"Humans are born as atheists"

[Ouroboros]

Nope. I could name any number of things that you have never heard of that you currently don't believe in.

And that makes you an atheist?

I don't believe in Russel's teapot. That makes me an atheist? This is beyond stupid.

Anyway, you don't want to hear my opinions, and I don't want yours. You and I are done.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do babies believe in a god or gods?

No.

This is not rocket science.

Doesn't make them atheist.

Atheist : lack of belief in God/gods.

It's a generalized definition. Not an equal sign. Not an equation. You treat it as:

Atheist = lack of belief in God/gods.

And therefore, if someone lack belief in God/gods, they are atheists. It doesn't work backwards.

It's beyond stupid and idiotic.

Apple: fruit.

Therefore, since pear is a fruit, pears are also apples.

It's false equivocation. Implicit atheism is a term based on this fallacy.

There's nothing implicit about atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't believe in Russel's teapot. That makes me an atheist?

No it doesn't. Russel's teapot isn't a god. You're right. This is beyond stupid.

 

[Willamena]

You have to have knowledge about what it is that you're not believing in.

Not believing in Santa Claus is to not just lack belief in Santa, but know that Santa is this red dressed fat guy with a beard that lives at the North Pole. It's a fundamental part of having an "-ism" to know what principle it is that you're lacking belief in.

*psst* he's on our side, stop arguing with him.

 

[Demonslayer]

Atheist = lack of belief in God/gods.

It absolutely is that simple.

Here's a question. Why do you insist on this "careful consideration" clause for belief in God when you wouldn't insist on it with any other thing in life?

If you're not wet, you're dry. You don't have to sit around and ponder if you're wet, or make a conscious decision and say "after further review, I am not wet, therefore I am dry."

It's just as simple as not being wet = being dry. The same is true with atheism. Not being a theist = being an atheist.

No one tries to place this idea of "you have to go through careful consideration of the issue" on any other aspect of life. Someone who has no natural sexual urges is asexual...they may never have even heard of that term, but they are it. They don't have to sit and ponder or consider, it's just the sexual urge is absent in them so they are asexual.

You must try to understand that the only reason you're insisting on this idea that atheists MUST put long, hard thought into the issue, is because the belief in God is so deeply ingrained in you personally, that it's hard to imagine others having the absence of it without any thought at all. But it's entirely possible and the term atheist applies to those people as well as atheists who may have put thought into the matter.

 

[Ouroboros]

It absolutely is that simple.

No. It's not.

Here's a question. Why do you insist on this "careful consideration" clause for belief in God when you wouldn't insist on it with any other thing in life?

Doesn't have to be caredful, but it should be a consideration. Simply because that's what atheism is. Something you have considered.

If you're not wet, you're dry. You don't have to sit around and ponder if you're wet, or make a conscious decision and say "after further review, I am not wet, therefore I am dry."

Wetness and dryness are just arbitrary and subjective opinions on the amount of water present and how it feels. There's no factual number to apply to how much water is to be considerd wet vs dry. So... bad example.

It's just as simple as not being wet = being dry. The same is true with atheism. Not being a theist = being an atheist.

Then it makes it a measurement on an analogue scale, if you insist on comparing to wetness levels. And also subjective.

No one tries to place this idea of "you have to go through careful consideration of the issue" on any other aspect of life. Someone who has no natural sexual urges is asexual...they may never have even heard of that term, but they are it. They don't have to sit and ponder or consider, it's just the sexual urge is absent in them so they are asexual.

You mean asexualism, not just being asexual.

You must try to understand that the only reason you're insisting on this idea that atheists MUST put long, hard thought into the issue, is because the belief in God is so deeply ingrained in you personally, that it's hard to imagine others having the absence of it without any thought at all. But it's entirely possible and the term atheist applies to those people as well as atheists who may have put thought into the matter.

And your armchair analysis failed.

 

[McBell]

so we are going to toss babies til they cry?

atheism is a choice.....thought about and declared

now...go ask a baby

Now you're just being ornery.
No worries, i understand you have to protect your faith.

 

[McBell]

oh no...now we have to argue for the comatose....the mentally unstable.....the insane.....

Wait, you haven't been doing just that for the last seven years?

 

[Demonslayer]

Wetness and dryness are just arbitrary and subjective opinions on the amount of water present and how it feels. There's no factual number to apply to how much water is to be considerd wet vs dry. So... bad example.

Fallacy of the beard? There is no such thing as wet or dry?

And your armchair analysis failed.

What has failed over and over again is anyone on this thread trying to show a definition of atheism that says the person has to consider the issue. No such definition exists, anywhere, except in the minds of theists who can't conceptualize a person who hasn't been brainwashed into belief in some version of the Cloud King.

 

[Curious George]

Of course a theist must be capable of belief. A person who is not a theist doesn't need to be capable of belief.

Of course a theist must be a person, something that is not a theist doesn't need to be a person.

 

[Valjean]

Thank you! You're the first person in a long time willing to admit that atheism isn't a trait but the lack of one.

Haven't we atheists been arguing just that for 1300 posts?

Atheism, as it has been discussed here is a lack of belief in god/gods, even the ones a person is ignorant of. A baby, per discussion here, is ignorant of god/gods and therefore, the argument goes, he/she is implicit atheists. Atheism is therefore fundamentally based on ignorance.

Implicit atheism can be based on ignorance, but this is'nt usually the case. Usually it's just lack of belief.

Correction, a theist is defined as a person capable of belief, even though we stick a- in front, we are still talking about a person capable of belief.

Non sequitur. An atheist doesn't need to be capable of anything. An atheist just needs to lack belief.

a person not capable of belief is brain dead

So a baby is brain dead?

 

[Willamena]

Haven't we atheists been arguing just that for 1300 posts?

I've had to argue against people declaring lack of belief to be an actual property that characterizes a person. So, no, not all of us have been arguing it.

 

[Curious George]

Haven't we atheists been arguing just that for 1300 posts?

Implicit atheism can be based on ignorance, but this is'nt usually the case. Usually it's just lack of belief.

Non sequitur. An atheist doesn't need to be capable of anything. An atheist just needs to lack belief.
So a baby is brain dead?

It is not a non-sequitur. Or if it is, you can kindly show how.

 

[atanu]

These are meaningless wordplay.

A theist, or an atheist, or a weak atheist, or a strong atheist, or an agnostic, all know their particular orientations that conform to certain definitions and that involves an understanding, a decision, a declaration.

A baby or a stone does not do that.

Not at all. This is Atheism 101, so to speak.
.......
Whatever premises you are using are quite alien to me - and, I must assume, a significant number of other atheists.

The common fact that a baby or a stone could not have deliberated on the issue of existence of God/gods like theists and atheists do, is alien to you?

 

[PackJason]

It is not a non-sequitur. Or if it is, you can kindly show how.

He already did. In the post you quoted. Did you even take the time to comprehend what he said?

 

[LuisDantas]

The common fact that a baby or a stone could not have deliberated on the issue of existence of God/gods like theists and atheists do, is alien to you?

Nope. That is my argument, as a matter of fact.

Atheism never required such deliberation, while both agnosticsm and theism will always need it.

 

[Thief]

Wait, you haven't been doing just that for the last seven years?

you've been here longer than me.....
you have no excuse preaching non-belief and denial to the choir

you think a fella would catch on by now

 

[Thief]

Nope. That is my argument, as a matter of fact.

Atheism never required such deliberation, while both agnosticsm and theism will always need it.

atheism without deliberation.....

sounds like knee jerk reaction to an idea....a thought...a notion....
any sense of cognitive ability

 

[LuisDantas]

atheism without deliberation.....

sounds like knee jerk reaction to an idea....a thought...a notion....
any sense of cognitive ability

You are very consistent in saying so, despite how absurd such a claim is, so I must assume you are either desperate or sincere.

Is it truly that hard to accept that theism demands learning of some form of concept of deity and atheism does not?

 

[Thief]

You are very consistent in saying so, despite how absurd such a claim is, so I must assume you are either desperate or sincere.

Is it truly that hard to accept that theism demands learning of some form of concept of deity and atheism does not?

sincere.

you can't make denial until the noun...god...is known to you
it becomes a choice to make...immediately
and if you do so without deliberation.....it's knee jerking