If We All Became Atheists?

[SalixIncendium]

The term "atheist" is only meaningful in an environment where theism is common, but we live in such an environment.

It's kind of like "non-smoker" that way.

Correct. If had no awareness of tobacco or the act of smoking, there would be no self-identification as a 'non-smoker.'

Newborn have no awareness of theism, so for them, there is no identification with atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're misrepresenting my argument. I have no 'allergy' to the word 'atheist.'

I was speaking in general.

My argument is that people aren't born atheist.

And I'm disagreeing. My argument is that if you don't have a belief in god(s) (for whatever reason), you are an atheist by default.

Atheism is a default. You need to do something (believe something) to move away from this default.
Not doing (believing) that something means you remain in the default: atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct. If had no awareness of tobacco or the act of smoking, there would be no self-identification as a 'non-smoker.'

Sure. There would be no need or use for the term, because there would be nothing to contrast it to.
But you would still be a non-smoker, wouldn't you?

Newborn have no awareness of theism, so for them, there is no identification with atheism.

Sure. But it would still be correct to call them atheists. They wouldn't have a positive believe in theistic claims.

 

[Heyo]

They want everyone to know how right they think they are without having to defend it. So they pretend they don't believe what they believe. That way they won't have to defend it the way they insist everyone else must defend their beliefs.

That is one of the reasons I don't identify as an atheist. (I still am one by definition.)

But I have a question regarding "born a theist". How do you explain the Pirahã? And how do you explain mutants like me?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Atheism is a default. You need to do something (believe something) to move away from this default.
Not doing (believing) that something means you remain in the default: atheism.

I disagree with this. If atheism is the default position, why is its root word 'theism?'

If it was the default position, wouldn't that make it a positive position? And by that, wouldn't anything that is not the default position be a negative position?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correct. If had no awareness of tobacco or the act of smoking, there would be no self-identification as a 'non-smoker.'

We're not just talking about self-identification, though.

Newborn have no awareness of theism, so for them, there is no identification with atheism.

Well, no. Someone who doesn't smoke and who doesn't believe in any gods is a non-smoker and an atheist regardless. The context just determines whether anybody cares.

 

[F1fan]

Well some atheists expend an awful lot of words explaining their position while simultaneously claiming not to hold a position. That doesn’t make much sense to me, but maybe I lack the critical thinking skills which you claim to be master of.

Debating a topic is a position. Atheism has no ideological framework. The two are different things. Theists DO have an ideological position, and it's also their position in debate. You seem to not understanding this nuance, and trying to impose some beliefs onto atheists that only theists have. If you notice what atheists actually say they DON'T try to argue how atheism is true, they are critical of religious beliefs. The antitheists of being religious is atheist. So if the claims made by theists are defeated then ideally they believer would reject their position and default to non-belief (atheist).

Of course theists don't hold their beliefs rationally, but for other reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Babies can think about that question and then give a considered answer? Are you sure? Does gurgling constitute a statement of their beliefs?

Not what I said or implied at all.

A theist is someone with a positive believe in theistic claims.
An atheist is anyone without such a positive believe, for whatever reason.

It means that atheism is the default. To move away from the default, you need to do something: believe theistic claims.
So not doing that something, means you remain in the default.

The reason why you don't, is irrelevant. Not being convinced, not comprehending the question, whatever.

I don't know why this seems to be so complicated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your opinion.

I'ld rather say "by definition", but whatever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree with this. If atheism is the default position, why is its root word 'theism?'

I don't see what the etymology of the word has to do with what is the default or why it is so.

If it was the default position, wouldn't that make it a positive position? And by that, wouldn't anything that is not the default position be a negative position?

No. Atheism is essentially like the null hypothesis. The default starting point.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was speaking in general.


And I'm disagreeing. My argument is that if you don't have a belief in god(s) (for whatever reason), you are an atheist by default.

Atheism is a default. You need to do something (believe something) to move away from this default.
Not doing (believing) that something means you remain in the default: atheism.

As I understand it, in Islamic theology one is Muslim by default. Interesting that your position is essentially the same.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheism is a theistic position.

I asked ChatGPT about this, since it is a "large language model," and ought to know something about language. I asked: 'If atheism means "lack of belief in deities," how can some people claim that atheism is a "position?" I mean, isn't it more of a "lack of position" with regard to gods?'

Here is ChatGPT's response.

"That's a great question! The distinction between atheism as a lack of belief and as a position can be nuanced.​

​

"On one hand, atheism can be seen simply as the absence of belief in gods, which might suggest a neutral or passive stance. This perspective emphasizes that atheism is not necessarily an assertion or a belief system but rather a rejection of theistic claims.​

​

"On the other hand, many people consider atheism a position or stance because it often entails a worldview or a philosophy that actively embraces secularism, reason, or skepticism regarding supernatural claims. In this sense, it becomes a more defined perspective on existence and knowledge, even if it doesn't posit an alternative belief system in deities.​

​

"So, while it can be viewed as a lack of belief, it can also represent a conscious decision to reject theistic claims and embrace a secular viewpoint, making it a position in its own right."​

It would seem to me, then, that atheism by itself is not a "position" of any kind, unless it is paired with some other position or philosophy. A person who doesn't believe in any gods, but who is uninterested in making society "secular" or doesn't care at all about what anybody else believes would not be holding a "theistic position" at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree with this. If atheism is the default position, why is its root word 'theism?'

Etymology isn't definition, but if you want to get into the etymology:

The term "atheism" - or at least the term from which we got our English word - arose in an era when theistic religion was more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy. An atheist was someone who did not take part in the typical religious rituals of their society (which is why Christians were referred to as "atheists", but that's probably getting off-track).

Also, your etymology is off: the root of "atheism" wasn't "a-theism" (i.e. the negation of theism) but "atheos-ism" (i.e. the "ism" of no gods). But again: etymology isn't definition.

In this era, there were no religious obligations for babies, so the question of whether they were participating or not was moot: for a baby, participation and non-participation looked the same.

Fast forward to now and religion is more typically seen in terms of belief - orthodoxy - than ritual - orthopraxy - and the definition of the term "atheist" now refers to what the person doesn't believe instead of what the person doesn't do.

If it was the default position, wouldn't that make it a positive position? And by that, wouldn't anything that is not the default position be a negative position?

It's the default, but it's not a position. It's just the term we use for the absence of a position.

 

[SalixIncendium]

We're not just talking about self-identification, though.



Well, no. Someone who doesn't smoke and who doesn't believe in any gods is a non-smoker and an atheist regardless. The context just determines whether anybody cares.

Okay. I think I see where you and others are coming from here. You're talking others labeling babies as atheist, not whether or not they would consider themselves atheist.

In that respect, it is true that they lack belief in God or gods, and others who are familiar with the concept of theism might view them as atheist. However, as they are ignorant of any concept of God or gods and have yet to be exposed to the concept of theism or atheism, they would not consider themselves either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. I think I see where you and others are coming from here. You're talking others labeling babies as atheist, not whether or not they would consider themselves atheist.

Yes. Did you think we were talking about how babies would refer to themselves?

In that respect, it is true that they lack belief in God or gods, and others who are familiar with the concept of theism might view them as atheist. However, as they are ignorant of any concept of God or gods and have yet to be exposed to the concept of theism or atheism, they would not consider themselves either.

What they would consider themselves isn't the issue.

Believing in a thing means conceiving of it as true. We can't conceive of a thing as true if we can't conceive of the thing at all. To me, this makes it obviously true that a newborn baby can't be a theist and therefore must be an atheist.

But also: speaking as an adult atheist, I'm not sure there's really a coherent concept behind the word "gods," so I'm not sure that a blanket statement like "I believe gods don't exist" could be meaningful.

In any case, something a baby and I have in common is that neither of us have been presented with a coherent definition of what a god is, carefully evaluated it, and decided that it's false.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes. Did you think we were talking about how babies would refer to themselves?


What they would consider themselves isn't the issue.

Believing in a thing means conceiving of it as true. We can't conceive of a thing as true if we can't conceive of the thing at all. To me, this makes it obviously true that a newborn baby can't be a theist and therefore must be an atheist.

But also: speaking as an adult atheist, I'm not sure there's really a coherent concept behind the word "gods," so I'm not sure that a blanket statement like "I believe gods don't exist" could be meaningful.

In any case, something a baby and I have in common is that neither of us have been presented with a coherent definition of what a god is, carefully evaluated it, and decided that it's false.

If there’s a coherent concept behind the word “atheist”, I don’t think it will be found on this thread.

 

[Nakosis]

That is half-way atheism. Unless existence of God and soul is denied, the illness will continue.

Like theism is a sickness?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there’s a coherent concept behind the word “atheist”, I don’t think it will be found on this thread.

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any gods.

 

[RestlessSoul]

An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any gods.

I guess that's told me.

 

[Nakosis]

That's disappointing...and a deflection.

Yes, you were off course. Not much else needs to be said about it.

What I actually wrote.

Again, there's no need.

Then any further discussion on the subject is futile.

Yes, what I've tried to say all along. At least you got there, though in a round about way.