What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

[Valjean]

Most people start out following the belief of their parents.

Most people 'start out' with no beliefs. The religious beliefs of their parents are downloaded some time later, before the child has developed any firewalls or ability to reason or think critically.

 

[Link]

@Valjean

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)
If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)
V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

This is a valid form. I would argue sound as well. But it's definitely not circular.

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't, God is the conclusion.

Of what premises?

 

[Link]

Of what premises?

See above.

 

[Valjean]

@Valjean

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)
If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)
V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

This is a valid form. I would argue sound as well. But it's definitely not circular.

This appears to be gobbldegook. Please explain.

 

[Link]

This appears to be gobbldegook. Please explain.

What do you mean? Have you studied logic before?

 

[Valjean]

There is nothing wrong with talking to rocks.

It is when the rock talks to you that you have a problem.

Or a bush.....

 

[Valjean]

What do you mean? Have you studied logic before?

State your premises.

 

[Link]

State your premises.

I did in the proper way in logic. That is how you break up an argument in logic and show it's valid.

 

[Secret Chief]

OK. Define "atheist" in a way that does not include all things lacking belief.

How about "A person who denies the existence of gods" ?

 

[Valjean]

Quite possibly. So one should infer from that as a newborn they have not considered the issue and so it is inappropriate to consider them either atheist or theist.

Valid point, but it presumes atheism a considered ontological opinion, rather than a de facto lack of belief.
Either definition is reasonable, but most atheists today prefer the simple, lack-of-belief position.

 

[Valjean]

How about "A person who denies the existence of gods" ?

That definition is accepted by almost no atheist today, and specifically denied by current atheist organizations.

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

 

[Valjean]

I did in the proper way in logic. That is how you break up an argument in logic and show it's valid.

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists{/quote]

V and S are not premises, just incomplete sentences.
G is either an unsupported conclusion or an unfounded premise.

 

[Link]

V and S are not premeses, just incomplete sentences.
G is either a conclusion or an unfounded premise.

Of course, they are not the premises. They are used to make following the premises easier.

The premises are the first three lines:

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)
If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)
V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

I used the letters to make it easier to see the syllogism. I don't think you have taken courses about logic at a high level. It's okay. Just don't argue, I can explain.

 

[Link]

V -> S
S -> G
V
Therefore G (V -> G from V -> S S->G)

This normally how you argue in logic.

And you state what letters represent:

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

But I stated them all in English too:

If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are.
Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can.
Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds
Therefore God exists

 

[Valjean]

Of course, they are not the premises. They are used to make following the premises easier.

The premises are the first three lines:

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)

"If there is a value to who we are." "Value" is ambiguous.
"there is a vision to who we are." Non sequitur.
Premise is unsupported.

If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)

Where was God established, here?

V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

I used the letters to make it easier to see the syllogism. I don't think you have taken courses about logic at a high level. It's okay. Just don't argue, I can explain.

I understand the Symbolic Logic/Boolean format, but your premises are unclear and unfounded, and your God conclusion doesn't follow.
I propose there is neither abstract value nor purpose.

 

[PureX]

Atheists rarely "assert." They speak up in response to the endless assertions of theists.

Mostly they think personal beliefs are “assertions” that must be “corrected”.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I doubt the study really shows what it intends to. Most humans are prone to superstition (there are mutants like I am) but very few would come up with a god concept on their own. The "natural" superstition seems to be some kind of animism as we see that mostly with primitive cultures.

Theres actually been several studies to find that over the years.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There is nothing that makes someone an atheist, it's the default condition, you are born with it.
Theists are made, usually by childhood indoctrination.

Hmm, I've heard this argument a fair number of times and now might not be the best time to address it but I'm gonna anyway. There is no "default" position when you're born, that's a complete misnomer. People are no more "born" an atheist than they are theist or any other "ist" or any similar terms. The only way such terms hold any kind of meaning is to accept that they're arrived at once cognitive development has reached a certain stage where independent thought is in the equation. I'm not an atheist and nor do I subscribe to any 'organized religion', nor was I was indoctrinated into the position I am now which is supposedly contrary to the "default" one you posit I was born with. These things are rather more nuanced and complex than soundbites and rhetoric.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You have that wrong: an atheist is not made, an atheist is born. Every child that has ever been born to humans began life as an atheist.

Every one of them was also born with a predisposition to believe and learn from their parents and community -- a necessity for their own survival. And when parents believe (because they believed their parents, and so on and so on) in gods, they teach their children to believe in gods. Even more, they teach them lots and lots and lots of utterly unprovable things about those gods -- what they want, how to appease them, what not to do to anger them, what to eat, what bits of a baby's body should be snipped off (or not), who you can love (often in what position and under what circumstances), and much, much more.

No atheists are not made -- theists, every brand of them, are.

No, a child is born, one free from any sort of label or tag where it comes to this subject. What happens further down the line is something else but to say that theists are "made" pretty much leads to a cul de sac of any meaningful conversation.