"Humans are born as atheists"

[viole]

Agnosticism is based on a positive claim, so babies aren't agnostic.

The atheism of babies doesn't really matter in and of itself; it's just an implication when we use a reasonable definition for "atheist" that works for adults.

If something works of adults, it cannot be logically extended to non adults. There is no guarantee, that it works for them, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If something works of adults, it cannot be logically extended to non adults. There is no guarantee, that it works for them, too.

Any time someone who told me that babies aren't atheists has explained to me what they think "atheist" means, their definition has devolved into absurdity very quickly. If you've solved the problems that all those other people have had, please share how you define the term.

 

[paarsurrey]

The a- and anti- prefix would exist without theists existing.

But it would be meaningless, which means non-existence really.
Regards
#451

 

[paarsurrey]

Humans are commonly born as superstitious too

Is it from science or religion?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If babies are born lacking all the things that they don't have or believe, that doesn't make them atheists.

Wonderful!
Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

And children tend to be a-metaphysical, as well. They do not have any clue of what we are talking about. Yet.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense saying "Kids lack belief in God, and are therefore atheists, or agnostics, or whatever". It is also counter-productive. Small kids think nobody can see them if they only hide their face.
Therefore, so-called default positions, are not necessarily reliable.
Ciao
- viole

Wonderful!
Regards

 

[viole]

Wonderful!
Regards

The real question is whether humans are born with a default atheistic position. I don't think they are. I believe a set of children growing up in complete isolation, will develop a religious belief, with high probability.

I think beliefs in imaginary agents are a natural adaptation. We developed a religious brain for natural reasons, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Any time someone who told me that babies aren't atheists has explained to me what they think "atheist" means, their definition has devolved into absurdity very quickly. If you've solved the problems that all those other people have had, please share how you define the term.

"Atheist" is "atheism" with the form of the suffix changed to refer to the agent noun of its associated "ism." The significant question in defining the atheist is "What is atheism?" The "-ist" is simply a person who does the "-ism."

https://sarathorneenglishlanguage.com/2013/05/31/ism-and-ist-helpful-suffixes/

 

[atanu]

The atheism of babies doesn't really matter in and of itself; it's just an implication when we use a reasonable definition for "atheist" that works for adults.

The atheism of babies doesn't really matter in and of itself; it's just an implication when we use an un-reasonable definition for "atheist" that does not even work for adults.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The atheism of babies doesn't really matter in and of itself; it's just an implication when we use an un-reasonable definition for "atheist" that does not even work for adults.

I define atheism in terms of lack of belief. Please tell me why this is unreasonable and why it doesn't work for adults.

 

[atanu]

I define atheism in terms of lack of belief. Please tell me why this is unreasonable and why it doesn't work for adults.

For human mind there is never a lack of belief. A notion of a 'lack of belief' is a belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For human mind there is never a lack of belief. A notion of a 'lack of belief' is a belief.

I'm not sure if you've utterly failed to understand what I'm saying or if you're being obtuse on purpose.

When I say that atheism is based on lack of belief, this does not mean that an atheist has no beliefs; it just means that of all the beliefs that the person holds, none of them are belief in a god, and this fact implies that he is an atheist.

Adult atheists, like all adults, hold beliefs about all sorts of things.

 

[atanu]

.....,it just means that of all the beliefs that the person holds, none of them are belief in a god, and this fact implies that he is an atheist.

I am not being obtuse. I am calling the above position unreasonable.

I have argued elsewhere that a statement "I lack belief in love", indicates a presence of knowledge of what love is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not being obtuse. I am calling the above position unreasonable.

I have argued elsewhere that a statement "I lack belief in love", indicates a presence of knowledge of what love is.

So you really don't understand what I'm saying? Hmm.

Let me try to express what I'm getting at another way: anyone who believes in at least one god is a theist; anyone else is an atheist.

The category "atheist" includes people with all sorts of views: some are unsure about the existence of gods. Some are utterly convinced that no gods exist. Some don't think that the term "god" is meaningful. They're all atheists.

Again: when I say that the term "atheist" is defined in terms of lack of belief, this does not mean that I'm saying that atheists have no beliefs about gods whatsoever.

 

[atanu]

So you really don't understand what I'm saying? Hmm.

I understand that you (and many others) rationalise your particular belief as 'lack of belief'.

When I say I have a 'lack of belief of X' it implies that I possess knowledge of X.

Which is un-reasonable. Suppose you say "I lack belief that there is a computer in the house', you know what a computer is. But, I do not think that you know about God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand that you (and many others) rationalise your particular belief as 'lack of belief'.

When I say I have a 'lack of belief of X' it implies that I possess knowledge of X.

Which is in-reasonable. Suppose you say "I lack belief that there is a computer in the house', you know what a computer is. But, I do not think that you know about God.

Please, for the sake of effective communication, go back and actually READ my post before you hit the quote button. I'm only willing to put up with so much of you arguing against positions I haven't taken before I'll just give up on trying to explain things to you.

 

[Katzpur]

I define atheism in terms of lack of belief. Please tell me why this is unreasonable and why it doesn't work for adults.

To me, it seems as if you'd have to have some kind of knowledge of what it was you lacked a belief in, in order for a lack of belief to really be very meaningful.

 

[Willamena]

I define atheism in terms of lack of belief. Please tell me why this is unreasonable and why it doesn't work for adults.

Because strong explicit atheists exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To me, it seems as if you'd have to have some kind of knowledge of what it was you lacked a belief in, in order for a lack of belief to really be very meaningful.

Depends on the context, but generally... sure: the fact that babies aren't born believing in gods doesn't really matter for much.

... but I find the way that people make this point about atheism - and generally *only* atheism - interesting. After all, when talking about, say, civilians affected by a war, we can include the babies without anyone questioning whether we should be calling someone a "civilian" if they've never even thought about joining the military.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because strong explicit atheists exist.

With regards to all gods?