What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

[Secret Chief]

Is your lack of belief in the glatnufeths of Sirius 3 a philosophical position, or just a lack?

Based on the fact that I just made them up, I'm guessing it's just a lack, like the lack of belief of an infant who's never heard of God, but I understand your point, and have read similar arguments from respected intellectuals. I just use the term more broadly and literally, as do most of the atheists I'm aware of.

Just a lack. I'm guessing rocks lack that belief too.

I've edited my post to include a short video shown in British schools...( WARNING: CONTAINS NO MENTION OF ROCKS )

 

[Mock Turtle]

Most people, babies, start out with little if any thought of any kind. And thinking critically is not limited to atheists. Two examples, the second with a "how to":

Critical Thinking in Religious Education​

The Importance of Critical Thinking in Religion​

But How Do I Practice Critical Thinking?

• Ask questions
• Learn logic and reasoning skills.
• Study your religion and others.
• Study opposing views
• Study related fields in both the sciences and philosophy, including the philosophy of religion.
• Find reasons for your beliefs that satisfy not only you but would be persuasive to others.
• Seek the truth, whatever it may be, regardless of what you wish or hope to be true.
• Don’t just bash other views or defend your own.
• Seek not only to criticize but to understand.
• Humbly acknowledge when you are wrong.

• Study your religion and others.

But this already supposes a bias, and with 'your religion' being the correct one - which is what generally happens as to where people get their religious beliefs. Why not start off being educated in all beliefs and none, and not inculcate any particular religion into a child when it is unable to comprehend the greater picture? This is why I always bang on about religions being indoctrination in general, even if so many here cannot see this, because it mostly is such.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

What is the definition of "theist?" "A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." And an atheist is, by very definition, one who DOES NOT hold such a belief. Easy-peasy!

Now, does a newborn child hold such a belief? If that child is isolated from the world, and such a belief is never, ever mentioned to that child, will it come to hold such a belief?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What is the definition of "theist?" "A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." And an atheist is, by very definition, one who DOES NOT hold such a belief. Easy-peasy!

Now, does a newborn child hold such a belief? If that child is isolated from the world, and such a belief is never, ever mentioned to that child, will it come to hold such a belief?

Except a baby is incapable of any rational thought or considered opinion where it comes to the existence or non existence of a deity. A baby neither believes or disbelieves so any such rationale is out the window until cognitive development reaches fruition, otherwise what's the point in using these terms? Your latter hypothetical is one that would just go around in circles as there's no way of determining one way or the other. Some people believe that there's a creator without basing it on religious texts by way of.

 

[Arthur Brain]

With how many god believes is a human born?
If the number of gods you believe in is zero, you're an atheist.

At least by the most inclusive definition of atheist. You'll have to fight that out with the atheists who insist on that definition. You might reject that definition and call a newborn a "none" or "unbeliever" or any moniker that denotes the same.
The fact remains that humans are not born with any belief.
Most have the capacity for superstition (though not all).

Then the term becomes redundant and pretty ridiculous as well. A newborn is incapable of holding any informed opinion on the subject so to class one as "atheist" is absurd.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You believe a child would become a theist spontaneously, without any enculturation?

No, that's not my position at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then the term becomes redundant and pretty ridiculous as well. A newborn is incapable of holding any informed opinion on the subject so to class one as "atheist" is absurd.

I think that depends how broadly and in what contexts you're using the term, to be fair. For example, you wouldn't contest that an infant lacks a belief in giraffes, or lacks a belief in the efficacy of a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, or lacks a belief that there is a sound solution to Fermat's last theorem. So, in a technical sense, I see no issue with stating that a baby lacks a belief in a God and, therefore, can technically be considered an atheist.

The difference is if one makes the assertion that this meaningfully contributes to discussion rather than simply being an acknowledgement of the broad definition of atheism as being a kind of neutral position that can include lacking belief. In other words, I think it's fine to say "babies are atheists" in a technical discussion about the broadest possible applications of the term, but I don't think it has much utility beyond that simple, observational illustration. When debating theism/atheism, the subject is rarely if ever debated from the position of not even having the ability to assess the claim, so I would say that it almost never serves much utility in any debate that isn't explicitly about the broadest usage of the term "atheist".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Except a baby is incapable of any rational thought or considered opinion where it comes to the existence or non existence of a deity. A baby neither believes or disbelieves so any such rationale is out the window until cognitive development reaches fruition, otherwise what's the point in using these terms? Your latter hypothetical is one that would just go around in circles as there's no way of determining one way or the other. Some people believe that there's a creator without basing it on religious texts by way of.

You are fooling around with words, but avoiding the question, especially the second part of the question. If a baby is born, does it hold a belief in a god? If not, it is certainly not a theist. And since atheist means "lacks a belief in gods," it begins life -- by definition -- as an atheist. And if never presented with the concept of a god, which the second part of my question, how do you think he or she will develop such a concept, and what might it be like?

 

[sun rise]

• Study your religion and others.

But this already supposes a bias, and with 'your religion' being the correct one - which is what generally happens as to where people get their religious beliefs. Why not start off being educated in all beliefs and none, and not inculcate any particular religion into a child when it is unable to comprehend the greater picture? This is why I always bang on about religions being indoctrination in general, even if so many here cannot see this, because it mostly is such.

That's out of context of the other points. To wit: Seek the truth, whatever it may be, regardless of what you wish or hope to be true

 

[sun rise]

You believe a child would become a theist spontaneously, without any enculturation?

Of course not. If someone is predisposed to religion, the religion of the child's parents or culture will have a major if not determinant influence. A child might be born with an undeveloped talent for chess, athletics or anything but that talent must be developed by hard work.

This sounds good, but I never see it. People on RF have been asking for reasonable, objective justifications for religion -- specifically theism -- since the forum began. I have yet to see anyone produce tangible evidence justifying a belief in God.
If you can provide some, we'd certainly be interested.

Justifying a belief in God? I don't know of any either. Consequences of being part of a religion? That there's evidence for as the following illustrates:

Less God, Less Giving? Religion and generosity feed each other in fascinating ways​

 

[Heyo]

Then the term becomes redundant and pretty ridiculous as well.

The term becomes inclusive. There are two intentions behind the definition:
1. Get more people to admit that they are atheists.
2. Make clear that you don't have to "work" or even decide to be an atheist. In hope that #1 follows.

Most atheist organisations use that inclusive definition. I call them "ignorant atheists", others call them lacktheists.

And redundant? How do you call someone who doesn't believe in gods?
The term will become redundant when there are no theists any more to compare them.

A newborn is incapable of holding any informed opinion on the subject so to class one as "atheist" is absurd.

That's the point. You don't need to hold a position.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

Birth

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's out of context of the other points. To wit: Seek the truth, whatever it may be, regardless of what you wish or hope to be true

But you know that this is what happens - as to people in general being taught one particular religious belief, and before they are capable of questioning such. So this will no doubt have an influence upon them - as to how they even approach anything else related to such beliefs - and their culture will be another bias laid upon them too. How many do actually do the unbiased thing and treat all beliefs as equally valid and pursue such with as much evidence as they will probably get from their actual religion? Very few I would guess.

 

[sun rise]

And now show me list of scientific papers that include the word "god".

Some questions have obvious answers thanks to LLM AI chatbots. First Google Bard:

Sure, here are 10 scientific papers that include the word "god":

"The God Helmet: Linking Brain States with Reported Mystical Experiences" by Michael Persinger and Michael A. Wiklund (1989) [1]
"Theistic Evolution: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment" by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (2009) [2]
"The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life: An Exploration of the Teleological Argument" by Robin Collins (2009) [3]
"Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse: A Critical Appraisal" by John Leslie (2013) [4]
"God and the Multiverse: The Metaphysics of Creation" by Michael J. Murray (2014) [5]
"Theistic Arguments and the Multiverse" by Robin Collins (2016) [6]
"The Role of Fine-Tuning in Arguments for God's Existence" by J.P. Moreland (2016) [7]
"The Metaphysics of Creation: A Dialogue on Divine Action, Modern Science, and the Multiverse" by Michael J. Murray and Robert J. Koons (2017) [8]
"The God of the Higgs Boson: A Scientific Exploration of Faith and the Universe" by John Polkinghorne (2018) [9]
"A Scientific Exploration of Faith: Dialogues with theists and atheists" by John Polkinghorne (2019) [10]

These papers explore the relationship between science and religion, and the possibility of finding evidence of God in the natural world. They cover a variety of topics, including the fine-tuning of the universe, the multiverse, and the role of God in evolution.

It is important to note that not all scientists agree on the existence of God, and there is no scientific consensus on the matter. However, these papers represent some of the latest research on the topic, and they offer a variety of perspectives on the relationship between science and religion.

 

[sun rise]

Now ChatGPT 3.5:

The word "God" is not commonly found in scientific papers because science typically deals with empirical evidence and natural phenomena rather than religious or metaphysical concepts. However, there might be some papers that discuss the concept of God in a philosophical or sociological context. Here are 10 scientific papers that include the word "God" in their titles or content:

1. "The God Gene Hypothesis: Are There Genes for Religious Experience?" by Dean H. Hamer - Published in the American Journal of Human Genetics in 2004.
2. "The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief" by Sam Harris et al. - Published in PLOS ONE in 2009.
3. "A Review of Research on the Influence of Religion on Consumer Behavior" by Rajeev Batra et al. - Published in the Journal of Business Research in 2015.
4. "God and the Brain: The Physiology of Spiritual Experience" by Andrew B. Newberg and Eugene G. D'Aquili - Published in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine in 1998.
5. "Belief in God and Psychological Distress: A Prospective Study" by Marilyn Baetz and John Toews - Published in the Journal of Religion and Health in 2009.
6. "The God of the Gaps: A Historical Perspective" by Christopher Kaiser - Published in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science in 1997.
7. "Science and God: A New Cosmology" by Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams - Published in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science in 2006.
8. "The Nature of Atheism and the Problem of God" by Antony Flew - Published in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science in 1984.
9. "Science and the Problem of God" by John Haught - Published in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science in 2004.
10. "Religion and the Unconscious: A Thematic Study of Carl Gustav Jung's Psychology of Religion" by Michael Gellert - Published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion in 1988.

Please note that the inclusion of the word "God" in these papers may not necessarily indicate that they endorse or support religious beliefs but rather that they discuss the concept in a scientific or scholarly context.

 

[sun rise]

Birth

That's your belief. What scientific evidence is there for that truth claim?

 

[Valjean]

Except a baby is incapable of any rational thought or considered opinion where it comes to the existence or non existence of a deity. A baby neither believes or disbelieves so any such rationale is out the window until cognitive development reaches fruition, otherwise what's the point in using these terms? Your latter hypothetical is one that would just go around in circles as there's no way of determining one way or the other. Some people believe that there's a creator without basing it on religious texts by way of.

The point is, atheism isn't a doctrine, belief system or intellectual conclusion. We're using different definitions and talking past one another. By the currently preferred definition, simple lack of belief, would a baby, or an innocent deep in the Amazon rain forest, not be a-theist; without a God-concept?

 

[Valjean]

Then the term becomes redundant and pretty ridiculous as well. A newborn is incapable of holding any informed opinion on the subject so to class one as "atheist" is absurd.

So are we arguing for the term's aptness, or utility?

 

[Valjean]

No, that's not my position at all.

Ergo: It's born A-Theist.

 

[Link]

"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.

The shorten form has to be ambiguous because it's summarizing the longer version which has the details and elaboration. When I linked to the elaborated long version, you said it was circular. Now you are arguing about if it's sound and asking for details. The details I've provided.

Do you at least see it's a valid form?

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

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