"Humans are born as atheists"

[Willamena]

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

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.

What's "technical" is no less an interpretation.

 

[Valjean]

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.

So. Everyone's ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance of God is a-theism, ignorance of something else is a-something elseism.
If a tribe of Amazon Indians were discovered that had never been exposed to the concept of God; who had no such concept in their culture, wouldn't you describe their culture as atheistic?

 

[Valjean]

"Disbelief" describes strong atheism.

Ah -- finally. So "disbelief" is neither ignorance or absence, but a positive rejection of belief.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Some people believe that babies are atheists. I find their belief in this to be as flawed, deep and rigid as any religious person's belief in god. Go figure.

Humans come equipped with an in-born conscience, but ' faith ' in God is Not inborn.
Belief in God is the product of a person's effort with God's blessing on that effort.
As we listen to what we hear and learn we take in knowledge, and if we pay careful attention, and take time to mediate (think deeply and honestly) on what we learn then we can come to have faith (confidence) there is a God. Knowledge that is found thru Scripture and thru creation - John 17:3; Daniel 12:4; Proverbs 4:18; Romans 1:20; Revelation 4:11

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

There is No ' if ' about 'born with souls' because in Scripture Adam did Not come equipped with a separate soul. Adam was a soul - Genesis 2:7
Adam did Not have a soul, Adam did Not possess a soul, rather Adam was a living soul. At death Adam became a dead soul or life-less soul ( person )
Angels were created before material creation and humans came into existence.
Adam was made from the dust of the ground, and ' returned ' to where Adam started - Genesis 3:19
So, at death Adam simply ' returned ' to the dust of the ground. A person can Not ' return ' to a place he never was before.
If people had an immortal soul then the soul could Not die, the soul would be death proof.
Death-proof souls do Not need a resurrection, but dead souls need a resurrection in order to live again.
According to Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 18:20 and Acts of the Apostles 3:23 the soul that sins dies, and a soul can be destroyed.
So, souls are mortal and subject to death or even destruction - Psalms 92:7

Unless damaged, babies do come equipped with a built-in conscience, but ' faith ' (confidence) in God is learned by effort and God's blessing upon a person's effort.

 

[Willamena]

So. Everyone's ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance of God is a-theism, ignorance of something else is a-something elseism.
If a tribe of Amazon Indians were discovered that had never been exposed to the concept of God; who had no such concept in their culture, wouldn't you describe their culture as atheistic?

If ignorance of God is a-theism, then theism doesn't mean very much as it has the same identity as everything else that one is ignorant of. Some would say it's meaningless.

Atheistic means "like atheism." It's atheistic in that it lacks belief in god. It's not atheism in that we can't assume what the tribe believes.

 

[Willamena]

Ah -- finally. So "disbelief" is neither ignorance or absence, but a positive rejection of belief.

Neither ignorance nor absence.

The use of the word "positive" is unnecessary. Rejection is negative. Rejection says a "false" about the statement or claim.

It's not belief that is being rejected. It's a claim or statement.

Edit: Much of the problem with this whole issue is simply poor grammar.

 

[Willamena]

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?
.

May I quote you in my argument with @ImmortalFlame ?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

But atheism doesn't require disbelief necessarily. The term includes both disbelief AND lack of belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If ignorance of God is a-theism, then theism doesn't mean very much as it has the same identity as everything else that one is ignorant of. Some would say it's meaningless.

- not God-with-a-capital-G; gods.
- not ignorance; lack of belief. This could entail ignorance, but not necessarily.
-the fact that a word doesn't communicate what you would like it to doesn't make it meaningless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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.

One can be condescending to a person without necessarily rejecting the conclusion they've accepted.

As an extreme example, if someone tells me that the sky is blue because pixies paint it that way, I can think he's a fool without believing that the sky is not blue.

 

[Skwim]

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

What definition of "personhood" does it seem atheists are only applying to people? Personally, I've never seen atheists as a whole do anything with the term "personhood" in regards to people. This is all very strange.


.

 

[Ouroboros]

By the way, are we talking only about natural persons or are juridical persons included?

 

[Willamena]

But atheism doesn't require disbelief necessarily. The term includes both disbelief AND lack of belief.

Both disbelief and lack of belief are sufficient.

Both the strong (explicit) version and the weak (implicit) version are sufficient.

 

[Willamena]

- not God-with-a-capital-G; gods.
- not ignorance; lack of belief. This could entail ignorance, but not necessarily.
-the fact that a word doesn't communicate what you would like it to doesn't make it meaningless.

How could ignorance entail lack of belief?

 

[Willamena]

Ah -- finally. So "disbelief" is neither ignorance or absence, but a positive rejection of belief.

That's what I've been arguing for the past 20 pages. (Okay, maybe 30. I'm just guessing.)

 

[Willamena]

By the way, are we talking only about natural persons or are juridical persons included?

Juridical people aren't natural?

 

[leibowde84]

What definition of "personhood" does it seem atheists are only applying to people? Personally, I've never seen atheists as a whole do anything with the term "personhood" in regards to people. This is all very strange.


.

The term "atheist" (not atheism) refers to people who lack belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Both disbelief and lack of belief are sufficient.

Both the strong (explicit) version and the weak (implicit) version are sufficient.

But, lack of belief is merely the absence of belief, so there shouldn't be any requirement of contemplation to be without any belief, right?

 

[leibowde84]

How could ignorance entail lack of belief?

Because to lack means to be without. There is no requirement of familiarity to be without something. If I am not familiar with the idea of belief in God, it would not be possible for me to hold that belief. Thus, I would necessarily lack belief in the existence of God BECAUSE I am ignorant of the concept.