We Are All Born Atheist

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[quote="Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy"]As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God.Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology.BluRayHiDef

What is your point? This is a philosophical matter.

I dont have anything against philosophy, or alternate philosophical definitions. In fact they are interesting. But you cant hope to make absolute claims based on them.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"] Atheism technically isn't a belief. As TC has stated it is without a belief in a god. You can't exactly believe that but it holds true for whatever state babies are in. They are technically without a belief in a god.dontshackzmii

this ^

Atheism is NOT a belief. That is a huge misconception. It is merely a LACK of belief.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Atheism is a belief. It is the belief that god does not exist. As a baby you have no opinions. Babies can't not believe in something they don't know about or when they don't even have beliefs.

BluRayHiDef

this ^

Atheism is NOT a belief. That is a huge misconception. It is merely a LACK of belief.

Read the link I gave you earlier.

Religion threads make me sad, I don't care if someone is atheist or religous (hell lots of my friends on here have different beliefs than me), and I don't understand why people need to defend why the believe or don't believe in something, it's not a big deal, really.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Uh yes, its called "Encyclopedia of Philosophy" for a reason...

Teenaged

What is your point? This is a philosophical matter.

I dont have anything against philosophy, or alternate philosophical definitions. In fact they are interesting. But you cant hope to make absolute claims based on them.

Atheism is a philosophical matter. As such, it should be looked at purely from a philosophical perspective. To debate about it non-philosophically is pointless, since its meaning can be misconstrued once you remove it from its philosophical context.

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Exactly. Atheism is a belief just as being religious is. Nobody is born atheist or as a believer.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

What is your point? This is a philosophical matter.

BluRayHiDef

I dont have anything against philosophy, or alternate philosophical definitions. In fact they are interesting. But you cant hope to make absolute claims based on them.

Atheism is a philosophical matter. As such, it should be looked at purely from a philosophical perspective. To debate about it non-philosophically is pointless, since its meaning can be misconstrued once you remove it from its philosophical context.

Why? Because it refers to actual tangible people with more or less specific mindsets (pertaining to the subjects atheism encompasses only). Its not something unanaswerable, or intangible that you can go on philosophising for hours and wish to make progress. Its much more simple than that. You ask the majority of atheists, form a consensus and there you have it.

Like I told you, you can treat it philosophically. But you cant make a definite conclusion out of it.

I find your comment about removing notions from their philosophical context vastly innacurate, because philosophy itself is what can offer a relatively limitless context where notions can be misconstrued en masse.

i don't get the logic behid this statement,it's obviously subjective,based on my islamic precedents i'm pretty sure muslims believe that human essentially believes in a superior power/creator which makes muslims believe that we're born theist.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

How can we be born Muslim if we are incapable of even understanding the concept of Islam at birth? A newborn child knows absolutely nothing about anything. As for your second statement in which you question atheism as the default state because someone came upwith "stuff like Islam and Judaism", it answers itself. Pay attention to your use of the term come up. One would not need to come up with something if it exists by default. The reason why someone came up with Judaism and Islam is because they became convinced that it was the truth. However, they were not convinced by default. They were without belief by default.

BluRayHiDef

Bullocks. As I've said, a child knows absolutely nothing about anything. Hence, it is impossible for them to be Muslim by birth. How can one submit to Allah if they are incapable of even understanding what Allah is? Your argument makes no sense. A new born child is a clean slate; completely void. Void of belief, void of disbelief. He is without...anything (including belief in Allah).

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"] Atheism technically isn't a belief. As TC has stated it is without a belief in a god. You can't exactly believe that but it holds true for whatever state babies are in. They are technically without a belief in a god.feel_freetwo

I couldn't have said it better myself.

My original point was referring to how meaningless referring to a baby as an atheist is.feel_freetwo

Its not meaningless. It ultimately proves that since atheism is the default condition, religious proponents can't hold anyone responsible (and subsequently damn them to hell) for not being convinced by their claims. It ultimately proves the entire concept of punishment for not having faith to be illogical.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"] Again you got it wrong. By saying "come up" I;m being sarcastic, implying that they did not come up. GazaAli

Bullocks. As I've said, a child knows absolutely nothing about anything. Hence, it is impossible for them to be Muslim by birth. How can one submit to Allah if they are incapable of even understanding what Allah is? Your argument makes no sense. A new born child is a clean slate; completely void. Void of belief, void of disbelief. He is without...anything (including belief in Allah).

If it is supposedly subjective, then please answer the following question:

If someone were born and grew up completely on their own without any other people, would they be a practicing Muslim even though there is no one else to teach them anything about Islam? Would they believe in Allah (Belief requires knowledge)? How would they know about Islam or Allah?

We're also born with the inability to feed, clothe, and clean ourselves. Point?

Really?

I thought we were all born as defenseless, clueless, thoughtless babies that poop and cry all the time.

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Atheism is a belief. It is the belief that god does not exist. As a baby you have no opinions. Babies can't not believe in something they don't know about or when they don't even have beliefs.

BluRayHiDef

I couldn't have said it better myself.

My original point was referring to how meaningless referring to a baby as an atheist is.feel_freetwo

Its not meaningless. It ultimately proves that since atheism is the default condition, religious proponents can't hold anyone responsible (and subsequently damn them to hell) for not being convinced by their claims. It ultimately proves the entire concept of punishment for not having faith to be illogical.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Just because theism and atheism pertain to philosophical questions doesnt mean we should treat their definitions philosophically.

I dont have anything against philosophy, or alternate philosophical definitions. In fact they are interesting. But you cant hope to make absolute claims based on them.

Teenaged

Atheism is a philosophical matter. As such, it should be looked at purely from a philosophical perspective. To debate about it non-philosophically is pointless, since its meaning can be misconstrued once you remove it from its philosophical context.

Why? Because it refers to actual tangible people with more or less specific mindsets (pertaining to the subjects atheism encompasses only). Its not something unanaswerable, or intangible that you can go on philosophising for hours and wish to make progress. Its much more simple than that. You ask the majority of atheists, form a consensus and there you have it.

Like I told you, you can treat it philosophically. But you cant make a definite conclusion out of it.

I find your comment about removing notions from their philosophical context vastly innacurate, because philosophy itself is what can offer a relatively limitless context where notions can be misconstrued en masse.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Bullocks. As I've said, a child knows absolutely nothing about anything. Hence, it is impossible for them to be Muslim by birth. How can one submit to Allah if they are incapable of even understanding what Allah is? Your argument makes no sense. A new born child is a clean slate; completely void. Void of belief, void of disbelief. He is without...anything (including belief in Allah).

BluRayHiDef

If it is supposedly subjective, then please answer the following question:

If someone were born and grew up completely on their own without any other people, would they be a practicing Muslim even though there is no one else to teach them anything about Islam? Would they believe in Allah (Belief requires knowledge)? How would they know about Islam or Allah?

Atheism is not the default state. Beliving in god or not beliving is a side. There is no default unless you are un aware that others belive in a god, you have to not know the concept of a deity to have a true default opinion in this in this. Thats what babies are, not atheist.kipohippo021

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"] atheism is not a belief. that is like saying not smoking is a habbit. feel_freetwo

I couldn't have said it better myself.

My original point was referring to how meaningless referring to a baby as an atheist is.feel_freetwo

Its not meaningless. It ultimately proves that since atheism is the default condition, religious proponents can't hold anyone responsible (and subsequently damn them to hell) for not being convinced by their claims. It ultimately proves the entire concept of punishment for not having faith to be illogical.

Someone should be damned to hell because they failed to be convinced (i.e. YOU failed to persuade them)? That's not their fault; it's yours.

Disagree obviously. We cannot fathom the existence of a deity or higher power when we're born, nor one that doesn't exist.

Actually, no. Technically, we are all born true agnostics. We do not have a concept of God or the religious, nor belief either way (affirmatively or negatively). Atheism is the rejection of the theist claim that God exists, either on terms of there not being significant evidence, or there being a reason for affirmative belief of its non-existence.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"] again this is subjective to the fact that you are an atheist. But on the other hand because of my Islamic belief, I believe that newborns did not come from the void. Their souls came with pre-life experience. Not in this world, Im not talking about reincarnation and whatnot, but in a time and a world I dont know about.krazy-blazer

If it is supposedly subjective, then please answer the following question:

If someone were born and grew up completely on their own without any other people, would they be a practicing Muslim even though there is no one else to teach them anything about Islam? Would they believe in Allah (Belief requires knowledge)? How would they know about Islam or Allah?

So, those who have heard the message will be punished...because the claimants failed to persuade them? That's not the non-believer's fault; it's the claimants fault. The claimant is required to convince the non-believer. The non-believer is not required to do anything.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Bullocks. As I've said, a child knows absolutely nothing about anything. Hence, it is impossible for them to be Muslim by birth. How can one submit to Allah if they are incapable of even understanding what Allah is? Your argument makes no sense. A new born child is a clean slate; completely void. Void of belief, void of disbelief. He is without...anything (including belief in Allah).

BluRayHiDef

If it is supposedly subjective, then please answer the following question:

If someone were born and grew up completely on their own without any other people, would they be a practicing Muslim even though there is no one else to teach them anything about Islam? How would they know about Islam?

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"]Atheism is not the default state. Beliving in god or not beliving is a side. There is no default unless you are un aware that others belive in a god, you have to not know the concept of a deity to have a true default opinion in this in this. Thats what babies are, not atheist.Danm_999

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[quote="feel_freetwo"]My original point was referring to how meaningless referring to a baby as an atheist is.BluRayHiDef

Its not meaningless. It ultimately proves that since atheism is the default condition, religious proponents can't hold anyone responsible (and subsequently damn them to hell) for not being convinced by their claims. It ultimately proves the entire concept of punishment for not having faith to be illogical.

Someone should be damned to hell because they failed to be convinced (i.e. YOU failed to persuade them)? That's not their fault; it's yours.

Disagree obviously. We cannot fathom the existence of a deity or higher power when we're born, nor one that doesn't exist.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Atheism is a philosophical matter. As such, it should be looked at purely from a philosophical perspective. To debate about it non-philosophically is pointless, since its meaning can be misconstrued once you remove it from its philosophical context.

ihateaynrand

Why? Because it refers to actual tangible people with more or less specific mindsets (pertaining to the subjects atheism encompasses only). Its not something unanaswerable, or intangible that you can go on philosophising for hours and wish to make progress. Its much more simple than that. You ask the majority of atheists, form a consensus and there you have it.

Like I told you, you can treat it philosophically. But you cant make a definite conclusion out of it.

I find your comment about removing notions from their philosophical context vastly innacurate, because philosophy itself is what can offer a relatively limitless context where notions can be misconstrued en masse.

In natural languages, how people perceive and use words is important.

Scientific terminology though isnt natural language; its "artificial". As such, only those who are familiar with it (scientists etc) and their perception of the word(s) are important. Words of artificial languages also tend to have very specific definitions, while words of natural languages, dont. Which is probably the result of the above.

Furthermore, my point was not "ask atheists how they define "atheism"", but "ask atheists what they believe (in issues exclusively related to the term) and from that conclude what the word "atheism" means".

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] atheist is not beliving in god, you dont belive that there is a higher being. But not knowing that there might or not might be a higher being, its neutral. If you want to call it atheist, you can. But my defenition of atheist is- knowing that there could be a higher entity but beliving that there isnt. So in this sense, i say that animals and babies are not atheist, and i dont really care to discuss the defenition of atheism. Danm_999

Something the TC didnt do, if I am not mistaken. And he should if he hasnt.

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

If it is supposedly subjective, then please answer the following question:

If someone were born and grew up completely on their own without any other people, would they be a practicing Muslim even though there is no one else to teach them anything about Islam? Would they believe in Allah (Belief requires knowledge)? How would they know about Islam or Allah?

BluRayHiDef

So, those who have heard the message will be punished...because the claimants failed to persuade them? That's not the non-believer's fault; it's the claimants fault. The claimant is required to convince the non-believer. The non-believer is not required to do anything.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Its definition isnt.

Why? Because it refers to actual tangible people with more or less specific mindsets (pertaining to the subjects atheism encompasses only). Its not something unanaswerable, or intangible that you can go on philosophising for hours and wish to make progress. Its much more simple than that. You ask the majority of atheists, form a consensus and there you have it.

Like I told you, you can treat it philosophically. But you cant make a definite conclusion out of it.

I find your comment about removing notions from their philosophical context vastly innacurate, because philosophy itself is what can offer a relatively limitless context where notions can be misconstrued en masse.

Teenaged

In natural languages, how people perceive and use words is important.

Scientific terminology though isnt natural language; its "artificial". As such, only those who are familiar with it (scientists etc) and their perception of the word(s) are important. Words of artificial languages also tend to have very specific definitions, while words of natural languages, dont. Which is probably the result of the above.

Furthermore, my point was not "ask atheists how they define "atheism"", but "ask atheists what they believe (in issues exclusively related to the term) and from that conclude what the word "atheism" means".

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="kipohippo021"] atheist is not beliving in god, you dont belive that there is a higher being. But not knowing that there might or not might be a higher being, its neutral. If you want to call it atheist, you can. But my defenition of atheist is- knowing that there could be a higher entity but beliving that there isnt. So in this sense, i say that animals and babies are not atheist, and i dont really care to discuss the defenition of atheism. Teenaged

Something the TC didnt do, if I am not mistaken.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"] no it doesn't how does being born "atheist" prove the entire concept of punishment for not having faith is illogical. Infact if you go by the Christians system, it makes perfect sense. as well as Muslims. it only doesn't make sense in the Jewish church feel_freetwo

Someone should be damned to hell because they failed to be convinced (i.e. YOU failed to persuade them)? That's not their fault; it's yours.

I offer you the following analogy. The district attorney fails to prove to a jury that the defendant murdered a particular number of people. Even though the defendant is indeed guilty, he has to be proven guilty in order to be convicted. The district attorney fails to to prove this to the jury due to a non-convincing argument. Shall the jury be held responsible for deeming the defendant not guilty? No. It was the District Attorney's job to convince them. Their job is to analyze the evidence (or lack thereof) and make a decision. Likewise, some people analyze the supposed "proofs" for religion and reject them because they are not convincing. The responsibility belongs to the claimant, not the other party.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"] No they would not, and they would eventually become a non-Muslim if they, after puberty did not follow Islam and/or belief that Allah is the sole creator. And they will not be punished for not having knowledge/or ever hearing about Islam. Those who have not received the message won't be punished.

krazy-blazer

So, those who have heard the message will be punished...because the claimants failed to persuade them? That's not the non-believer's fault; it's the claimants fault. The claimant is required to convince the non-believer. The non-believer is not required to do anything.

To me, there's no middle ground on this one - either you believe something or you don't: you're either a theist or an atheist. Whether you have doubts doesn't enter into the equation.jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"] No they would not, and they would eventually become a non-Muslim if they, after puberty did not follow Islam and/or belief that Allah is the sole creator. And they will not be punished for not having knowledge/or ever hearing about Islam. Those who have not received the message won't be punished.

krazy-blazer

So, those who have heard the message will be punished...because the claimants failed to persuade them? That's not the non-believer's fault; it's the claimants fault. The claimant is required to convince the non-believer. The non-believer is not required to do anything.

It is the claimant's fault. Conviction depends on someone's own subjectivity. What may convince one person may not convince another. Hence, it is absurd to hold everyone to the same standard and award some for being convinced and punish others for not being convinced. A standard cannot be based on subjectivity or variability, or else it is unfair and subsequently invalid.

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Exactly. Atheism is a belief just as being religious is. Nobody is born atheist or as a believer.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

So, those who have heard the message will be punished...because the claimants failed to persuade them? That's not the non-believer's fault; it's the claimants fault. The claimant is required to convince the non-believer. The non-believer is not required to do anything.

ihateaynrand

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] atheist is not beliving in god, you dont belive that there is a higher being. But not knowing that there might or not might be a higher being, its neutral. If you want to call it atheist, you can. But my defenition of atheist is- knowing that there could be a higher entity but beliving that there isnt. So in this sense, i say that animals and babies are not atheist, and i dont really care to discuss the defenition of atheism. Danm_999

Teh higher powers are in all of us regardless of wether we know it or not...

Well, then if scientific terminology can be artificial then why can't philosophical terminology be artificial? Science doesn't have a monopoly on rigour. I see the word 'theory' as entirely analogous to the word 'atheism' in this sense - both have a precisely-defined technical meaning and a less well-defined layman's meaning. Also, working out the definition of atheism by atheists what they believe is a self-defeating concept since to know whom to ask, one needs to know what constitutes atheism.ihateaynrand

In stead, he is proposing it as THE definition that has a correspondence to reality - in this case "reality" would be the tangible object of reference which is atheists.

That would be like someone trying to impose the scientific meaning of the word "theory" for all uses - either casually or when discussing science and then try to go on like this:

"-My theory dear Angela is that last night you slept with John"

"-Well thats just a theory"

"-Not by the scientific definition!"

Is the above rational?

No, atheism is not believing in God or supernatural beings. It's irrelevant whether you come to that lack of belief through rejection of established beliefs, ignorance, isolation or amnesia. If you have no belief in God/supernatural beings, you're atheist. Now, if you want to invent your own definition and run with that, it's fine. It's just that we won't have a lot of common ground to run with.Danm_999

Something the TC didnt do, if I am not mistaken.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Well, then if scientific terminology can be artificial then why can't philosophical terminology be artificial? Science doesn't have a monopoly on rigour. I see the word 'theory' as entirely analogous to the word 'atheism' in this sense - both have a precisely-defined technical meaning and a less well-defined layman's meaning. Also, working out the definition of atheism by atheists what they believe is a self-defeating concept since to know whom to ask, one needs to know what constitutes atheism.Teenaged

In stead, he is proposing it as THE definition that has a correspondence to reality - in this case "reality" would be the tangible object of reference which is atheists.

That would be like someone trying to impose the scientific meaning of the word "theory" for all uses - either casually or when discussing science and then try to go on like this:

"-My theory dear Angela is that last night you slept with John"

"-Well thats just a theory"

"-Not by the scientific definition!"

Is the above rational?

You're resorting to semantics. Whether we define the term "atheist" one way or another, my argument would be the same. I'd merely be using another term. Whether I use the term "atheist" or not, the fact remains that babies are without belief in god. Hence, my argument stands. Now, stop resorting to semantics. It changes absolutely nothing.