"Humans are born as atheists"

[Yerda]

As you get difficult, this definition gets more and more problematic.

It isn't a definition.

Theists reject specific beliefs of other theists all the time, but this doesn't make them atheists, right? You do believe that, for instance, a Muslim is still not an atheist even if he rejects the existence of Odin and Thor (... and in fact every god but one), don't you? Theists believe in lots of things besides gods, so what you've given is less than useful without more details. What sorts of things believed in by theists do you think need to be rejected to make a person an atheist? I mean, if theists all happened to believe that it's cold outside, a person wouldn't become an atheist for thinking "no, it's warm", right?

So you have an issue with gods being what theists believe in on the grounds that theists believe propositions about things other than gods?

Also, how does someone reject "what theists believe exists" in the case of a theist who can't express his beliefs properly (or at all)?

What kind of person can we say is a theist without knowing what they believe?

 

[Willamena]

We're born non-Francophile. We're born non-accountants. We're born non White Sox fans, We are born non-political. We're born non-theists.

Negative sentences negate the validity of their positive counterparts. English is designed to reflect the positive world.

 

[sojourner]

Being hard wired for belief isn't the same as subscribing to a belief.

The correct definition of atheism is whatever the interlocutors decide on. As long as both/all parties agree on terms, productive communication can proceed.
In the case of RF's recurring "Atheism as default" or "Born atheist" thread, the atheists are working from a "lack-of-belief" definition, while opponents are arguing from the "choice" definition. Thus the debate continues endlessly, with the same points recurring over and over again.

We still need to identify what constitutes "belief."

 

[Valjean]

Negative sentences negate the validity of their positive counterparts. English is designed to reflect the positive world.

Huh?

 

[1137]

Being hard wired for belief isn't the same as subscribing to a belief.

The correct definition of atheism is whatever the interlocutors decide on. As long as both/all parties agree on terms, productive communication can proceed.
In the case of RF's recurring "Atheism as default" or "Born atheist" thread, the atheists are working from a "lack-of-belief" definition, while opponents are arguing from the "choice" definition. Thus the debate continues endlessly, with the same points recurring over and over again.

Right? Debating atheists is almost like debating creationists sometimes!

 

[1137]

Negative sentences negate the validity of their positive counterparts. English is designed to reflect the positive world.

Too early for me lol, can you explain what you mean?

 

[Willamena]

Too early for me lol, can you explain what you mean?

We live in a positive world described by those properties it has, not in a negative world described by properties it doesn't have. English reflects this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The correct definition of atheism is whatever the interlocutors decide on. As long as both/all parties agree on terms, productive communication can proceed.

There's more to it than that, IMO:

- "whatever the interlocutors decide on" is reflected in their actual usage, so a definition that doesn't reflect usage isn't correct.

- a definition that violates its own premises is incoherent and therefore can't be a workable definition for anything.

Do you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We live in a positive world described by those properties it has, not in a negative world described by properties it doesn't have. English reflects this.

I know a number of teetotalling civilian vegetarian non-smokers who disagree with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you have an issue with gods being what theists believe in on the grounds that theists believe propositions about things other than gods?

Ah... so it was gods you were focusing on. This creates a problem, because now you've circled back on youself:

- what's a god? What theists believe in.
- what do theists believe in? Gods.

Going back to the beginning of all this, you said that a person becomes an atheists by rejecting gods. Your circular nonsense does nothing to help us understand what you mean by "god". So far, your approach fails.

What kind of person can we say is a theist without knowing what they believe?

A quiet theist, maybe?

You don't concede that there are theists who don't tell others about their god-beliefs? Do you actually think it's possible for a human being to hear of every god-concept... let alone know enough about it to evaluate it and decide that it's false?

 

[sojourner]

We're born non-Francophile. We're born non-accountants. We're born non White Sox fans, We are born non-political. We're born non-theists.

No, I don't think we are. We are born human beings. We're not born "non" - anything. We become things. Therefore, since "atheist" describes a certain stance that is taken, I don't think we're "born atheist." I don't think we're "born theist." We're not born any kind of "ist." As we grow and learn about our world, we learn to take certain particular stances where particular understandings are concerned. Some of us understand the world in theological terms, and some of us understand the world in pragmatic terms. I really don't think either is a "default" position, now that I think about it.

 

[1137]

No, I don't think we are. We are born human beings. We're not born "non" - anything. We become things. Therefore, since "atheist" describes a certain stance that is taken, I don't think we're "born atheist." I don't think we're "born theist." We're not born any kind of "ist." As we grow and learn about our world, we learn to take certain particular stances where particular understandings are concerned. Some of us understand the world in theological terms, and some of us understand the world in pragmatic terms. I really don't think either is a "default" position, now that I think about it.

Interesting, it's almost like we're born Setian, @Adramelek !

 

[Demonslayer]

Therefore, since "atheist" describes a certain stance that is taken,

It describes no such thing. There is no stance. Unless you're a theist, you're an atheist. Is a baby a theist?

 

[First Baseman]

Is a baby agnostic?

 

[Demonslayer]

I don't think we're "born atheist." I don't think we're "born theist."

We are born tabula rasa. Belief in Gods is learned. Before we learn it, we have no belief in Gods. No belief in Gods is called atheism.

 

[Demonslayer]

Is a baby agnostic?

To be agnostic you'd have to understand the choice. An agnostic person understands the idea of a God, understands those who believe in a God and understands those who don't, and is uncertain about their belief.

A baby has no such understanding of any of these issues. A baby is a blank slate when it comes to this kind of knowledge. To be agnostic, IMO, you have to be aware of what you're agnostic about.

 

[First Baseman]

To be agnostic you'd have to understand the choice. An agnostic person understands the idea of a God, understands those who believe in a God and understands those who don't, and is uncertain about their belief.

A baby has no such understanding of any of these issues. A baby is a blank slate when it comes to this kind of knowledge. To be agnostic, IMO, you have to be aware of what you're agnostic about.

That sounds reasonable.

 

[1137]

To be agnostic you'd have to understand the choice. An agnostic person understands the idea of a God, understands those who believe in a God and understands those who don't, and is uncertain about their belief.

A baby has no such understanding of any of these issues. A baby is a blank slate when it comes to this kind of knowledge. To be agnostic, IMO, you have to be aware of what you're agnostic about.

"A baby is a blank slate. Except atheism, it's totally an atheist."

 

[Demonslayer]

That sounds reasonable.

I think this whole argument is weird because I think some people are thinking that saying "babies are born atheists" is trying to brag or something that somehow atheism is cool because of this fact.

It's really not about that. It's like, I'm a Patriots fan now. I have friends that are fans of other teams. When we were born we were just...not fans. Not fans of anything, didn't even understand the concept of fans. We were afanists.

 

[Willamena]

I know a number of teetotalling civilian vegetarian non-smokers who disagree with you.

Well, if that was meant rhetorically, then they don't disagree with me.