"Humans are born as atheists"

[sojourner]

That's the thing: there is no - and can be no - single coherent definition. There's no real reason why, say, the divine messenger Mercury is considered a god but the divine messenger Gabriel is not. There's no reasonable criteria to say that Hades is a god but Satan isn't. What we always do is go by the believer's own beliefs about what they consider a god and not a god:

- we consider Muslims to be monotheists without having to ask whether the angels and djinn that they believe in (that look a LOT like gods of polytheistic religions) qualify as gods or not.
- likewise, we can acknowledge Pagan polytheists as polytheists even though their gods look a lot like things that are considered absolutely NOT gods in the Abrahamic religions.
- same goes for pantheists, sun-worshippers, Rastafarians, and anyone else who agrees with atheists about what exists but has different opinions than atheists about what should be considered a god. It's what the individual thinks that matters.

The approach we always use is we compare the list "things I believe exist" to the list "things I consider gods":

- if more than one thing is on both lists, I'm a polytheist.
- if only one thing is on both lists, I'm a monotheist.
- if nothing is on both lists, I'm an atheist.

A newborn baby who has nothing on either list is obviously not going to have any items on both lists, so by the method I gave, the baby would qualify as an atheist. This isn't particularly meaningful or valuable in and of itself, but when someone rejects the idea that babies are atheists, they're implicitly rejecting this approach to belief.

This then raises the question of how someone qualifies as an atheist in *their* system, but every alternative approach I've ever seen runs into fundamental problems when you try to use it for adults.

What about someone (me, for example) who doesn't believe God exists, but is Existence, itself, that is, the principle of existence that transcends sentience? Is atheism limited as the opposite of belief in God's existence? Or does it extend to any mention of deity at all? And would I be considered atheist, because I don't believe in God's existence? I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems to me that atheism is informed by, and, to a lesser extent, defined by belief systems, themselves? IOW, atheism seems to be more-or-less a reactionary thing that stands in opposition to the belief in the Christian/Jewish God. Thus, it depends upon that belief, in order to stand in opposition to it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I invoke the holy dictionary!
Compliments of @Quintessence

Theist: The belief that God exists or that many gods exist Webster

Prefix-A: not. without.
PrefixSuffix Chart

Prefix-Anti: Against. Opposite.
Same source above.



An atheist is someone without beliefs in god/s.

An anti-theist is one against, oppose of (rejects) god/s.

A baby is an atheist at birth.
He cannot be an antitheist at birth.

This is a nice site: Language Learning

Roughly speaking, a child doesnt pick up "strict" word to meaning vocab fluently until at least a year of age.

How in the world can they have an "inherit belief in god" when they are aquiring the language to fit together what a god is suppose to mean?

They are "without" the knowledge of god. As a result, the are without belief. Ending with: They are atheists.

When the child becomes a toddler and the parent indoctrinates his or her child in a god-focused religion, then the childs language wraps around the morals set by their parents god.

Later in adult years when some indoctrinated athiest became theist, some find that their ind. belief doesnt fit their morals.

So as a result, many become

Anti-theist. Opposing to belief in god they were indoc since birth.

After awhile of deprograming, they start with a flesh slate as they were born: athiests.

And many atheists find their religions or beliefs that call to them. Some of which they choose to indoctrinate themselves (choose to make that belief ones life) and if it is, say, paganism, they (atheists) are no longer "without" belief in gods. They are theists.

-
A baby is without a belief in anything (i.e. atheist)
He gets indoctrinated and given a belief (now he is with belief in something i.e. theist)
He grows up and find the belief he has useless
He drops it (rejects it--antitheist) and is without belief again (atheist)

Now he is a new born. He is ready to build a new life.

New life. New belief. New identity.

Some people without belief in god get a revelation from multiple gods and decide they want to follow these gods. They become people with belief in gods.

I think antitheist and atheist are being confused with each other on this thread.

A baby cant be without a belief that isnt there to begin with.

He cant reject a belief until he has a belief to begin with.

 

[Grumpuss]

Why do atheists always have to reinforce their religion by forcing it on people who have no idea what it is? It's like forcing people to be feminist if they have some beliefs that are in line with the general feminist definition.

Exactly. It's like they don't even understand the nature of God (though of course, ultimately He is unknowable). If it helps them to think of the Divine and supernatural as "magic", then so be it. Close-minded people just refuse to learn, I guess...

 

[Katzpur]

Yes it would, but not if my guess is wrong or our memories can somehow exist outside of our biological constraints.

Yeah, well in this instance, I think it's pretty clear that we're all just guessing.

I know the parts of the Bible used to argue for pre-existence since I've commented in a debate about it. I didn't know Mormons believed in pre-existence... that's interesting.

Yes, but we don't believe in reincarnation, which -- when people learn that we believe in a pre-existence -- is what they assume.

I actually have found people who make the claim that they remember past lives or prelife. They usually don't like to discuss such things, especially on open forums. At least some of them believe they've experienced something or remember something and I'm always curious to challenge my views... preferably by practical experiments. I've even attempted to remember, but at a certain point the "film stops" and the mind starts making things up.

Interesting. But those would be people who believe in reincarnation, wouldn't it? Those people believe that we are incarnated multiple times in different bodies, as I understand it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about someone (me, for example) who doesn't believe God exists, but is Existence, itself, that is, the principle of existence that transcends sentience?

I'd say you're a theist and therefore not an atheist.

To avoid semantic weirdness of talking about existence "existing", an alternate way to express the point I'm trying to get at would be to say that theists believe that a god or gods is real. If you believe that God is existence, and you believe that existence is real, then you believe that God is real.

Is atheism limited as the opposite of belief in God's existence? Or does it extend to any mention of deity at all?

It's just "not theism"... or the complement of theism.

And would I be considered atheist, because I don't believe in God's existence?

No, I'd say you're a theist.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems to me that atheism is informed by, and, to a lesser extent, defined by belief systems, themselves? IOW, atheism seems to be more-or-less a reactionary thing that stands in opposition to the belief in the Christian/Jewish God. Thus, it depends upon that belief, in order to stand in opposition to it.

Atheism is the complement to theism, so in a sense I could say that how we define it is a response... but I disagree that it's specifically about the Christian or Jewish God.

This is part of why I disagree with the idea of atheism as a rejection of theism: IMO, it assumes a monotheism-normative mindset. Defining atheism as rejection works if there's only one god to reject; it gets harder as the number of gods increases. In the situation we have now, with uncountably many god-concepts, all with their own quirks and nuances that stop them from being rejected as a category in one fell swoop, it's practically impossible.

I think that a lot of the people who cling to the "rejection" definition of atheism still have a two-tier, monotheist-normative approach: they concede the existence of a range of religons, but a person still becomes an atheist by rejecting the "standard" form of theism (the local dominant Abrahamic religion, usually) and they stay an atheist as long as they don't accept some "lesser" god-concept.

If we don't play favourites among god-concepts - and recognize that theists aren't atheists - we have two options:

- define atheism as the rejection of all gods. Since this is impossible in practical terms, there are no atheists.

- define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This approach works just fine. It also has the side effect of implying that babies are atheists, which makes some people apoplectic, apparently.

 

[The Mormonator]

FYI, This

is one highly irritating signature.

​

Makes me want to skip right past your posts.


.

Skip away, skippy. Won't bother me one bit.

 

[Thief]

I see this thread took off like a rocket....

so babies are chemically/mechanical?
I might agree up to the point I saw my first born......smile

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. It's like they don't even understand the nature of God (though of course, ultimately He is unknowable)...

Go figure.

You can't close your mind on something that doesn't exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see this thread took off like a rocket....

so babies are chemically/mechanical?
I might agree up to the point I saw my first born......smile

What do you mean?

Children arent made of fairy dust.

 

[psychoslice]

Conditioning is only part of the picture.
Some people reject it to become something else.
I suspect some inherent (genetic?) component which gives a tendency to either faith or disbelief.
So those predisposed to non-belief could very well be atheist babies because of this destiny,

Yes I agree, but also believe that conditioning and programming plays a very strong part, and of course a hint of genetics.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I agree, but also believe that conditioning and programming plays a very strong part, and of course a hint of genetics.

I was lucky.....irreligious by training & genetics.
I also avidly didn't collect stamps.

 

[psychoslice]

I was lucky.....irreligious by training & genetics.
I also avidly didn't collect stamps.

Yes, and if you were born in another culture you would be a completely different person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and if you were born in another culture you would be a completely different person.

To some extent.
But the engineering gene will always cause trouble.

 

[psychoslice]

To some extent.
But the engineering gene will always cause trouble.

Yes of course the gene will always have some influence, but again I believe conditioning and programming is much more powerful.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes of course the gene will always have some influence, but again I believe conditioning and programming is much more powerful.

I plead ignorance on their relative effect.
But I like to think I'd be ignorant no matter what culture I'm from.

 

[psychoslice]

I plead ignorance on their relative effect.
But I like to think I'd be ignorant no matter what culture I'm from.

I see, and that wish to be ignorant came from where ?.

 

[Jumi]

Many people, like Richard Dawkins and his godsless congregation, cast doubt on this.

How? What is their religion exactly, what rituals and beliefs does it include?

I've had many encounters with many atheists and many are heavily condescending. The few I've met who aren't pseudo-religious barely bring it up- as it should be.

Like I said, anti-theism or antispirituality isn't included in atheism. The few who you've met who were not vocal anti-theists and who most likely are the large majority of atheists even in the English speaking world you still think of them as members of the religion of atheism. Pseudoreligion is not really a religion either, it would be better to just call them anti-theists.

One friend I have in particular always comments on how stupid religion or theism is whenever it is brought up. It's not hard to come to the conclusion that many atheists are like this when you've experienced it several times over.

Some are condescending, is that what makes it a religion and the similarity between them and religion?

 

[Valjean]

I've had many encounters with many atheists and many are heavily condescending. The few I've met who aren't pseudo-religious barely bring it up- as it should be. One friend I have in particular always comments on how stupid religion or theism is whenever it is brought up. It's not hard to come to the conclusion that many atheists are like this when you've experienced it several times over.

How come I never encounter these militant atheists?
Maponos, you seem very assertive, even doctrinaire. You may bring out the same assertiveness when you engage with others on this subject. If you challenge someone with a pious assertion you have to expect them to counter it. If you fail to recognise their points they're going to conclude that you're obtuse.
This may be the source of your "many bad encounters."

Maponos said: ↑
"Why do atheists always have to reinforce their religion by forcing it on people who have no idea what it is?"

Exactly. It's like they don't even understand the nature of God (though of course, ultimately He is unknowable). If it helps them to think of the Divine and supernatural as "magic", then so be it. Close-minded people just refuse to learn, I guess...

What are you talking about, Grumpuss? Atheism isn't a religion, and of course they don't understand the nature of something they have no belief in. And where are you coming up with this divine and supernatural as magic stuff? That's a whole different conversation.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, but we don't believe in reincarnation, which -- when people learn that we believe in a pre-existence -- is what they assume.

I didn't assume this, since reincarnation is not in any of the mainstream Christian denominations. I was thinking of Jeremiah 1:5.

Interesting. But those would be people who believe in reincarnation, wouldn't it? Those people believe that we are incarnated multiple times in different bodies, as I understand it.

Most of them, yes.

 

[Valjean]

What about someone (me, for example) who doesn't believe God exists, but is Existence, itself, that is, the principle of existence that transcends sentience?

Then, like myself, you're an atheist Hindu, believing in an amorphous field of ??? underlying Existence, what an M-theory physicist might call a brane or a Hindu, Brahman.
I don't equate a singularity, or brane, or strings, or Brahman with God. God is a personage, not a construct in physics. God, as generally used, has ideas, likes and dislikes, opinions. S/He's a sort of superhuman, conceived in our image.

Is atheism limited as the opposite of belief in God's existence? Or does it extend to any mention of deity at all? And would I be considered atheist, because I don't believe in God's existence? I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems to me that atheism is informed by, and, to a lesser extent, defined by belief systems, themselves? IOW, atheism seems to be more-or-less a reactionary thing that stands in opposition to the belief in the Christian/Jewish God. Thus, it depends upon that belief, in order to stand in opposition to it.

Go back a few pages and catch up, Sojourner.
The atheists are saying that, in it's basic, definitive form, atheism is simply a lack of belief, or, an ignorance of the concept of God. The Theists are insisting that atheists are denying or rebelling against the idea of God. Thus the two sides are operating from different definitions and are talking past each other.

Atheism, per se, s simply a lack of belief. This is the operating definition the atheists here are working from.
There do exist militant, anti-theists. There do exist atheists who oppose theism, but these are a distinct subset and not represent the definitive, essential atheists.