

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

Because an unwillingness to assign a truth value implies resistance. Such resistance at an unconscious level speaks of programming.

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.

To hold that the number is not yet determined is distinct from holding that it is not odd or even. To hold that it is not odd is to hold that it is even. It's two different cases.

No it is not. I have already explained precisely what agnosticism is and how it is defined.

As have I.

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

With my experience and reasoning, I believe that there is no tea cup orbiting Mars*. I rely on what information is available to me to come to a likely conclusion.

*Except for the one I put there.

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.

When I said an agnostic can still hold a belief, I was explaining agnostic atheism at that point. I wasn't contradicting that agnosticism is about knowing. The agnostic knows that the truth value cannot be assigned, the way in which it cannot be assigned, whether it's for rational reasons or because of a limited human capacity.

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.

"Yet" has connotation, it carries the expectation that a thing might still happen. "He has yet to finish his homework."

The babies state in relation to assignment shouldn't be described by what it might do or what might happen, but what is.

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

Not having assigned and being unable to assign are different things. Assigning true or false is another thing, too. If they are being conflated, it makes for vague communication.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say that if an entity is unable or unwilling to be self labeled, then it's futile to do it for them.

That is not even remotely true. We label all manners of entities that have no voice on that decision because it is accurate and logical to do so.

Do you find it wrong to call infants "humans" before they learn of the concept?

 

[ArtieE]

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

What?

 

[LuisDantas]

You can be assured that I would only seek competent help. Your assistance will not be solicited.

That is a relief. I lack the time.

 

[Willamena]

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

It's arguing, not ignoring.

If I was ignoring, I wouldn't respond.

 

[Willamena]

The infant is without belief; he lacks belief, which is congruent with a definition you, yourself have posted here several times.

"Disbelieve" is ambiguous. It can mean either (passively) lacking a belief or rejecting a belief. Don't we already have enough semantic problems here just with "atheist?"
This is why we prefer "absence of, " "without" or "lack."

I don't find the word disbelieve to be ambiguous at all. I am without belief that it's ambiguous.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence and/or nature is unknowable. This is a considered opinion requiring familiarity with the concept of God. A baby has no concept of God, so how can he hold such an opinion?

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.

So explain to us how atheism, in the technical sense, requires faith? Faith in what? How does faith figure into a lack of belief or awareness?

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

Ignorance is unawareness -- a subset of atheism.

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.

"Without" implies lack, doesn't it, and what does it matter weather someone has a capacity to believe or not, as long as they are "without"?

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.

Agnostic is a considered opinion. Babies have no considered opinions.
You say babies don't possess a concept of God; how is that not weak or essential atheism?
How is "not knowing about God" not atheism?
Pete, you're trying to fit all of atheism into 'strong' atheism, again. We've made it clear that we're not using that definition in our references to babies or people ignorant of God.

 

[Willamena]

What?

I thought you were applauding #2 for including both strong and weak atheism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because an unwillingness to assign a truth value implies resistance. Such resistance at an unconscious level speaks of programming.

Except you can be "unwilling" to believe something because it's incredibly irrational to believe it. You're reading specific purpose into words that isn't implicit in the definition.

To hold that the number is not yet determined is distinct from holding that it is not odd or even. To hold that it is not odd is to hold that it is even. It's two different cases.

Wrong wrong wrong. You don't have to hold that it "is not odd", you just have to not believe (I.E accept as true) that it IS odd. Please try to pay closer attention.

As have I.

But your definition is wrong. Here:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especiallymetaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or thesupernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

"Agnosticism is the philosophical or religious view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly claims regarding the existence of God, gods, deities, ultimate reality or afterlife — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the subjective nature of experience."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Agnosticism

With my experience and reasoning, I believe that there is no tea cup orbiting Mars*. I rely on what information is available to me to come to a likely conclusion.

*Except for the one I put there.

I said it was a yes or no question. Is your answer yes or no?

"Yet" has connotation, it carries the expectation that a thing might still happen. "He has yet to finish his homework."

Again, you're hung up on semantics in order to avoid the actual argument. What's more, "might still happen" is not the same as "will eventually happen", which is what you implied it meant earlier. You know exactly what I meant, so please stop trying to divert this discussion down another meaningless, circular semantic flip.

The babies state in relation to assignment shouldn't be described by what it might do or what might happen, but what is.

I agree. A baby currently LACKS a belief in a God, hence a baby IS an atheist.

Not having assigned and being unable to assign are different things.

But that's irrelevant. Either way, they have NOT ASSIGNED TRUTH VALUE TO THE CLAIM.

 

[Willamena]

Ignorance is unawareness -- a subset of atheism.

My problem with ignorance being defined as a type of atheism is the implication of the wording. Something that one is ignorant of has precisely the same identity as everything that the person is ignorant of, which is to say none.

 

[ArtieE]

I thought you were applauding #2 for including both strong and weak atheism.

2 is only weak atheism...

 

[Willamena]

Except you can be "unwilling" to believe something because it's incredibly irrational to believe it. You're reading specific purpose into words that isn't implicit in the definition.

Yes, but that is resistance too. Our exposure to the logic of the society around us has programmed us, too.

It isn't implicit in the definition of disbelief, which is the inability to assign "true." It is an implication of unwillingness.

Wrong wrong wrong. You don't have to hold that it "is not odd", you just have to not believe (I.E accept as true) that it IS odd.

"Even" is specific. If you have assigned "true" to the idea that "there are not an even number of beans," then you did that for a reason. Rationally, the reason is because you have assigned "true" to the idea that "there are an odd number of beans." If you don't know how many beans there are, you would never (rationally) have assigned "true" to the idea "there are not an even number of beans."

But your definition is wrong. Here:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especiallymetaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or thesupernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

"Agnosticism is the philosophical or religious view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly claims regarding the existence of God, gods, deities, ultimate reality or afterlife — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the subjective nature of experience."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Agnosticism

None of those disagree with what I said.

I said it was a yes or no question. Is your answer yes or no?

I did answer it, and then pointed out that it was the wrong question. I said, "I believe that there is no tea cup orbiting Mars." Which is to say that I disbelieve it.

Again, you're hung up on semantics in order to avoid the actual argument. What's more, "might still happen" is not the same as "will eventually happen", which is what you implied it meant earlier. You know exactly what I meant, so please stop trying to divert this discussion down another meaningless, circular semantic flip.

Okay. Taking the "yet" out, we have:

[ quote]A state of ignorance is a state in which you haven't 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.[/quote]
My disagreement remains. Head-butting remains.

Ignorance of a thing leaves one with nothing in which to invest belief, so it circumvents and entirely avoids the issue of whether belief should factor in the question of their state of belief.

 

[Willamena]

2 is only weak atheism...

I disagree.

 

[ArtieE]

I disagree.

"2. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods."

A person who says he has a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods could also go on to say that he also has a disbelief or lack of belief in the nonexistence of god or gods. That he neither believes gods exist nor believes gods don't exist. In order for your definition to include strong atheists it would have to be written like this:

2. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods (weak atheism) or belief in the nonexistence of god or gods (strong atheism).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

We have? All of us?

Can you tell me when *I* ever actively denied God's existence?

All of our interaction has been here on RF, so the search tool should be helpful.

 

[Valjean]

I don't find the word disbelieve to be ambiguous at all. I am without belief that it's ambiguous.

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.

I still don't get it. Does "disbelieve" mean rejecting a belief, being indifferent to a belief, or passively lacking it?
These are different possible interpretations, hence, ambiguous.

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"

Don't most words have more than one meaning? Obviously, in a serious discussion everyone has to agree on a definition or they'll be talking past each other and never resolving anything.
In a technical discussion people generally start with technical definitions and make it clear anytime they're modifying their meanings. You wouldn't expect biologists to use "theory" to mean conjecture in a discussion of evolution.
This thread qualifies as a technical discussion. The essential, definitive feature of atheism is lack or absence of belief. This could include rejection of a belief, but rejection is not essential to the concept.

 

[Willamena]

"2. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods."

A person who says he has a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods could also go on to say that he also has a disbelief or lack of belief in the nonexistence of god or gods. That he neither believes gods exist nor believes gods don't exist. In order for your definition to include strong atheists it would have to be written like this:

2. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods (weak atheism) or belief in the nonexistence of god or gods (strong atheism).

"Disbelief" describes strong atheism.