We Are All Born Atheist

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="theone86"]

That's exactly what you're saying, you're saying that a rejection of a belief and a lack of belief are both considered atheism, I'm saying they're not.

theone86

From Oxford:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Yes, which proves my point. This is what I said in the OP. I said that we're all atheist by default; we aren't required to be consciously aware of the concept of god in order to be without it. However, we can consciously reject the idea (but we don't have to). If we do choose to consciously reject the idea, all we'd be doing is defending the default position in which we are without belief in god. Hence, one definition of atheism defends the other.

BluRayHiDef

Yes it does. An infant is without belief in god since they know nothing about the concept. What's so hard to understand about this? If you know nothing about the concept of god, you lack the knowledge of god and subsequently, you lack the belief in god. Hence, you are without belief. To be without means to be lacking. I won't bother to explain this again. It's a waste of time.

We're also all born not toilet trained..guess we can't blame people who don't know how to use toilets..

Yeah, and we're also born stupid, too. :roll:

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]But no source agrees with you.jimmyjammer69

From Oxford:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

First off, Ocford is considerd the better source. Second, this all leads back to semantics, I'm stating that atheism is a belief and therefore a being without the capability to form a belief cannot be an atheist.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I don't believe in aliens, yet I've heard about aliens. That doesn't mean I believe in aliens. I will believe when there's evidence of aliens.foxhound_fox

Yeah, and we're also born stupid, too. :roll:

ChiSoxBombers

Ignorance and stupidity are not synonymous. We are born without knowledge (i.e. ignorant).

i see what the OP is trying to say, albeit with word twisting. atheism means lack of belief, but in modern times we use it for anti-belief. so you can't say we are born atheist, we are born neutral.xGinnyWeasleyx

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="theone86"]

From Oxford:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

theone86

First off, Ocford is considerd the better source. Second, this all leads back to semantics, I'm stating that atheism is a belief and therefore a being without the capability to form a belief cannot be an atheist.

Honestly were I atheist I'd be offended by this thread....LJS9502_basic

You did, and I completely missed that. Still, there is a function expressed by the word which connects godless tribesmen and godless westerners. Why deny the word that meaning?jimmyjammer69

Because nobody wants to call someone who has no knowledge on the subject an atheist, since these labels represent some kind of opinion and knowledge. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's not atheism in my book.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Honestly were I atheist I'd be offended by this thread....Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Honestly were I atheist I'd be offended by this thread....LJS9502_basic

Yes, and since it's not the default position, we are not culpable for not being persuaded by the non-default position that there is a god.

You did, and I completely missed that. Still, there is a function expressed by the word which connects godless tribesmen and godless westerners. Why deny the word that meaning?jimmyjammer69

I am not really advocating people shouldnt be bold with language and try to explore it through its etymology (although that can create confusion when they do go about using those words differently than most people they are talking to).

I am only disagreeing that etymology is proof of the meaning or that the meaning inferred by etymology is the "true" one as the TC has claimed without even trying to prove.

Furthermore, the TC isnt so much trying to say that the word should encompass all. To me it seems his foremost goal is to label new borns as atheists (I admit it sounds very interesting to see it that way) and to succeed in that he changes the definition based on the etymology.

I have heard many puns in my own language (puns that take advantage of etymological connection between words who meaning though has been distanced in time) but luckily most people here realise this shouldnt be serious and only joke about it.

For instance the greek verb for "have sex with" (in slang, equivalent to ****) is γαμαω.

But the verb in ancient Greek used to mean "get married to". The modern Greeks are aware of this because the word "marriage" in Greek is still γαμος. Many pun-ny jokes are the result of this which would be not far from what we see here if those making the jokes didnt realise it should just be a joke. Thats a different proceedure than the one the TC followed (its probably inverse?) but its the same principles. Exploitable etymology.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"] I'm not offended. I just disagree with the need for there to be such a thing as implicit atheism as I believe atheism is something that you have to think about.BluRayHiDef

Yes, and since it's not the default position, we are not culpable for not being persuaded by the non-default position that there is a god.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That was my point. If we believe the OP then thought is not required since it's a default position.LJS9502_basic

Yes, and since it's not the default position, we are not culpable for not being persuaded by the non-default position that there is a god.

You're not serious, are you? If you'd read that post of mine again, you'd see the answer to your question.

All I know is I'm still on factory settings, I was born with no in built belief in God, Allah,or what everand in 31 years I've seen nothing to change that.

All I know is I'm still on factory settings, I was born with no in built belief in God, Allah,or what everand in 31 years I've seen nothing to change that.

Bashers79

Kaching! My point, exactly.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Yes, and since it's not the default position, we are not culpable for not being persuaded by the non-default position that there is a god.

BluRayHiDef

You're not serious, are you? If you'd read that post of mine again, you'd see the answer to your question.

[QUOTE="Bashers79"]

All I know is I'm still on factory settings, I was born with no in built belief in God, Allah,or what everand in 31 years I've seen nothing to change that.

BluRayHiDef

Kaching! My point, exactly.

It's still not what we call atheism. Atheism is defined as disbelief, other definitions or ethymology don't matter to me.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] In regard to? If God exists? LJS9502_basic

You're not serious, are you? If you'd read that post of mine again, you'd see the answer to your question.

This is the last reply you'll ever receive from me in this thread. There's no point in arguing with you. You refute obvious meanings and ask questions to which you should already know an answer.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're not serious, are you? If you'd read that post of mine again, you'd see the answer to your question.

BluRayHiDef

This is the last reply you'll ever receive from me in this thread. There's no point in arguing with you. You refute obvious meanings and ask question to which you should already know an answer.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]You did, and I completely missed that. Still, there is a function expressed by the word which connects godless tribesmen and godless westerners. Why deny the word that meaning?Teenaged

I am not really advocating people shouldnt be bold with language and try to explore it through its etymology (although that can create confusion when they do go about using those words differently than most people they are talking to).

I am only disagreeing that etymology is proof of the meaning or that the meaning inferred by etymology is the "true" one as the TC has claimed without even trying to prove.

Furthermore, the TC isnt so much trying to say that the word should encompass all. To me it seems his foremost goal is to label new borns as atheists (I admit it sounds very interesting to see it that way) and to succeed in that he changes the definition based on the etymology.

I have heard many puns in my own language (puns that take advantage of etymological connection between words who meaning though has been distanced in time) but luckily most people here realise this shouldnt be serious and only joke about it.

For instance the greek verb for "have sex with" (in slang, equivalent to ****) is γαμαω.

But the verb in ancient Greek used to mean "get married to". The modern Greeks are aware of this because the word "marriage" in Greek is still γαμος. Many pun-ny jokes are the result of this which would be not far from what we see here if those making the jokes didnt realise it should just be a joke. Thats a different proceedure than the one the TC followed (its probably inverse?) but its the same principles. Exploitable etymology.

Heh. Fair enough, but in this case, TC's definition is supported by pretty much all dictionary definitions and the word's etymology (I don't see any twisting of Godless here). TC is using the example to remind us that the onus of proof is with theists because the concept of God is far from innate, while living without a belief in God is something that seems to come naturally to every being. Like it or not, babies are atheists, and it's up to opponents of atheism to prove that the idea of God is necessary and not inconsistent.jimmyjammer69

I am not saying this as in that the dictionaries arent good; some notions just cant be defined in enough detail or are maybe not used the same way by the majority of people and that creates confusion and uncertainty about who is right - heck for atheists and agnostics there are two sets of words to describe them: one colloquial and the other a bit more specific and "scientific" if you will (or 3 I think). That alone causes confusion obviously.

But lets see what happens if someone redefines the word "atheist" to encompass both strong atheists and weak atheists (basically anything other than theism): the colloquial use of the word "atheist" now encompasses both (atheist and agnostic). That leaves us with no coloquial word for strong atheists and the majority of people dont even know about the terms "strong atheist" or "gnostic atheist".

My point is that, to me it seems like it deliberately tries to create confusion in order to lumb certain groups of people together, based on some common parametre but leaves other non-common parametres unmentioned. There's a reason why we have different words for each: agnostic and atheist even though they have a very basic feature in common.

I know I am inferring intention but we have seen it happening from the other side too. Theists trying to equate atheism to religion. Luckily, there, etymology doesnt help them. You'd be surprised how easier it would become to make an impression had they had that opportunity (for instance if the etymology of "religion" did provide with a description that fits atheism - although then many more things would fit into the definition).

At any rate, even if the above is BS from my part, it still irks me to see people use etymology like that. If it cannot be used like that for all cases then it is not proof material.

Atheism is the Default Condition:

The term atheism is composed of a prefix (a: without)and a root (theism: belief in gods).Hence, an atheist is literally one who is without belief in god(s). It does not necessarily imply a conscious opposition to belief in god(s). Hence, all one needs is a lack of belief in god(s) in order to be an atheist. As we are all born without belief in god(s), irrespective of our ability to understand the concept, we are atheists by birth. Hence, atheism is the default condition. Theism, on the other hand, requires one to become convinced that there is a god. Hence, it is NOT the default condition. Now, an atheist can be consciously aware of the concept of god and be against it, but they are not required to be so in order to be an atheist. Whether an atheist is consciously aware of the concept or not, he is an atheist so as long as he is without belief.

It is illogical to hold Atheists responsible for not being convinced:

As we are all naturally predisposed to be without belief in god, an atheist is not required to prove anything. An atheist is not a claimant. Hence, he/ she is not required to oppose the position that there is a god. He/ she may choose to do so, but does not have to. Prior to becoming aware of a particular concept or idea, one is not required to oppose it, even though they are without belief in that particular concept. If one were to claim that there is an invisible creature standing on my left shoulder, I would not be required to prove them wrong because I would be without belief in that claim by default. I may choose to argue against that claim, but I am not required.

Do you agree or disagree?

BluRayHiDef

After we are born, we learn rules,culture, and many things. so I dont get the point of your argument. Also, in order to not believe something, one must be aware of that which is being talked about.

Also, in order to not believe something, one must be aware of that which is being talked about.gaming25

A lack of belief doesnt have to be realised/known or voiced in order for it to exist.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]Also, in order to not believe something, one must be aware of that which is being talked about.Teenaged

A lack of belief doesnt have to be realised/known or voiced in order for it to exist.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]Also, in order to not believe something, one must be aware of that which is being talked about.gaming25

A lack of belief doesnt have to be realised/known or voiced in order for it to exist.

disagree, when we're newborns it's our parents that are gods to uslamprey263

I lol'ed when I read this.

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]To me it seems that is only true when we are talking about that person realising or voicing their lack of belief.

A lack of belief doesnt have to be realised/known or voiced in order for it to exist.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] That isnt true at all. The truth is that they have to know the type of thing that they are disagreeing about.gaming25

The thread is about the lack of belief.

You said "disagreeing". That would be actively believing thing x doesnt exist.

Hmm... if we are all born as athiests how did religion come about at all?

Why would people create religion if no one knew what it was?

Hmm... if we are all born as athiests how did religion come about at all?

Why would people create religion if no one knew what it was?

Silverbond

What do you mean "how did religion come about"?

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Hmm... if we are all born as athiests how did religion come about at all?

Why would people create religion if no one knew what it was?

bloodling

What do you mean "how did religion come about"?

I meant exactly what I said. Why would people come up with the idea for religion if we are all born with a lack of belief?

Confusing.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Hmm... if we are all born as athiests how did religion come about at all?

Why would people create religion if no one knew what it was?

Silverbond

What do you mean "how did religion come about"?

I meant exactly what I said. Why would people come up with the idea for religion if we are all born with a lack of belief?

Confusing.

Because religion is not something you need to understand at birth.

If you mean "why doesn't God show himself and what he wants us to do if he exists", I agree with that.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Hmm... if we are all born as athiests how did religion come about at all?

Why would people create religion if no one knew what it was?

Silverbond

What do you mean "how did religion come about"?

I meant exactly what I said. Why would people come up with the idea for religion if we are all born with a lack of belief?

Confusing.

We are born knowing nothing about the world, the universe and how it works.

Maybe, but then again maybe we're predisposed to believe in something...

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Hmm... if we are all born as athiests how did religion come about at all?

Why would people create religion if no one knew what it was?

Silverbond

What do you mean "how did religion come about"?

I meant exactly what I said. Why would people come up with the idea for religion if we are all born with a lack of belief?

Confusing.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Heh. Fair enough, but in this case, TC's definition is supported by pretty much all dictionary definitions and the word's etymology (I don't see any twisting of Godless here). TC is using the example to remind us that the onus of proof is with theists because the concept of God is far from innate, while living without a belief in God is something that seems to come naturally to every being. Like it or not, babies are atheists, and it's up to opponents of atheism to prove that the idea of God is necessary and not inconsistent.Teenaged

I am not saying this as in that the dictionaries arent good; some notions just cant be defined in enough detail or are maybe not used the same way by the majority of people and that creates confusion and uncertainty about who is right - heck for atheists and agnostics there are two sets of words to describe them: one colloquial and the other a bit more specific and "scientific" if you will (or 3 I think). That alone causes confusion obviously.

But lets see what happens if someone redefines the word "atheist" to encompass both strong atheists and weak atheists (basically anything other than theism): the colloquial use of the word "atheist" now encompasses both (atheist and agnostic). That leaves us with no coloquial word for strong atheists and the majority of people dont even know about the terms "strong atheist" or "gnostic atheist".

My point is that, to me it seems like it deliberately tries to create confusion in order to lumb certain groups of people together, based on some common parametre but leaves other non-common parametres unmentioned. There's a reason why we have different words for each: agnostic and atheist even though they have a very basic feature in common.

I know I am inferring intention but we have seen it happening from the other side too. Theists trying to equate atheism to religion. Luckily, there, etymology doesnt help them. You'd be surprised how easier it would become to make an impression had they had that opportunity (for instance if the etymology of "religion" did provide with a description that fits atheism - although then many more things would fit into the definition).

At any rate, even if the above is BS from my part, it still irks me to see people use etymology like that. If it cannot be used like that for all cases then it is not proof material.

As far as I understand, faith in God isn't an effort of logical inquiry on the believer's part and has nothing to do with the common sense definition of belief as a measure of certainty, but rather it's a kind of compulsion founded on revelation. For the theist, there's no distinction between the man who's never considered the question and the guy who's (wrongly) concluded there is no God: both lack knowledge, and hence belief, because their eyes have never been pried open. Chastising the one as "atheist" and rewarding the other with the label "agnostic" is unnecessarily ignoring the broader social realities that make one part of the world predominantly religious and another heathen.

So you are basically talking about burden of proof here? I've always been one to say, if you feel strongly enough about it disprove the other person regardless of them making the claim.

Espada12

It would be impossible to prove that God doesn't eexist.

I think I see where you're coming from. You clearly know your stuff when it comes to linguistics so I'm waving a white flag on that front, but I maintain that to all intents and purposes, there's no real difference to the theist either between the two types of atheism.

As far as I understand, faith in God isn't an effort of logical enquiry on the believer's part and has nothing to do with the common sense definition of belief as a measure of certainty, but rather it's a kind of compulsion founded on revelation. For the theist, there's no distinction between the man who's never considered the question and the guy who's (wrongly) concluded there is no God: both lack knowledge, and hence belief, because their eyes have never been pried open. Chastising the one as "atheist" and rewarding the other with the label "agnostic" is unnecessarily ignoring the broader social realities that make one part of the world predominantly religious and another heathen.

jimmyjammer69

Now the point we must think is what we want to achieve by revising the terms. Do we want to bring awareness? Do we want to make things accurate, and if yes, where will we base accuracy? Literalism ("devotion" to mophology)? I am not against that so long as it goes slowly (although I am against it if it starts happening frequently - if you want I can elaborate on why, which is my opinion). Rid certain groups of people from prejudices tied with the words that describe them? Simply become less vague?

Imo we are in a transition phase and thats why we have most of the population being aware of only the colloquial terms (sometimes just "atheist"), but at the same time slowly more and more become aware of that "other" side that globally wasnt given much consideration (not as in "care" but sort of "neglection") and that more in depth knowledge or exposure gives a bit more usage to those non-colloquial terms.

Admittedly in every day occassions where you converse with different people, of different faith statuses, different ages and different educational level you cant expect all to collectively be aware of all those terms in the same way. In which case its not really anyone's job to dictate what, how or why. Meaning, for those occassions terms will evolve naturally as people use them.

So as far as every day use goes, imo, we shouldnt dictate how for instance the word "atheist" should be used, correct someone to refer only to x group of people when they utter the word etc. Imo, it should be like that because those terms are not like other words of any language. They refer to relatively new phenomena and naturally this situation isnt "settled" yet.

Now as for perhaps making new terms in order to achieve what you mentioned at the very last part of your post, that would just be an effort which for good or bad will not directly affect the every day use of the already existing terms. From then, its only about hoping people will adopt such terms and maybe by the new distinction they make, they may realise somethings about the issues themselves the words represent.

WARNING: I may have not answered your points btw. >__> How do I manage that...

No not really, TC. I'm not born with a stupid label on me that says I'm atheist and take science over everything.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

I think I see where you're coming from. You clearly know your stuff when it comes to linguistics so I'm waving a white flag on that front, but I maintain that to all intents and purposes, there's no real difference to the theist either between the two types of atheism.

As far as I understand, faith in God isn't an effort of logical enquiry on the believer's part and has nothing to do with the common sense definition of belief as a measure of certainty, but rather it's a kind of compulsion founded on revelation. For the theist, there's no distinction between the man who's never considered the question and the guy who's (wrongly) concluded there is no God: both lack knowledge, and hence belief, because their eyes have never been pried open. Chastising the one as "atheist" and rewarding the other with the label "agnostic" is unnecessarily ignoring the broader social realities that make one part of the world predominantly religious and another heathen.

Teenaged

Now the point we must think is what we want to achieve by revising the terms. Do we want to bring awareness? Do we want to make things accurate, and if yes, where will we base accuracy? Literalism ("devotion" to mophology)? I am not against that so long as it goes slowly (although I am against it if it starts happening frequently - if you want I can elaborate on why, which is my opinion). Rid certain groups of people from prejudices tied with the words that describe them? Simply become less vague?

Imo we are in a transition phase and thats why we have most of the population being aware of only the colloquial terms (sometimes just "atheist"), but at the same time slowly more and more become aware of that "other" side that globally wasnt given much consideration (not as in "care" but sort of "neglection") and that more in depth knowledge or exposure gives a bit more usage to those non-colloquial terms.

Admittedly in every day occassions where you converse with different people, of different faith statuses, different ages and different educational level you cant expect all to collectively be aware of all those terms in the same way. In which case its not really anyone's job to dictate what, how or why. Meaning, for those occassions terms will evolve naturally as people use them.

So as far as every day use goes, imo, we shouldnt dictate how for instance the word "atheist" should be used, correct someone to refer only to x group of people when they utter the word etc. Imo, it should be like that because those terms are not like other words of any language. They refer to relatively new phenomena and naturally this situation isnt "settled" yet.

Now as for perhaps making new terms in order to achieve what you mentioned at the very last part of your post, that would just be an effort which for good or bad will not directly affect the every day use of the already existing terms. From then, its only about hoping people will adopt such terms and maybe by the new distinction they make, they may realise somethings about the issues themselves the words represent.

WARNING: I may have not answered your points btw. >__> How do I manage that...

Re. Warning: Haha, I'm trying to work that out right now. Interesting stuff no doubt, but my brain's already full, so I think I'm going to have to excuse myself from this thread again. I WILL read this tomorrow, though, and I'll have a shot at responding. I'll have another go at working out what was going on in my head too - right now it's a bit late for that.

jimmyjammer69

[spoiler] Its late for me too. Not that that has stopped me before!!!! 8) [/spoiler]

Humans are not born atheist. We are pretty much born "knowing nothing" as others have stated. Children are taught through the process of enculturation. We're not born believing in God. How can a newborn know anything about God unless we are taught? Everything humans do is taught by learning and example. Take an anthropology class.