Atheist by birth?

[Falvlun]

in other words, you are born non-theistic and you remain non-theistic, then you are a atheist.

my point is that nothing was ever learned and the person never changed from birth. You dont learn to be a non-theist there are no lessons.

theism is the learned trait that changed your default vaules.

While I agree that babies have no beliefs and can technically be called "atheists", I do not find that to be a particularly useful designation. I would never call a baby an atheist or a theist; labels should be reserved for when someone is old enough to have decided for him/herself.

Additionally, I'm not convinced that "lack of belief in gods" is the default position. Obviously, again, it is for infants who have no beliefs at all. But once children start becoming aware, and questioning their surroundings, I wouldn't be surprised to find that humans are generally predisposed to believe in a higher power. This is from an innate tendency to personify things, and to attribute agency to natural causes.

Belief in God is a part of human nature. Not the best article, but I could do more digging.

 

[Valjean]

The study supports the natural tendency toward magical, causal, and agentive thinking, apophenia and other cognitive defits, leading to a natural tendency to religiosity, especially in unstable and insecure environments.

As far as being predisposed to believing in a "higher power" I think this might be a little overblown. People may be predisposed to religiosity and causal thinking, but this doesn't always translate into an abrahamic "higher power." A coercive and judgemental God; a God as lawgiver, is an abrahamic thing, not the norm.

"Babies as atheists is a compelling and fertile concept. It can generate hundreds of posts in chatrooms in just a few days.
The concept is useful because it illustrate man's natural psychological default position and the fact that atheism is not a militant or rebellious philosophy, but the natural state of man before cultural religious programming is installed.

 

[Falvlun]

The study supports the natural tendency toward magical, causal, and agentive thinking, apophenia and other cognitive defits, leading to a natural tendency to religiosity, especially in unstable and insecure environments.

As far as being predisposed to believing in a "higher power" I think this might be a little overblown. People may be predisposed to religiosity and causal thinking, but this doesn't always translate into an abrahamic "higher power." A coercive and judgemental God; a God as lawgiver, is an abrahamic thing, not the norm.

Where did the "abrahamic" qualifier come in to my "higher power"? I too would doubt that we'd be predisposed to such a complex concept.

I was going for the much more simple "Force behind natural events" concept, which is a pretty general definition for "god".

"Babies as atheists is a compelling and fertile concept. It can generate hundreds of posts in chatrooms in just a few days.
The concept is useful because it illustrate man's natural psychological default position and the fact that atheism is not a militant or rebellious philosophy, but the natural state of man before cultural religious programming is installed.

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God generates lots of talk too, but that doesn't make it any more convincing.

"Natural state of man"? Can you really tell me what the natural state of man is? Culture is an extremely natural part of man, and religion, like it or not, is also a widespread, early-developed aspect of human thought.

"Babies are atheists!" is a cheap, semantical argument that does little to further understanding and acceptance of atheism.

 

[outhouse]

While I agree that babies have no beliefs and can technically be called "atheists", I do not find that to be a particularly useful designation. I would never call a baby an atheist or a theist; labels should be reserved for when someone is old enough to have decided for him/herself.

Additionally, I'm not convinced that "lack of belief in gods" is the default position. Obviously, again, it is for infants who have no beliefs at all. But once children start becoming aware, and questioning their surroundings, I wouldn't be surprised to find that humans are generally predisposed to believe in a higher power. This is from an innate tendency to personify things, and to attribute agency to natural causes.

Belief in God is a part of human nature. Not the best article, but I could do more digging.

I really agree with most if what you stated.

no arguement here

 

[laffy_taffy]

While I agree that babies have no beliefs and can technically be called "atheists", I do not find that to be a particularly useful designation. I would never call a baby an atheist or a theist; labels should be reserved for when someone is old enough to have decided for him/herself.

Additionally, I'm not convinced that "lack of belief in gods" is the default position. Obviously, again, it is for infants who have no beliefs at all. But once children start becoming aware, and questioning their surroundings, I wouldn't be surprised to find that humans are generally predisposed to believe in a higher power. This is from an innate tendency to personify things, and to attribute agency to natural causes.

Belief in God is a part of human nature. Not the best article, but I could do more digging.

The thought of any "god" never crossed my mind as a child until I was told what one was.

 

[idav]

While I agree that babies have no beliefs and can technically be called "atheists", I do not find that to be a particularly useful designation. I would never call a baby an atheist or a theist; labels should be reserved for when someone is old enough to have decided for him/herself.

In a way I do agree with this. Only in that people can label themselves how they want whether they call themselves atheist or christian just depends on what that person thinks. That works to a certain degree until someone says they are atheist cause they only believe in FSM. Also it is pretty standard that we are able to label people based on standard definitions that we have for things which would also mean that to some degree someone might label themselves wrong when it comes to what the consensus says.

 

[Willamena]

The thought of any "god" never crossed my mind as a child until I was told what one was.

Me, too. But I wasn't an atheist until I rejected that thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Me, too. But I wasn't an atheist until I rejected that thought.

Does rejecting any god make a person an atheist? If so, isn't anyone who rejects a god (i.e. most theists) an atheist?

Does rejecting all gods make a person an atheist? If so, how is it even possible to reject all gods?

 

[Willamena]

Does rejecting any god make a person an atheist? If so, isn't anyone who rejects a god (i.e. most theists) an atheist?

Does rejecting all gods make a person an atheist? If so, how is it even possible to reject all gods?

Sure, whatever.

I thought you'd already answered those.

 

[Sunstone]

"Babies are atheists!" is a cheap, semantical argument that does little to further understanding and acceptance of atheism.

"Babies are not atheists" is also cheap semantics. Just as cheap as "Babies are atheists". Neither position seems to be supported by more than word usage.

As for your notion that god can be defined as a force behind events, well, so can ghost.

 

[outhouse]

Me, too. But I wasn't an atheist until I rejected that thought.

you were always a atheist, you just didnt realize it until that day

 

[Nois Forme]

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.

A bit late to the game, but I thought this worth mentioning.

I may be wrong, but it seems you're implying that a distinction between 'mere disbelief', which is by definition a lack of belief (support for this below in the link), and an active denial of the existence of (god), is a relatively new concept? If that's the case, you are incorrect. For quite some time, this distinction has been clear in dictionaries, which presumably reflect the way the language was actually used (that is what they do after all - dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, no?).

Atheism : Definitions details - tree of reason

In particular, the historical definitions further down the page are of interest, as they show that this distinction (lack of vs. denial) has been drawn for at least a couple of centuries. Nothing newly invented here. If you meant only the specific term 'weak atheist', then of course this is recent. But the distinction was long in play and well understood by the time Smith slapped a new label on it.

One other thing before I indulge in coffee...
I'm not sure if I saw this on these forums or elsewhere, but I found it rather instructive to demonstrate how one can merely 'lack a belief', and that to imply otherwise is to set up a false dichotomy. That is, to insist that one have a positive belief one way or the other on any given proposition is a fallacy. A simple version;

I am in contact with someone on the internet for the first time. We have not met or spoken before and have no knowledge of each other. This person says 'I live in Detroit'. The implications of this false dichotomy are that I have only two choices;

1) I believe that this person does live in Detroit.
2) I believe that this person does not live in Detroit.

I think it obvious that these are not the only choices available. In this case, I simply lack a belief in either. There is no positive belief involved, nor could there be, rationally. It's a simple exercise to replace 'this person lives in Detroit' with 'a god exists', and the outcome is the same.


Oh, and for those that wish to use the rather tired 'are rocks atheists?' argument...don't be daft. If you can't understand the simple idea that any discussion of an application of belief, or lack of thereof, requires and entity with at least the potential of believing (anything at all), then a rational debate with you is...unlikely.

 

[Willamena]

you were always a atheist, you just didnt realize it until that day

And what about the day a person recognizes their belief in "God"? Were they always a theist but didn't know it?

 

[Willamena]

"Babies are not atheists" is also cheap semantics. Just as cheap as "Babies are atheists". Neither position seems to be supported by more than word usage.

How do you figure?

 

[Willamena]

A bit late to the game, but I thought this worth mentioning.

I may be wrong, but it seems you're implying that a distinction between 'mere disbelief', which is by definition a lack of belief (support for this below in the link), and an active denial of the existence of (god), is a relatively new concept? If that's the case, you are incorrect. For quite some time, this distinction has been clear in dictionaries, which presumably reflect the way the language was actually used (that is what they do after all - dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, no?).

Atheism : Definitions details - tree of reason

I have no argument with this. I applaud the manner you've defined the terms. I meant that before the term "weak atheism," which some here are holding as authoratative, came along, "atheist" had meaning regardless if it was active denial. My real beef is with those who would hold that "lack of belief" doesn't entail "disbelief." That's most of the discussion.

One other thing before I indulge in coffee...
I'm not sure if I saw this on these forums or elsewhere, but I found it rather instructive to demonstrate how one can merely 'lack a belief', and that to imply otherwise is to set up a false dichotomy. That is, to insist that one have a positive belief one way or the other on any given proposition is a fallacy. A simple version;

I am in contact with someone on the internet for the first time. We have not met or spoken before and have no knowledge of each other. This person says 'I live in Detroit'. The implications of this false dichotomy are that I have only two choices;

1) I believe that this person does live in Detroit.
2) I believe that this person does not live in Detroit.

I think it obvious that these are not the only choices available. In this case, I simply lack a belief in either. There is no positive belief involved, nor could there be, rationally. It's a simple exercise to replace 'this person lives in Detroit' with 'a god exists', and the outcome is the same.

Lovely. This example will be useful, thanks.

Oh, and for those that wish to use the rather tired 'are rocks atheists?' argument...don't be daft. If you can't understand the simple idea that any discussion of an application of belief, or lack of thereof, requires and entity with at least the potential of believing (anything at all), then a rational debate with you is...unlikely.

Thank you (for joining the forums).

 

[Storm]

Oh, and for those that wish to use the rather tired 'are rocks atheists?' argument...don't be daft. If you can't understand the simple idea that any discussion of an application of belief, or lack of thereof, requires and entity with at least the potential of believing (anything at all), then a rational debate with you is...unlikely.

How is it any more daft than saying that potential capacity is equivalent to actual capacity?

 

[outhouse]

And what about the day a person recognizes their belief in "God"? Were they always a theist but didn't know it?

nope

theist is not the default position

 

[Storm]

There is no default position.

 

[idav]

And what about the day a person recognizes their belief in "God"? Were they always a theist but didn't know it?

Again, believing obviously requires a target. Not believing does not especially if it isn't a belief. Granted that once you make the confirmation of not believing it does become a belief or opinion but prior to that it is not a belief therefore one does not believe. Really depends on the definition of belief you want to use which is where semantics comes in.

 

[idav]

There is no default position.

Default position is no opinion on a matter that isn't first brought to your attention. Therefore default would be not having belief/opinion about it.