"Humans are born as atheists"

[PackJason]

There was a common understanding of the term before people began reifying negation, one that could not possibly be applicable where belief is not also capable of being applied.

The understanding is still common. It just seems there are a small minority who are either incapable or unwilling to understand it.

It isn't a very complex term.

 

[ArtieE]

Artie, we will be going in circles unless we agree that there is a difference in perspective between your and my views.

My view is based on the understanding that a baby neither believes nor disbelieves God. A baby has no thought on the subject 'God'.

That is also my view. Bye.

 

[Willamena]

It would help the discussion to understand what, if anything, babies believe in. Or what we babies accepted as reality.

Interesting, to me, that babies are presented as a 'them' category, when everyone reading this was at one time, 'them.' Seems more appropriate to discuss it as an 'us' proposition. What as a baby did you believe in?

I personally don't recall much from that time, but really do think I saw my parents as highly influential to my being, and not far removed from how some people currently understand the term 'god.'

But I also realize that as a baby, I wasn't aware that I was a baby, nor that I was born, nor that beliefs exist. Without any (intellectual) beliefs, but existing as a person that accepts a reality, I wonder if us adults can actually comprehend that type of existence. For all we know, that is knowledge. We label it as ignorance, but participate on threads 80 pages deep debating the minutiae about the very idea of beliefs. Thinking it will lead to knowledge on beliefs, or lack thereof. Perhaps we are still in our infancy?

By my understanding of what "belief" means (acceptance as true), there is nothing a baby doesn't believe in. Only later do we learn judgement, so we qualify and eliminate selective bits and pieces of the world that don't fit our individual master plans. Each of the words of our respective languages--particularly the nouns and verbs--represent judgements made upon the world.

 

[Augustus]

I don't understand this.

ArtieE kindly provided a great example for you

"(historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).  [[3], HarperCollins, ISBN 9780060653385, keyword Domitilla, Flavia, page 431:
Domitilla, Flavia, niece of the emperor Domitian (81-96). She and her husband, Flavius Clemens (consul in 95 and cousin of Domitian), were probably Christians; charged with atheism and adoption of Jewish ways, they were punished (95) with death (Clemens) and exile (Domitilla).

This is the atheist who is also a theist (actually the very original use of the term). If your religious views are not orthodox enough, or your loyalty is to the wrong god, then you could be accused of atheism as you are without (the right) gods.

Until maybe 200-300 years ago, the term atheist was always pejorative, an insult to be flung at the impious or followers of the wrong gods. As far as I am aware, only during the enlightenment did people start to self-identify as atheists in any numbers.

You seem to have a problem understanding the broad vs. narrow sense of the word. Wikipedia is your friend.

Greek:

Atheism: Without god(s)

Hard to beat the original.

No problem at all. After 1500 posts you really should understand the basics by now though.

So we should go with the original? The kind of atheist that is often a theist you mean? (see above)

Anyway, the original was a- theos, now add -ism to this and what do you get? Without god(s) -ism, the principle (i.e. belief) of being without god(s)

Flew was proposing a reinterpretation as a-(theism), instead of (athe)ism.

Yeah, more or less. It was sort of a "lost" definition I suppose. At that time people were almost exclusively using "atheist" as an assertive stance. All Flew really did was correct that.

No. As he himself clearly states (and is supported by the history of the word), he was proposing a new usage. It was not a rediscovery. The concept had been proposed before, it just was never a common usage.

You misunderstood that he was talking about how the a- prefix is commonly applied in other words, not in the word atheism itself. He said we should use the word atheism in this way, not because it was the 'original' meaning of atheism, but because he believed it was advantageous to use it in this way.

There is nothing wrong with this, he perceived it as correcting a bias inherent in the term. He is honest that he is redefining the term away from its original meaning for this very reason. It is also legitimate that people honestly disagree with him though.

The problem here is that many people in this thread are unaware of this, and think that people using the traditional definition are the ones redefining the term. Anyone who disagrees with 'lack of belief and babies are atheists' is presumed to be a moron who can't understand a very basic point. As such, if they are shouted at enough then they will eventually see the light. Then people indulge in some theistic conspiracy theories and cod psychology about such people being mindlessly in thrall to honouring theism, even if they don't realise it.

This is the genesis of the a(theism) definition, a normative interpretation of what the word atheist should mean, based on how a- is used in other words and an assumption that a- applies to theism.

This is what I've been saying.

 

[PackJason]

I'll go with what atheism actually is: a lack of belief god(s). No qualifiers or filler required.

You go ahead and keep spinning your semantics pinwheel, I'll keep my intellectual residence in reality.

 

[Augustus]

To quote Mr. Paine:
"As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism -- a sort of religious denial of God. It professed to believe in man rather than in God. It is as near to atheism as twilight to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or irreligious eclipse of the light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade."

I see denial of god to constitute a belief, not a lack of belief.

 

[Augustus]

I'll go with what atheism actually is: a lack of belief god(s). No qualifiers or filler required.

You go ahead and keep spinning your semantics pinwheel, I'll keep my intellectual residence in reality.

Damn these people who keep referring to facts and evidence, don't they know I'm just right because I say I am!!!



What atheism 'actually' is, is however people use the term. There is no King of Language to fix what words 'actually' mean. That you think otherwise is not because you 'keep your intellectual residence in reality', but because your a bit too closed minded to see things the way they actually are (i.e. there are numerous legitimate usages, and favouring one over the other is a matter of personal preference).

I find it funny that 'active atheists' profess to be such critical and independent thinkers yet suffer from groupthink more than just about any other group I am aware of. Same arguments, same refusal to accept any evidence to the contrary. "But hey, we are all rational, so we must be right. Eh guys?"

I'll leave it at that.

 

[PackJason]

Ok, pinwheel.

 

[Willamena]

I see denial of god to constitute a belief, not a lack of belief.

Sort of: it refers to that your beliefs lie elsewhere.

 

[Augustus]

Sort of: it refers to that your beliefs lie elsewhere.

Like you believe an answer is true, you don't 'lack belief' that it is false.

 

[ArtieE]

What atheism 'actually' is, is however people use the term.

"How many atheists are there?
It depends on your definition of the term. Only between 1.5 and 4 percent of Americans admit to so-called "hard atheism," the conviction that no higher power exists. But a much larger share of the American public (19 percent) spurns organized religion in favor of a nondefined skepticism about faith. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims these Nones as members of his tribe. "If you don't have a belief in God, you're an atheist," he said. "It doesn't matter what you call yourself."
http://theweek.com/articles/476559/rise-atheism-america

 

[Willamena]

..

"How many atheists are there?
It depends on your definition of the term. Only between 1.5 and 4 percent of Americans admit to so-called "hard atheism," the conviction that no higher power exists. But a much larger share of the American public (19 percent) spurns organized religion in favor of a nondefined skepticism about faith. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims these Nones as members of his tribe. "If you don't have a belief in God, you're an atheist," he said. "It doesn't matter what you call yourself."
http://theweek.com/articles/476559/rise-atheism-america

So... one small corner of the planet favours skepticism over conviction.