We Are All Born Atheist

[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.tocool340

I dunno much about this, but the only legit guys in this claim are the agnostics, because they simply say wedon't know. Now, when you or anyother human being start claiming that he knows something for sure like theists saying there is a god and atheist say there is not a god, then that is what called belief.

So, if Atheism is a belief, then every non belief is also a belief? Which would mean not believing in something is impossible?

Surely you can say you don't believe in something without having to say I believe that I don't believe in something.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

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?

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.

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

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.

BluRayHiDef

I offer you the following analogy. The district attorney fails to prove a jury that the defendant murdered a particular number of people. Even thought 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. There 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="kipohippo021"] I just feel that labeling babies and animals as atheist, is a little bit like tagging. Babies cannot even begin to understand god, even if you were to try to explain it to them, they wouldnt understand. Claiming they are atheists is like marking territiory. If something cannot conceptualize a vison of god, then they cannot conceptualize there being no god either. They are truly neutral. Taking a stance on beliving there is a deity or not is a descision. A baby cannot even choose what clothes they want to wear and you mark them as atheist. If you cant choose your own religious standings, you cant really be atheist, but i guess this still all depends on what the definition of atheism is. Since we dont have a set definition by tc, we will be going in circles as we know what babies and animals belive in, but we are just arguing on what atheism is. And that is truly a stupid thing to argue about. Danm_999

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

[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?

So, if Atheism is a belief, then every non belief is also a belief? Which would mean not believing in something is impossible?

Surely you can say you don't believe in something without having to say I believe that I don't believe in something.

[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.

BluRayHiDef

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="Teenaged"]

[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.BluRayHiDef

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.

Define it whichever way you like. I am simply telling you that that your definition and whatever argument you want to make has to stay where it belongs - in philosophy.

(Just like the word "theory" means "a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena" only when talking about science.)

It doesnt have correspondence to reality - assuming you are referring to strong atheists.

[QUOTE="Installing"]

So, if Atheism is a belief, then every non belief is also a belief? Which would mean not believing in something is impossible?

Surely you can say you don't believe in something without having to say I believe that I don't believe in something.

kipohippo021

but... that's what you're doing.

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

GazaAli

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

GazaAli

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"] As long as he got the message CORRECTLY, than its not the claimants fault.

krazy-blazer

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.

Life is a test...that none of us signed up for. Hence, we can't be punished for not passing it. We never asked for it in the first place.

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"][QUOTE="Installing"]

So, if Atheism is a belief, then every non belief is also a belief? Which would mean not believing in something is impossible?

Surely you can say you don't believe in something without having to say I believe that I don't believe in something.

but... that's what you're doing.

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

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.

BluRayHiDef

Life is a test...that none of us signed up for. Hence, we can't be punished for not passing it. We never asked for it in the first place.

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]But the TC doesnt seem to just want to offer with an alternate definition for all of us to have a mental "exercise" on. In which case philosophical definitions would be part of its artificial language and philosophy would be benefited from the constructive dialogue.

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?

Teenaged

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.

Define it whichever way you like. I am simply telling you that that your definition and whatever argument you want to make has to stay where it belongs - in philosophy.

(Just like the word "theory" means "a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena" only when talking about science.)

It doesnt have correspondence to reality - assuming you are referring to strong atheists.

So what if it belongs in philosophy? That doesn't make it any more or less valid. Resorting to semantics and claiming that my argument is strictly philosophical does nothing to disprove it. Whether my argument is philosophical or whether I use the term atheist or not, the fact remains that babies are born without belief in god. Hence, a lack of belief in god is the default condition. Responsibility rests solely upon the claimants. Period.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

Human-after-all

No need to be hostile since you got it wrong. When I said "crazy", I meant not believing in anything, like not believing in TNT explosion, water vaporation...etc get it ?

As your looking down on those people, some of them built the pyramids, other built the hanging gardens of Babylon, other came up woth numbers...etc

Science is an accumolative process, if you think we are where we are because we are too smart and clever then you are wrong.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"] Exactly why we believe not everyone on earth is going to heaven... because your not convinced easily should not be blamed on the religion or claimant. We believe life is a test you either fail it or not its a question of faith if you are convinced then its your problem. Its like having 5 soldiers of the same rank/same branch/same job and saying that one should have a higher paycheck because he's poor or his family needs money.krazy-blazer

Life is a test...that none of us signed up for. Hence, we can't be punished for not passing it. We never asked for it in the first place.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

kipohippo021

about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

ihateaynrand

Isn't that called being agnostic? if I got it right.

about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".GazaAli

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="tocool340"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Atheism is a belief. It is the belief that god does not exist. .

GazaAli

I dunno much about this, but the only legit guys in this claim are the agnostics, because they simply say wedon't know. Now, when you or anyother human being start claiming that he knows something for sure like theists saying there is a god and atheist say there is not a god, then that is what called belief.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

GazaAli

Isn't that called being agnostic? if I got it right.

[QUOTE="Installing"]

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] i belive that theres no god. Whats wrong with that? You cant use the english language as an argument. kipohippo021

but... that's what you're doing.

So, an opinion always equals a belief, and not a lack of belief?

Or does it not matter since every non belief is apparently a belief in itself?

In that case no one can say that they lack belief in anything, but only that they believe that they don't believe something. Really?

I agree that he's being a little too certain that his definition is the single correct one. But constructive debate can only really follow if we adhere to his definition for the purposes of argument. It's a perfectly reasonable one, and in any debate such as this, it's important to use rigourous definitions of words in order to prevent language-based confusion. I take your point with that, um, charming vignette you constructed, but that isn't a context in which rigour is vital in relation to the definition of 'theory', because it's absolutely clear what he (or she, I don't judge) means by it in that context. By contrast, if 'atheism' were not defined here, there would be massive amounts of confusion.ihateaynrand

If he came and simply proposed the alternate definition and say "hey guys, lets pretend this is the definition and see where it gets us" (in which case he would be honest about it in stead of trying to ignore that his definition is purely philosophical) I would have raised absolutely no objection.

And I think that answers the incomparability of the two contexts (science & every day life - philosophy & every day life); that is I dont believe he came off like that because he aimed to solve those issues. But, hey, I am just assuming.

On the other hand maybe he came off agressive because he sort of knew what reactions he would get or because although it is a philosophical discussion, the thread merely ask for a "yes I agree", "no I dont agree".

In the first case, if elaborated, it would be simply a justification of the use of philosophy, and in the second, the opposite of a justification.

At least to me, if you start a discussion by proposing a thesis and then you expect only the above two (at least thats how I read the OP), then the discussion that will be created cant be philosophical one since, to me at least, a philosophical discussion mustnt have such restrictions. On the contrary, the opening thesis should be just a hint of what will come.

So to sum it up, to me, the whole thread seemed very unphilosophical in nature and only utilised philosophy to form the initial thesis.

Subjective. For example in Islam, we believe everyone is a Muslim at birth. and then they become atheists/Jewish/Christian.krazy-blazer

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

BluRayHiDef

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".ihateaynrand

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"]Subjective. For example in Islam, we believe everyone is a Muslim at birth. and then they become atheists/Jewish/Christian.Wings_008

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] It dosent matter what you call it, atheists belive: that others think theres a god, but they dont belive there is a god. The belief in there not being a god is indeed a belief and its taking a stance on beliving in a deity. The problem is that babies and animals dont understand the concept of god. So they are not atheist. But there are two defenitions of atheism here 1. not beliving in a god, wether its through choice or lack of knowledge 2. Not beliving in a god by choice.kipohippo021

about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".

I agree with this totally. Its like classifying people as good programmers and bad programmers, even tho a lot of them are not even programmers.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"][QUOTE="Installing"]

but... that's what you're doing.

So, an opinion always equals a belief, and not a lack of belief?

Or does it not matter since every non belief is apparently a belief in itself?

In that case no one can say that they lack belief in anything, but only that they believe that they don't believe something. Really?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

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

Espada12

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

Now, you're just being foolish. Smoking cigarettes is a habit. Not smoking cigarettes is NOT a habit. Hence, not believing in god is not a belief. If you deny this, then there's no point in continuing.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]I agree that he's being a little too certain that his definition is the single correct one. But constructive debate can only really follow if we adhere to his definition for the purposes of argument. It's a perfectly reasonable one, and in any debate such as this, it's important to use rigourous definitions of words in order to prevent language-based confusion. I take your point with that, um, charming vignette you constructed, but that isn't a context in which rigour is vital in relation to the definition of 'theory', because it's absolutely clear what he (or she, I don't judge) means by it in that context. By contrast, if 'atheism' were not defined here, there would be massive amounts of confusion.Teenaged

If he came and simply proposed the alternate definition and say "hey guys, lets pretend this is the definition and see where it gets us" (in which case he would be honest about it in stead of trying to ignore that his definition is purely philosophical) I would have raised absolutely no objection.

And I think that answers the incomparability of the two contexts (science & every day life - philosophy & every day life); that is I dont believe he came off like that because he aimed to solve those issues. But, hey, I am just assuming.

On the other hand maybe he came off agressive because he sort of knew what reactions he would get or because although it is a philosophical discussion, the thread merely ask for a "yes I agree", "no I dont agree".

In the first case, if elaborated, it would be simply a justification of the use of philosophy, and in the second, the opposite of a justification.

At least to me, if you start a discussion by proposing a thesis and then you expect only the above two (at least thats how I read the OP), then the discussion that will be created cant be philosophical one since, to me at least, a philosophical discussion mustnt have such restrictions. On the contrary, the opening thesis should be just a hint of what will come.

So to sum it up, to me, the whole thread seemed very unphilosophical in nature and only utilised philosophy to form the initial thesis.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]

about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".

I agree with this totally. Its like classifying people as good programmers and bad programmers, even tho a lot of them are not even programmers.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

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

BluRayHiDef

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

Now, you're just being foolish. Smoking cigarettes is a habit. Not smoking cigarettes is NOT a habit. Hence, not believing in god is not a belief. If you deny this, then there's no point in continuing.

Those aren't remotely the same thing.

A lack of belief in a GOD = believing there is no God, it's the same damn thing with different wording. If you deny this then there's no point in continuing.

All this look like is atheist trying to cop-out of having a belief system.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

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

Espada12

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

So what if it belongs in philosophy? That doesn't make it any more or less valid. Resorting to semantics and claiming that my argument is strictly philosophical does nothing to disprove it. Whether my argument is philosophical or whether I use the term atheist or not, the fact remains that babies are born without belief in god. Hence, a lack of belief in god is the default condition. Responsibility rests solely upon the claimants. Period.

BluRayHiDef

I only disagreed with the way you tried to prove it, and I disagreed because you tried to impose your definition as one that applies in anything but philosophy.

Reality itself stops you when you try to do that. In reality (and I am not using the term "reality" with a positive connotation to make a distinction between it and philosophy and call philosophy implicitely false), the term "atheism" doesnt mean what you proposed.

As your OP (iirc) is not clear of what it tries to achieve, I will butt in and disprove implications it makes (and yes I could have asked for clarification in stead; you can blame me for that).

And please drop the "you play semantics" argument. There are very two good reasons for that: you did the same in this thread before me and secondly I believe you are just using that as a deflection, since discussing semantics is not always a deflection itself.

[QUOTE="Installing"]

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] Beliving that there is no god- is that not an opinion? kipohippo021

So, an opinion always equals a belief, and not a lack of belief?

Or does it not matter since every non belief is apparently a belief in itself?

In that case no one can say that they lack belief in anything, but only that they believe that they don't believe something. Really?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

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

ihateaynrand

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

Yea... what?

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]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.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Installing"]

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] Beliving that there is no god- is that not an opinion? kipohippo021

So, an opinion always equals a belief, and not a lack of belief?

Or does it not matter since every non belief is apparently a belief in itself?

In that case no one can say that they lack belief in anything, but only that they believe that they don't believe something. Really?

I'm getting dizzy.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]about point 1, this is called being ignorant or unconsent, not atheist. You don't here babies saying "There is no God".kipohippo021

All this look like is atheist trying to cop-out of having a belief system.

Espada12