Atheism

[Angel]

Is everyone born an theist ? Why or why not? Make your case.

If you mean is everyone born an atheist, yes. No one pops out of the womb believing in any gods.

Here ya go. :mrgreen:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/327210-everyone-born-atheist.html

Yes, they are. Atheism doesn't have to be a choice, someone who goes their entire life on a deserted island somewhere and never even comes into contact with the idea of religion, the concept of gods, they are still an atheist. The religious don't like this because they want to cast atheism as the "enemy". It isn't. It is the default. So they insist that it has to be something that it isn't, which is not only not honest, it's absurd. But this is religion we're talking about, where absurdity is pretty much the name of the game.

well spoken

The wagon train slowly drew up at the bottom of Echo Canyon and the pious pilgrims of New Atheism fell to their knees and sang their onanistic hymn of arrival "Hallelujah! Heareth Thee Thine Own Voice!"

 

[gfm7175]

It doesn't matter. Atheism is the LACK of belief in gods. Newborns LACK belief in gods. They LACK belief in everything. They are atheists by the definition of the word.

Except that's NOT the definition of the word...

Do you reject the belief that no god(s) exist?

 

[gfm7175]

I understand that it’s an uphill battle to convince other people to define words differently, but I’m not alone in suggesting it is more meaningful to think of atheism as a ‘considered lack of belief in any gods’, precisely because I don’t think it is meaningful to talk about infants being atheists or for that matter my cat or my couch, who, as far as I know, also lack belief in any gods. (I would be disappointed in my cat to learn otherwise.)

I’m more than willing to give up whatever rhetorical points might be gained by claiming infants for team atheist in exchange for the clarity I think this additional word brings to what I think we’re really talking about.

I would place no requirements on how much consideration is required, just like I wouldn’t require any particular bar of consideration to qualify as a theist.

Finally, someone not completely parroting the "lack of belief" noise...

I'd be interested in what your definition of 'belief' is... I have always argued that belief is "the acceptance of a claim/statement/argument as a true" and unbelief is the rejection of... Would you agree with that?

I think your addition of the word "considered" to the front of the parroted "lack of belief" definition for atheism ends up bringing the concept of belief (as I have defined it above) into atheism. Yes, atheism lacks belief in the "god(s) exist" claim, but they instead have belief in the "god(s) don't exist" claim. They reject, as a true, one claim but they accept, as a true, the inverse claim. I think that's more-so what atheism is...

Theists accept, as a true, that god(s) exist.
Atheists accept, as a true, that god(s) don't exist.
Agnostics accept neither of those claims as a true. They lack belief in both claims.

 

[Omega Man]

Is everyone born an theist ? Why or why not? Make your case.

No. We don't pop out of the womb with a mindset of disbelief.

ETA: I assume by "an theist", that you mean an atheist.


OM

 

[Cephus]

Except that's NOT the definition of the word...

Do you reject the belief that no god(s) exist?

Dictionary definition: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Do you ever get tired of being so absurdly wrong all the time?

 

[DarthPedant]

I'd be interested in what your definition of 'belief' is... I have always argued that belief is "the acceptance of a claim/statement/argument as a true" and unbelief is the rejection of... Would you agree with that?

Theists accept, as a true, that god(s) exist.
Atheists accept, as a true, that god(s) don't exist.
Agnostics accept neither of those claims as a true. They lack belief in both claims.

I don’t think it’s necessary to refer to a definition as ‘parroted’ - it’s what’s commonly used by self identifying atheists. If I were to ask a Christian what the minimum definition was for a Christian, I might get something back like ‘someone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior’ and despite having heard it before, I wouldn’t think they merely parroted something they didn’t understand. It’s simply the definition their community uses.

From a logic standpoint, it has a certain attraction to treat atheist/theist as a binary set: one either holds or doesn’t hold a god belief. But of course this clashes with colloquial usage and results in atheists basically saying to almost every agnostic: hey, buddy, you didn’t know it, but you’re an atheist! Which is why my other post brought up the idea that there may be other social factors we should consider. Because I find that as weird as having someone tell me I’m not an atheist. (Though maybe it’s not THAT weird: imagine someone who said ‘I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior but I’m not a Christian’ - one might respect their wish to use another label but still throw them mentally in their Christian bucket.)

Of course, there’s problems with the three tier system. For example, imagine a continuum from 0 to 100 where 0 is extreme pessimism about the existence of any gods and 100 is extreme optimism about the existence of one or more gods. Where do you draw the lines? Is 0 an atheist, 100 a theist, and then everything from 1 to 99 an agnostic? I don’t think this reflects how we use the terms at all! If I scored myself an 8 that’s fairly pessimistic about the god idea: enough that it would be weird to adopt a label colloquially used for the ‘middle ground’, but still some distance from certainty.

But as an 8, I can say ‘I do not believe there are any gods’ (which I see as the same thing as saying ‘I lack a belief in any gods’), signifying that I am unconvinced by the god ideas I’ve heard and has as its focus my (un)belief, but I’d stop short of saying ‘I believe there are no gods’, because that goes beyond the (obviously true) claim that I don’t hold a god belief to an ontological assertion about reality that my skepticism balks at. If I’m going to be a good skeptic, I have to be skeptical of my own ability to suss this stuff out with, really, no data. It’s like the black swan problem. I don’t want to assert that there’s no black swan just because I looked really hard and didn’t find one, but I’m ok saying I don’t believe there is a black swan until one shows up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gfm7175]

Dictionary definition: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

False Authority Fallacy. No dictionary owns or is the authority over any word definition. Dictionaries also, often enough, contradict each other, thus forming a paradox if one were to argue that more than one dictionary is the authoritative and correct dictionary.

It's quite obvious that you can parrot dictionaries and parrot what other people tell you, but can you reason out for yourself WHY atheism is defined the way I've said it is... and can you reason out WHY paradoxes arise from arguing for it to be defined the way that your holy dictionary has defined it?

Do you ever get tired of being so absurdly wrong all the time?

'lack of intelligence' mantra dismissed on sight...

Do you reject the belief that no god(s) exist? Yes or no...

 

[gfm7175]

I don’t think it’s necessary to refer to a definition as ‘parroted’ - it’s what’s commonly used by self identifying atheists.

I think it is necessary. I specifically said parroted because many people don't reason for themselves whether particular definitions are good or not, whether they work or not, whether they lead to paradoxes or not... They just open up their holy dictionary or listen to their 'holy preachers' and they parrot whatever they see/hear from them, using no reasoning skills of their own, hence parroting...

If I were to ask a Christian what the minimum definition was for a Christian, I might get something back like ‘someone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior’ and despite having heard it before, I wouldn’t think they merely parroted something they didn’t understand. It’s simply the definition their community uses.

I'm not sure what "minimum definition" is...

Christianity asserts the belief that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is. That is the initial circular argument of Christianity.

From a logic standpoint, it has a certain attraction to treat atheist/theist as a binary set: one either holds or doesn’t hold a god belief.

Yup.

But of course this clashes with colloquial usage

So? Common usage uses the term incorrectly, and that incorrect usage leads to paradoxes, such as simultaneously separating AND combining theism, atheism, and agnosticism. When it is claimed that atheism is "lack of belief", they combine themselves with agnostics because agnosticism is what actually amounts to "lack of belief". Theism and Atheism merely lack ONE belief (while accepting the other). Agnosticism lacks BOTH beliefs. Those are the three logical options concerning the "god(s) existence" truth (yes, no, idk either way). A person either accepts the yes answer, accepts the no answer, or accepts the idk either way answer. Depending upon which answer one chooses to accept as a true, that makes a person a theist, atheist, or agnostic.

Redefining Atheism solely focuses on what they lack belief in, but it completely ignores what they DO believe in... "I lack belief on the "god exists" claim"... Great! Now, what about the "god doesn't exist" claim? Do you deny that claim too? If you do, then you aren't an atheist; you are then an agnostic... The atheists who redefine atheism to "lack of belief" simply don't want to own up to their belief that god(s) don't exist...

and results in atheists basically saying to almost every agnostic: hey, buddy, you didn’t know it, but you’re an atheist!

Exactly. They then argue that Atheism and Agnosticism are the same, yet different... a paradox... one of the numerous paradoxes which arises out of redefining what these terms mean...

Which is why my other post brought up the idea that there may be other social factors we should consider. Because I find that as weird as having someone tell me I’m not an atheist. (Though maybe it’s not THAT weird: imagine someone who said ‘I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior but I’m not a Christian’ - one might respect their wish to use another label but still throw them mentally in their Christian bucket.)

Yeah, if they truly did accept Jesus as their LORD and Savior, then they would be a Christian, despite trying to avoid the label for whatever reasons. Same with Atheists trying to avoid the atheist label. Who cares what others think about the label... If they want to focus on the label and not on deeper discussion, then that's their problem.

 

[gfm7175]

...continued below... (darn 5,000 character limit)

Of course, there’s problems with the three tier system. For example, imagine a continuum from 0 to 100 where 0 is extreme pessimism about the existence of any gods and 100 is extreme optimism about the existence of one or more gods. Where do you draw the lines? Is 0 an atheist, 100 a theist, and then everything from 1 to 99 an agnostic? I don’t think this reflects how we use the terms at all! If I scored myself an 8 that’s fairly pessimistic about the god idea: enough that it would be weird to adopt a label colloquially used for the ‘middle ground’, but still some distance from certainty.

I do understand your argument here, and agree that it would be difficult to assign particular numbers to particular beliefs... Like you say, would 1-99 be agnostic, or would just 50 be agnostic? Would just 0 be atheist or would 0-49 be atheist?

However, I think this "confidence level" way of thinking isn't the best way to think about this, and isn't what I'm asserting when I'm asserting particular definitions for these words... I'm thinking along the lines of strictly what 'belief' is... Belief is the acceptance of a particular claim/statement/argument as a true. Now, it doesn't matter whether one is 1% sure or 100% sure of the claim they are accepting as a true, the only thing that matters is their action of accepting that particular claim as a true.

Theism accepts the "god exists" claim as a true.
Atheism accepts the "god doesn't exist" claim as a true.
Agnosticism rejects both of those claims, and accepts the "we have yet to find a way of knowing either way" claim as a true.

Either God exists in actuality or he doesn't; there is no denying that truth. Theists and Atheists have opposing viewpoints about which claim is the correct claim to accept as true. Agnosticism basically sits on the sidelines. They don't assert either or, citing as a true that we don't yet have a way of knowing...

But as an 8, I can say ‘I do not believe there are any gods’ (which I see as the same thing as saying ‘I lack a belief in any gods’), signifying that I am unconvinced by the god ideas I’ve heard and has as its focus my (un)belief, but I’d stop short of saying ‘I believe there are no gods’, because that goes beyond the (obviously true) claim that I don’t hold a god belief to an ontological assertion about reality that my skepticism balks at.

It sounds like you are quite sure (but not 100% sure) in your acceptance, as a true, of the claim "no god(s) exist"... Sounds like you are an Atheist to me. Remember, accepting a claim as a true doesn't mean that you have to have 100% confidence in the truth of the claim, but just that you are making the choice to accept it as a true.

If I’m going to be a good skeptic, I have to be skeptical of my own ability to suss this stuff out with, really, no data. It’s like the black swan problem. I don’t want to assert that there’s no black swan just because I looked really hard and didn’t find one, but I’m ok saying I don’t believe there is a black swan until one shows up

Great, but when you make the choice to believe that there are no black swans, you are accepting as a true that there are no black swans, regardless of your confidence level in that acceptance. You are still accepting it as a true.

Same with Atheism/Theism/Agnosticism... Confidence levels may vary, but that is irrelevant... You are still ultimately making the choice to accept a particular claim as a true... That is the very definition of what belief is... Atheism is just as much of a belief as Theism is (it is simply choosing acceptance of the opposing claim as a true)...

 

[zyzygy]

Dictionary definition: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Do you ever get tired of being so absurdly wrong all the time?

Apparently not.

 

[Cephus]

Apparently not.

I have finally come to the conclusion that intelligent discussion with said individual is impossible, so that was the end of that.

 

[zyzygy]

I have finally come to the conclusion that intelligent discussion with said individual is impossible, so that was the end of that.

The correct conclusion.

 

[DarthPedant]

...continued below... (darn 5,000 character limit)

Theism accepts the "god exists" claim as a true.
Atheism accepts the "god doesn't exist" claim as a true.
Agnosticism rejects both of those claims, and accepts the "we have yet to find a way of knowing either way" claim as a true.

Same with Atheism/Theism/Agnosticism... Confidence levels may vary, but that is irrelevant... You are still ultimately making the choice to accept a particular claim as a true...

There really isn’t a ‘paradox’ in the definitions you’re arguing against. The paradox results from you applying your definition of agnosticism to their definition of atheism. But if you compare their definition of agnosticism to their definition of atheism, there isn’t a problem. Indeed, you might like it, given what I read to be your appreciation of other binary distinctions.

In their view, theism/atheism is a position on gods, while gnosticism/agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Therefor there’s no conflict in being both an atheist and an agnostic, under their definitions. And if it suffers the problem of telling some self identifying agnostics that they are in fact (also) atheists, it also tells some atheists that they are in fact (also) agnostics.

Consider your own definition of agnostic:

‘Agnosticism rejects both of those claims, and accepts the "we have yet to find a way of knowing either way" claim as a true.’

Your definition then is not just a position on my continuum from 0 to 100 re: the god claims, right? It includes an additional position on knowledge. The atheist’s who use the binary approach to holding/not holding a god claim simply suggest that all one needs to be an agnostic is the last term in your definition ‘we don’t currently have a way to know’. Which I believe fits some classical philosophical definitions of agnosticism.

None of this definition wrangling is about not wanting to own my positions. I’m happy to talk about why I don’t hold any god beliefs. I’m happy to argue about why I think my position is reasonable. What I don’t want to have happen is to be pushed into defending a position I don’t hold, or being forced (expected?) to prove the non-existence or any particular god claim that was designed to be unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable, right? Or worse, as has happened to me, be told that I must not only argue against every unfalsifiable god concept someone has thought up, but to be a ‘rational’ atheist, I must have an argument against all the unfalsifiable god concepts that no one has yet invented!

When I was a theist, I never tried to buck the burden of proof. I understood that proving something exists should in theory be easier than proving something doesn’t exist, and since I was broadly speaking evangelical, I was happy to spend as much conversation time as possible on promoting my view, rather than rebutting theirs.

Now we could just agree that this conversation is about definitions re: beliefs and not ‘burden of proof’, but when you phrase things in terms of owning up, etc., I think it’s obvious that the burden of proof issue is what’s at stake in why you want to argue against these definitions, and perhaps in why many atheists argue for these definitions. I think we have a reasonable desire not to be backed into a corner of having to prove assertions that are stronger than what we hold.

I am more than willing to defend why I don’t hold any god claims, but I’m not anywhere near omniscient enough to assert that there couldn’t possibly be anything we’d recognize as a god ‘somewhere out there’, so I’d rather not be put in the position of being told that I must accept that burden of proof. Is it cowardly to not want to defend a position I do not in fact hold? It feels a bit like if I demanded every theist defend a literal reading of Genesis 1...

You introduced a new factor: choice. Boy we could go back and forth on that...

 

[Manc Skipper]

...continued below... (darn 5,000 character limit)

...

Theism accepts the "god exists" claim as a true.
Atheism accepts the "god doesn't exist" claim as a true.

...

There's your error/fudge.
Atheism need not accept a "god doesn't exist" claim since the non-existence of god is the default position. The atheist need only reject the unsupported notion that god exists. They lack a belief. Their hair color is bald.

 

[devildavid]

I think it is necessary. I specifically said parroted because many people don't reason for themselves whether particular definitions are good or not, whether they work or not, whether they lead to paradoxes or not... They just open up their holy dictionary or listen to their 'holy preachers' and they parrot whatever they see/hear from them, using no reasoning skills of their own, hence parroting...


I'm not sure what "minimum definition" is...

Christianity asserts the belief that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is. That is the initial circular argument of Christianity.


Yup.


So? Common usage uses the term incorrectly, and that incorrect usage leads to paradoxes, such as simultaneously separating AND combining theism, atheism, and agnosticism. When it is claimed that atheism is "lack of belief", they combine themselves with agnostics because agnosticism is what actually amounts to "lack of belief". Theism and Atheism merely lack ONE belief (while accepting the other). Agnosticism lacks BOTH beliefs. Those are the three logical options concerning the "god(s) existence" truth (yes, no, idk either way). A person either accepts the yes answer, accepts the no answer, or accepts the idk either way answer. Depending upon which answer one chooses to accept as a true, that makes a person a theist, atheist, or agnostic.

Redefining Atheism solely focuses on what they lack belief in, but it completely ignores what they DO believe in... "I lack belief on the "god exists" claim"... Great! Now, what about the "god doesn't exist" claim? Do you deny that claim too? If you do, then you aren't an atheist; you are then an agnostic... The atheists who redefine atheism to "lack of belief" simply don't want to own up to their belief that god(s) don't exist...


Exactly. They then argue that Atheism and Agnosticism are the same, yet different... a paradox... one of the numerous paradoxes which arises out of redefining what these terms mean...


Yeah, if they truly did accept Jesus as their LORD and Savior, then they would be a Christian, despite trying to avoid the label for whatever reasons. Same with Atheists trying to avoid the atheist label. Who cares what others think about the label... If they want to focus on the label and not on deeper discussion, then that's their problem.

You missed a lot of claims. For example, the god concept is completely made up by man claim.

 

[zyzygy]

There's your error/fudge.
Atheism need not accept a "god doesn't exist" claim since the non-existence of god is the default position. The atheist need only reject the unsupported notion that god exists. They lack a belief. Their hair color is bald.

My claim is that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Manc Skipper]

My claim is that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

That doesn't fit his opinion that you claim god does not exist, You (and I) simply withhold our assent to the suggestion that it does. There's no need for that extra step he makes to tell us what we believe. (To fit his warped viewpoint.)

 

[joyjoy22]

Probably, all of us doesn't have an idea that God exist when we were born. It changes as we grow old, it depends on the environment that we live into.

 

[DarthPedant]

...continued below... (darn 5,000 character limit)

You are still ultimately making the choice to accept a particular claim as a true... That is the very definition of what belief is...

Just some quick thoughts on ‘choice’. I think for most of our beliefs, we are either convinced or we are not convinced and choice has very little to do with it.

For example, I believe in black holes. But I can’t think of a moment when I chose to believe in them. I can think of the moment when I chose to watch about a hundred hours of astronomy lectures, and somewhere along the way I was convinced by the presentation of the evidence for black holes. But choice really only factored into my initial decision to get more information on astronomy. From there it all depended on how well they presented the evidence and how well that fit with my previous understanding of physics.

Two days ago a Christian told me to read Habermas on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I was shocked to find that I had actually bought that book years ago (as part of a digital bundle of books - I’m sure that I never selected that title: I hadn’t heard of Habermas), so I spent 6 hours reading it. I can make a choice to expose myself to new information or new arguments, but I cannot help that I was able to spot huge logical and factual flaws in Habermas’ book. Given everything else I know, I could not have just chosen to believe what I read. In this way, I think we’re all products (prisoners?) of our experiences.

There may be people who can choose to believe something for utilitarian reasons. We could look at the surprising number of people willing to switch religions in order to marry a spouse, for example. To me that is totally alien. But maybe for some people, picking beliefs has to do with social factors and could be (I’m honestly not trying to be snide) akin to picking a favorite sportsball team or favorite band. It’s about picking a community or some such.

But there was never a moment when I chose to be an atheist. In fact, I fought kicking and screaming against my own deconversion. I really didn’t want to be wrong... and given how much of my personal and professional life had been spent on my religious convictions, it was an extremely humbling and painful process to come to the conclusion that I had deluded myself. But I did make a choice to expose myself to arguments outside the faith echo chamber I’d been living in... and to do so repeatedly. As far as I can tell, that was the only choice I made. In fact, I didn’t call myself an atheist until after a number of my Christian friends held a little intervention, pulled me aside and told me I was an atheist!

 

[Rich2018]

Just some quick thoughts on ‘choice’. I think for most of our beliefs, we are either convinced or we are not convinced and choice has very little to do with it.

For example, I believe in black holes. But I can’t think of a moment when I chose to believe in them. I can think of the moment when I chose to watch about a hundred hours of astronomy lectures, and somewhere along the way I was convinced by the presentation of the evidence for black holes. But choice really only factored into my initial decision to get more information on astronomy. From there it all depended on how well they presented the evidence and how well that fit with my previous understanding of physics.

Two days ago a Christian told me to read Habermas on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I was shocked to find that I had actually bought that book years ago (as part of a digital bundle of books - I’m sure that I never selected that title: I hadn’t heard of Habermas), so I spent 6 hours reading it. I can make a choice to expose myself to new information or new arguments, but I cannot help that I was able to spot huge logical and factual flaws in Habermas’ book. Given everything else I know, I could not have just chosen to believe what I read. In this way, I think we’re all products (prisoners?) of our experiences.

There may be people who can choose to believe something for utilitarian reasons. We could look at the surprising number of people willing to switch religions in order to marry a spouse, for example. To me that is totally alien. But maybe for some people, picking beliefs has to do with social factors and could be (I’m honestly not trying to be snide) akin to picking a favorite sportsball team or favorite band. It’s about picking a community or some such.

But there was never a moment when I chose to be an atheist. In fact, I fought kicking and screaming against my own deconversion. I really didn’t want to be wrong... and given how much of my personal and professional life had been spent on my religious convictions, it was an extremely humbling and painful process to come to the conclusion that I had deluded myself. But I did make a choice to expose myself to arguments outside the faith echo chamber I’d been living in... and to do so repeatedly. As far as I can tell, that was the only choice I made. In fact, I didn’t call myself an atheist until after a number of my Christian friends held a little intervention, pulled me aside and told me I was an atheist!

Don't respond to him.

 

[Cephus]

That doesn't fit his opinion that you claim god does not exist, You (and I) simply withhold our assent to the suggestion that it does. There's no need for that extra step he makes to tell us what we believe. (To fit his warped viewpoint.)

That's because his opinion that atheists must claim gods do not exist is stupid. That's why, the second that it's pointed out that his claims about atheists are entirely indefensible, he starts calling you names. So yeah... PLONK.

 

[DarthPedant]

Page intentionally left blank. I tried to edit a typo and it made a new post I now cannot delete... but I can edit down to this!

 

[Peter King]

Is everyone born an theist ? Why or why not? Make your case.

I was born an atheist, 3 generation atheist. My mother too was born an atheist. And it is very easy to make my case. If your parents are and you are written into the basic administration of the government as an atheist, then you were born an atheist.

 

[Logician Man]

That's because his opinion that atheists must claim gods do not exist is stupid. That's why, the second that it's pointed out that his claims about atheists are entirely indefensible, he starts calling you names. So yeah... PLONK.

One has to be an absolute mental midget to despise/hate others simply because their worldview is different than someone else's.

 

[Cephus]

One has to be an absolute mental midget to despise/hate others simply because their worldview is different than someone else's.

That unfortunately describes a lot of people around here. I care only if someone's views are factually correct. Worldviews are pretty dumb most of the time.