Atheist by birth?

[Valjean]

Yes, it all comes down to the definition...
The problem here seems to be that people don't agree on the definition of atheism

There are two types of definitions being thown around
1) Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s)
2) Atheism is the rejection of belief in god(s)

If you use definition 1) you can argue that anyone or anything which does not believe in at least one deity is an atheist. That includes babies, dogs and rocks.

If you use definition 2) you can argue that you must first know what belief is in order to reject it. So using this definition babies, dogs and rocks are not atheists.

Exactly what some of us have been pointing out throughout this thread.

IMO, what Willamena is saying is: atheism is a rejection of the belief in God.

That is how I understand atheism, and is one that makes most sense, except when considering implicit atheism. As I've stated now about 7 times on this thread, none of you are implicit atheists. You may think you are, I (and apparently Willamena) am all too glad to debate you on this.

And we all agree with you -- babies are not strong atheists (definition #2) They are weak atheists (#1). It's been pointed out a hundred times that this was the definition being used when we were talking about default positions and atheist babies and rocks.

In fact, I'm going backwards right now in this thread to do just that. For the fun of it.

The definition problem has been pointed out -- and clarified repeatedly -- since the beginning of the thread. I brought it up way back in #38 and 58, and was being redundant even then.

Someone who rejects, denies or disclaims the existence of God.

In other words, someone who takes a firm stand and says, "I believe God does not exist."

And, again, we're in complete agreement. Babies are not strong atheists and strong atheism cannot, logically, be man's religious default position.

This whole long thread seems to have resulted from people's insistence on substituting their personal understanding of a technical term, or the colloquial (dictionary) definition, despite its inappropriateness being pointed out numerous times.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm just trying to figure out whether anybody thinks calling babies atheists provides any useful information about either babies or atheists, regardless of how one paints atheism.

Seems rather silly to call them atheists if it doesn't.

 

[idav]

I'm just trying to figure out whether anybody thinks calling babies atheists provides any useful information about either babies or atheists, regardless of how one paints atheism.

Seems rather silly to call them atheists if it doesn't.

Depends if you think babies will go to hell for not being a believer. Nothing surprises me in religion.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is an important concept. It has molded history. It has important social, political, theological and intellectual ramifications.

Atheism being the Natural state of man, and religion a later add-on, has important theologic and political ramifications.

Atheism being a passive absence of belief, rather than the rejection of a fundamental cornerstone of human society or an individual's ego-integrity, has important social ramifications.

There is a reason atheists have been found to be the most hated and distrusted demographic in American society, and I suspect the misunderstanding that Acim and Willamena have confessed above may be a contributing factor.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I'm just trying to figure out whether anybody thinks calling babies atheists provides any useful information about either babies or atheists, regardless of how one paints atheism.

Seems rather silly to call them atheists if it doesn't.

I guess it can serve as a reminder to people that we are all born without a belief in the existence of any gods. One has to be taught about religion and gods before they can cross the threshold into belief.

 

[whereismynotecard]

We are all normal when we are born, just living life, not worried about anything but eating and sleeping, maybe playing with a mobile or sucking on our toes now and then. Then we grow up and get all ****** and have to say whether or not we believe in some stuff and listen to if someone else has the same view, hoping that they don't so we can argue about it.

 

[idav]

Atheism is an important concept. It has molded history. It has important social, political, theological and intellectual ramifications.

Atheism being the Natural state of man, and religion a later add-on, has important theologic and political ramifications.

Atheism being a passive absence of belief, rather than the rejection of a fundamental cornerstone of human society or an individual's ego-integrity, has important social ramifications.

There is a reason atheists have been found to be the most hated and distrusted demographic in American society, and I suspect the misunderstanding that Acim and Willamena have confessed above may be a contributing factor.

Before I ever really delved into various religions, over 15 or 20 years ago I did feel that atheism was a bad word and an insult of sorts. That was how I was raised and what I got from the bible. I definately would have had a hard time calling a baby atheist cause that would be rude, like calling a baby a heathen.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess it can serve as a reminder to people that we are all born without a belief in the existence of any gods. One has to be taught about religion and gods before they can cross the threshold into belief.

Right, but we're all born without any beliefs, nor the ability to formulate or understand them, so pointing out one particular belief that newborns don't hold and aren't capable of understanding is, at best, redundant.

 

[outhouse]

Someone who rejects, denies or disclaims the existence of God.

In other words, someone who takes a firm stand and says, "I believe God does not exist."

great you have your own personal version.


when it comes down to it, your one of three choices. This covers all living people.

a theist
a agnostic
a atheist

you dont make up the rules or change definitions because you dont like the outcome.
No dictionary has ever added as a qualifier for a atheist to first know and then choose not to believe in a deity.

so which one of the three is a baby?

 

[outhouse]

I'm just trying to figure out whether anybody thinks calling babies atheists provides any useful information about either babies or atheists, regardless of how one paints atheism.

Seems rather silly to call them atheists if it doesn't.

no its not useful at all.

but it is what the OP asked.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

no its not useful at all.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

but it is what the OP asked.

Discussions evolve. Deal with it.

 

[Valjean]

Oh dear. He said "evolve."
Hold onto your seats!

 

[laffy_taffy]

Right, but we're all born without any beliefs, nor the ability to formulate or understand them, so pointing out one particular belief that newborns don't hold and aren't capable of understanding is, at best, redundant.

Well, even as an adult, I don't have to have the ability to formulate or understand them to be without a belief. I would have to have that ability in order to hold a particular belief.

 

[Valjean]

It's not the baby's faith we're pointing to, KT, but the fact that atheism is the natural human default position. The baby's just a convenient vehicle.

You're overfocusing.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not getting how you receive delusion from intention? I said, "I think there is mindful intention when it comes to expressing or holding beliefs." I could change that to 'mindful purpose' and would mean same for me. I think it possible to have mindful purpose and mindful attention with regards to beliefs. And mindful is word I could remove as it could possibly confuse if talking about more than one aspect.

Yes, it's possible to have mindful intention with regards to belief --that is in keeping with belief being a choice --but I disagreed that beliefs are choice. I don't mean that you are wrong in your image of beliefs as choice, I just have a different image.

IMO, that is taking choice further. Accept truth is trust. I feel that as little effort needed, almost as if trust is natural. But since this is 'trust in something or someone' that added pattern of identification seems purposeful. Assigning truth seems like intellectual assertion that takes an extra step. I accept something (could really go either way on how much truth I give it), but when I assign truth to it, I've now moved from acceptance, to willful assertion of its place within my conceptual framework.

'Assign' is often taken as wilful, or mindful, yes, but I think we unconsciously assign even more than we consciously assign. You can't 'trust' until you have something truthful (assigned) to trust.

Interesting topic, but perhaps for another thread.

I think we are as well, though adding and spinning to 'assert place within our (own) conceptual framework' kinda sorta hoping it aligns with another's framework. I personally think that is possible, even plausible. When persons say things like, "our perspective is completely different," I tend to disagree with this, and see it as hyperbole that is unexamined. More like, "I don't even want to entertain idea that our opinions, concepts, could be quite similar, because the other day you said monkeys are purple and I just can't go along with that thinking. Everyone I know, knows monkey's are orange. Therefore we are 'completely' different."

/side tangent.

There are ways in which thoughts just 'stick' with us, and are seemingly beyond our control. Yet, on deeper examination of one's self, without probing / prying into physical version of self (via extraordinary means), I think examination of 'stuck' things is plausible. One can find memories that are stuck and were seemingly being held as if imprint was, for whatever reason, deemed necessary, or not worth further examination. And in such self examination, I think one becomes aware of idea that at some level of consciousness, all of this is chosen. Thus some, I would argue all of it, can be unchosen, or undone. I ain't saying that is easy, but when aware of how consciousness can really work, it is actually easy. As easy to remove imprint as it was to have it put there. No physical effort needed, thus whatever the perceived big deal would be in shifting perception from physical understanding of evidence to non-physical, is really just hoopla. 8 seconds after shift is made, one quickly forgets angst one might've had going into 'jumping into the abyss.'

 

[Willamena]

I don't care - call it whatever you want. I never characterize it either way, as neither accurately describes my position. My position is simply that I cannot honestly claim belief in the existence of any god(s). I don't hold the belief that god(s) exist, nor do I hold the belief that god(s) do not exist. This is what makes me an atheist.

Whether someone decides to call this absence, lack, or rejection, doesn't really matter to me, as their need to label it as one or the other says more about their beliefs than mine.

To clarify, I generally use the phrase absence of belief in these contexts to convey that I don't hold a belief about the existence of god(s) either way. I suppose reject might be applicable to god concepts I've heard of, but I cannot have rejected something I don't have a concept of, so your insistence that "rejection" is more accurate than "absence" simply shows your unawareness of alternative semantical contexts, and honestly has more to do with a pathological contrariness than with you reaching some kind of rationally-based conclusion.

I wouldn't call that "atheism," I would just call that common sense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's not the baby's faith we're pointing to, KT, but the fact that atheism is the natural human default position. The baby's just a convenient vehicle.

You're overfocusing.

Maybe I'm looking at something else.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wouldn't call that "atheist," I would just call that common sense.

Me too. I'm an atheist because of common sense (or not so common).

 

[idav]

Me too. I'm an atheist because of common sense (or not so common).

LOL, uncommon sense?

 

[Willamena]

And, again, we're in complete agreement. Babies are not strong atheists and strong atheism cannot, logically, be man's religious default position.

This whole long thread seems to have resulted from people's insistence on substituting their personal understanding of a technical term, or the colloquial (dictionary) definition, despite its inappropriateness being pointed out numerous times.

The term "weak atheism" was invented by a fellow named George H. Smith in the 70's. Before that, everyone knew what an atheist was, there was no such disagreement, no such debate. The word had meaning. He thought this new term added something relevant to our modern society, bringing more people into the fold as it were. So my only question is, why is this a fold we want to be brought into? Or, more properly, according to some on these forums, sucked into?

I could run out and buy Smith's books, but my libertarian stance of being "just me" has served me well enough over the years. I'm not saying people shouldn't identify as weak atheist, or identify the baby as such, I'm just saying not all of us do. Not all of us can.