"Humans are born as atheists"

[paarsurrey]

Jesus Himself said "I and my Father are One." Yes, He did say that He is God, that's why the Jews wanted to stone Him on more than one occasion.

You are quite wrong, sir.

That only meant that Jesus was a messenger/prophet of G-d and he was conveying G-d's message as did Moses. Moses was also one in G-d, that did not make Moses god.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You have a lack of belief because you have never heard of them. Maybe I should have used "lack of belief" instead of "disbelief."
But that's just semantics anyway because to be an atheist, all one needs is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.

In other words it is just ignorance or lack of search.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You have a lack of belief because you have never heard of them. Maybe I should have used "lack of belief" instead of "disbelief."
But that's just semantics anyway because to be an atheist, all one needs is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.

In other words it is just ignorance or lack of search.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Cognition is the function of the brain that allows learning, making value judgments, understanding, and the development of the self.

Doesn't brain starts functioning as soon as soul flashes in the child in the womb of a mother? It starts knowing things naturally:

Fetuses react sharply to their mother's actions. "When we're watching the fetus on ultrasound and the mother starts to laugh, we can see the fetus, floating upside down in the womb, bounce up and down on its head, bum-bum-bum, like it's bouncing on a trampoline," says DiPietro. "When mothers watch this on the screen, they laugh harder, and the fetus goes up and down even faster. We've wondered whether this is why people grow up liking roller coasters."
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html​

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"The Christian" doesn't necessarily believe that children are born sinful.

It is a core belief of Christianity, invented by Paul that "there is original sin", Jesus never believed in it.
Regards

 

[sojourner]

paarsurrey said: ↑
The Christian people who follow the ideology of Paul, believe Jesus a god, while Jesus himself did not believe that he was god, he could not as he was a Jew. Just to differentiate from them I write G-d, omitting the vowel.
Thanks and regards

This is because Paul and the Church got hold of anonymous accounts, doctored them as per their invented religion and published them later.
Regards

How do you know Jesus didn't believe he was God? All we have of his opinions is the gospel accounts. Paul, also, was a Jew -- trained as a pharisee.
Paul wrote his letters. He had no "anonymous accounts." Published "later?" It doesn't get any earlier than Paul.

 

[sojourner]

It is a core belief of Christianity, invented by Paul that "there is original sin", Jesus never believed in it.
Regards

Paul didn't "invent" original sin." That came much, much later. And, it's not a "core belief of Xy." Please stop commenting on things you obviously know nothing about.

 

[PackJason]

In other words it is just ignorance or lack of search.
Regards

No, not in other words. I said it right the first time.

 

[sojourner]

Doesn't brain starts functioning as soon as soul flashes in the child in the womb of a mother? It starts knowing things naturally:

Fetuses react sharply to their mother's actions. "When we're watching the fetus on ultrasound and the mother starts to laugh, we can see the fetus, floating upside down in the womb, bounce up and down on its head, bum-bum-bum, like it's bouncing on a trampoline," says DiPietro. "When mothers watch this on the screen, they laugh harder, and the fetus goes up and down even faster. We've wondered whether this is why people grow up liking roller coasters."
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html​

Regards

Yes, it does. But higher functioning of self-differentiation, self-determination, reasoning, etc. come later.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lots of people here like to claim that atheism is a 'lack of belief', and that they themselves 'lack belief' in the existence of god, rather than hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

A point to note.
Regards

 

[sojourner]

Belief may be a cognitive buy-in, but I don't see why non-belief need be an active process at all. A lack of awareness is a lack of belief, and a lack, however it came about, choice or default, is to be without. Being without belief is the sine qua non of atheism.
Atheism is both a passive lack of concept and an active rejection; weak vs strong atheism. As long as there's no belief, it's atheism.
A new or erased slate is just as blank.

I disagree. Belief -- whether buy-in or buy-out is belief. One can't entertain that process with a concept if the concept isn't on one's radar.

 

[The Mormonator]

No, not in other words. I said it right the first time.

You sure are sassy.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
What is your understanding of the word "to cognate"? Please give your own understanding not from a lexicon or a dictionary.
Regards

Cognition is the function of the brain that allows learning, making value judgments, understanding, and the development of the self.

The functioning of the brain of a child starts in the womb of the mother as soon as soul flashes in the fetus:

Fetal Alertness
Scientists who follow the fetus' daily life find that it spends most of its time not exercising these new abilities but sleeping. At 32 weeks, it drowses 90 to 95% of the day. Some of these hours are spent in deep sleep, some in REM sleep, and some in an indeterminate state, a product of the fetus' immature brain that is different from sleep in a baby, child, or adult. During REM sleep, the fetus' eyes move back and forth just as an adult's eyes do, and many researchers believe that it is dreaming. DiPietro speculates that fetuses dream about what they know - the sensations they feel in the womb.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html

Regards

#273

 

[Valjean]

I disagree. Belief -- whether buy-in or buy-out is belief. One can't entertain that process with a concept if the concept isn't on one's radar.

Huh???

Non-belief, weather buy-in, buy-out or default, is non-belief. If the non-belief involves God, it's atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IOW, the baby is a civilian. It's not "non-military."

That's what "civilian" means.

We say, "My baby is a girl," not, "My baby is a 'not-male.'" We say, "My baby is a US citizen." We don't say, "My baby is a 'not-Russian, not-French, not-British, not-Somalia, etc. ad nauseum citizen."

In context when it matters, I would expect someone to say "my baby is not a Russian citizen."

In fact, I don't even think you can correctly say, "My baby is a vegan," since "vegan" entails a choice to not eat animal products.

That and the fact that milk isn't vegan.

You can correctly say, "My baby is being reared vegan." Similarly, I don't think we can correctly say, "My baby is a Christian," even if it's been baptized. It's more correct to say, "We're rearing our child in the church."

That's getting into doctrinal stuff, but some denominations would disagree with you.

"Atheist" is, I think, a stance, because it's "anti-something."

No, it's "without something". Being against theism is anti-theism. I agree that babies aren't anti-theists.

In order to be a-theist, one has to have some cognizance of theism -- or even of non-theism. Because atheism is an "ism," it's a concept -- and one that babies don't yet have.

I disagree. Atheism isn't a concept.

Neither are babies theists, for the same reason: "theist" involves cognition of certain concepts. Until a being is able to be sentient enough, differentiated enough, and cognizant enough of the world around her/him -- until they, themselves can say, "I am blah blah blah," they cannot correctly be referred to as anything other than a human being.

We describe babies as much more than just human beings all the time. If you have a problem with this, then your argument isn't with the word "atheist"; it's with the English language generally.

We don't (correctly) say that babies are things beyond their ability, but we do correctly say that babies are things within their ability, and being an atheist - i.e. being someone who has not been convinced of theism - is certainly within the ability of a baby. In fact, they must be atheists until they're at the point that they can understand at least one form of theism well enough to be convinced of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't "not believe in them." I simply don't know of them, so I don't know whether I might believe in them or not. Ignorance and disbelief are two completely different things.

They're both encompassed by "not believing". "Not believing" is the complement of "believing": unless you believe, then you do not believe.

Once again: an "ism" is a cognitive exercise that requires higher thinking. Babies are not "apolitical." They're babies. Why? Because they're not capable of being political in the first place.

That doesn't mean they aren't apolitical; it means they can't help but be apolitical.

If I can't do something, then this implies I don't do it.

Yes, it is. Belief or not is a choice, because both stances are the same cognitive function.


yes it does. Do. The. Math. The value of "empty" might be 0, but it's still an assignable and understandable value that defines "empty."


The emptiness still has a value, and, as such, is not a "default position." If you've never seen the box, you don't know whether it's empty or full. if you've never heard of deity, you wouldn't have any grounds to either believe or disbelieve.


"Lack of awareness" and "lack of belief" are two different things. That's why we have two different terms for them. Atheism is a lack of theism, not a lack of knowledge of theism.

I'm not sure if I don't get the concept you're trying to express, or if you're just wrong. It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. If atheism is a lack of theism, then anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

Just as it's impossible to disbelieve something you've never heard of. and that's what atheism is: disbelief in the concept of deity. If you don't know the concept, you can't disbelieve it.

Try applying this to adults and you'll see the problems with this approach.

There is no single "concept of deity". There are actually uncountably many concepts of deity, and they often contradict each other. Rejecting belief in one doesn't necessarily imply rejecting belief in the others. For any given person, there are many concepts of deity that they will never even hear of. There are others that a person might hear of, but only hear explained in an incoherent way.

How is an atheist supposed to reject all of them? Merely rejecting some of them isn't enough: even the vast majority of theists do that much, and if our approach implies that theists can be atheists, we end up with nonsense.

All of us are as unaware as a baby when it comes to the vast majority of god-concepts that humanity has believed in. Despite this, we use the word "atheist" to describe adults who haven't even considered all those god-concepts that they've never heard of.

If you're going to say that this lack of awareness disqualifies babies from being atheists, are you going to say that lack of awareness disqualifies adults? Because adult atheists are just as unaware of most god-concepts as a baby is.

 

[First Baseman]

That only meant that Jesus was a messenger/prophet of G-d and he was conveying G-d's message as did Moses. Moses was also one in G-d, that did not make Moses god.
Regards

No, the Jews understood well what He meant when He said it, though you do not. That is why they picked up rocks to stone Him. Jesus also said "Before Abraham was I am." That cannot be interpreted any other way to a Jewish person except, "I am God."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't agree that theists believe in god(s)? That the characterising feature of theism is belief in at least one deity?

If you disagree with what I think this is fine. I'm having a difficult time trying to work out what you want from me here.

I'm trying to get you to explain in a coherent way what you mean when you say you "rejected the idea". Right now, what you've told me relies on the word "god", which is a term I consider to be incoherent.

You asked, what qualifies someone as an atheist?

I say, someone who rejects theism.

You then took issue with the quantity of ideas that someone has to reject in doing so and requested (for reasons I can't determine) that I supply you with an idea that:
-can be rejected
-applies to theism as a whole.

Here's what I'm trying to get at: I don't think you've rejected theism, because I think rejecting theism is impossible

I think you may have rejected some forms of theism, but every theist I know has rejected some forms of theism, so that isn't enough to make a person an atheist.

I then voluntered the proposition, there is a god. Why do I have to define god? Do you not agree that this proposition applies to every theist and can be rejected?

I don't agree that it can be rejected, because the term "god" is so poorly defined that the only way to reject the proposition is to consider each and every god and reject them in turn, but this is something that's beyond human capabilities.

I certainly do concede this, but I am wondering how we might know a person is a theist if they are unable to express their beliefs.

Irrelevant to the question at hand. If we know that they're out there, and if we define atheism in terms of rejecting the proposition "there is a god", then the proposition - and your rejection - has to take their gods into account.

How you're going to do this while knowing nothing about their gods is your problem to solve, not mine.

Not at all.

Then how does a person reject the proposition "there is a god"? If you're not going to reject each god individually - which you agree is impossible - then you need to define "god" in a coherent enough way that we can define "gods" as a category.

... and THAT'S why I asked you to tell us what "god" means.

 

[bobhikes]

That's what "civilian" means.


In context when it matters, I would expect someone to say "my baby is not a Russian citizen."


We describe babies as much more than just human beings all the time. If you have a problem with this, then your argument isn't with the word "atheist"; it's with the English language generally.

We don't (correctly) say that babies are things beyond their ability, but we do correctly say that babies are things within their ability, and being an atheist - i.e. being someone who has not been convinced of theism - is certainly within the ability of a baby. In fact, they must be atheists until they're at the point that they can understand at least one form of theism well enough to be convinced of it.

My question I asked of someone else and they ignored when is a baby an individual and not a baby. If it happens at birth they may actually believe and know a concept of God because it has been proven they learn in the womb. If they are an individual when the sperm and ovum meet then how are they any different then a monkey or a tree and what value does atheism have as a definition. If it happens when the mind starts to absorbing outside information. That very first bit of information maybe about God.

When is a baby considered an individual?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My question I asked of someone else and they ignored when is a baby an individual and not a baby. If it happens at birth they may actually believe and know a concept of God because it has been proven they learn in the womb. If they are an individual when the sperm and ovum meet then how are they any different then a monkey or a tree and what value does atheism have as a definition. If it happens when the mind starts to absorbing outside information. That very first bit of information maybe about God.

When is a baby considered an individual?

Well, that's a rabbit hole I'm not going down. There's too much off-base thinking in this post for me to deal with, and I'm not willing to spend the time correcting all your mistakes on an issue I see as irrelevant. Sorry.