We are all born Atheists

[JLives]

I don't think I'm alone in seeing an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in god(s). To me that has always meant that someone has given the question a little thought. I'm finding it hard to let that go.

If you believe the idea of a god deserves some thought you would, I don't so. It has been given WAY too much sense of importance and I look forward to a future of less time discussing deities. No evidence means no god. The conclusion is reached quite quickly when just looking at facts. Further, if you are rejecting the idea of a god you need to be taught by others that they are a possibility to be able to reject them. Obviously, a baby has not learned that therefor they are, by default, atheist.

[fluffy]

If you believe the idea of a god deserves some thought you would, I don't so. It has been given WAY too much sense of importance and I look forward to a future of less time discussing deities. No evidence means no god. The conclusion is reached quite quickly when just looking at facts. Further, if you are rejecting the idea of a god you need to be taught by others that they are a possibility to be able to reject them. Obviously, a baby has not learned that therefor they are, by default, atheist.

So you are saying that atheists do not reject the idea of a god ?

[fluffy]

I have to wonder why, after centuries of atheists being accepted as people who, by their own choice, do not believe in god, there is this sudden interest in conscripting people into that group who don't fit the traditional definition ? Shouldn't that be left up to them ?

[OREZ]

I don't think I'm alone in seeing an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in god(s). To me that has always meant that someone has given the question a little thought. I'm finding it hard to let that go.

Of course you have trouble letting go of such a logical position. Why shouldn’t you?

I have to wonder why, after centuries of atheists being accepted as people who, by their own choice, do not believe in god, there is this sudden interest in conscripting people into that group who don't fit the traditional definition ? Shouldn't that be left up to them ?

Of course it should be left to them.
I suppose we should just obliterate the word Agnostic while we’re at it because it’s been superseded by atheist?

Come on, that’s rubbish.

[Donald G]

WADR an Atheist and an Agnostic have two very different beliefs. Kind of like calling a Catholic a Muslim. A few people seem to be confusing the difference.

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[OREZ]

Yeah, I know. That's why I said it's rubbish.

I agree with what fluffy was saying.

[cliffy1]

An old Inuit man asked a priest, "if I never heard of hell, would I have gone there?"
The Priest answered, "no my son."
The old man said, "Them why the hell did you tell me about it?"

Kinda sums up this debate: if you had no idea that "God" was a concept, then you wouldn't be able to deny its existence. I think you would have to have heard of the concept and then looked into it to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the concept of a god. If you grew up never having heard about it and someone tried to tell you about it, you would listen and weigh the evidence before you could say yay or nay. Personally, if someone told me about it for the first time, and I could see where this would lead me in the future, I would punch him in the face.

[fluffy]

...if you had no idea that "God" was a concept, then you wouldn't be able to deny its existence.

And according to some here, that would make you an atheist.

[Poindexter]

So if the question of whether we are all born atheist does not hinge on whether or not a god exists or whether we even aware of the existence of a god, this entire thread boils down to the definition of atheism. Sounds like a pointless exercise in linguistic gymnastics to me.

[cliffy1]

So if the question of whether we are all born atheist does not hinge on whether or not a god exists or whether we even aware of the existence of a god, this entire thread boils down to the definition of atheism. Sounds like a pointless exercise in linguistic gymnastics to me.

I call it mental masturbation, but... semantics.

[youjustcomplain]

I don't think I'm alone in seeing an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in god(s). To me that has always meant that someone has given the question a little thought. I'm finding it hard to let that go.

Well, I think you're right. An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god(s). That is exactly my position. But, it has nothing to do with the amount of consideration or exposure to the concept of a god or gods. I'm also not stating that I believe god doesn't exist. It is only that I don't believe in god(s).

[Poindexter]

I call it mental masturbation, but... semantics.

But that would imply a happy ending and there's not much chance of that on this thread.

[youjustcomplain]

An old Inuit man asked a priest, "if I never heard of hell, would I have gone there?"
The Priest answered, "no my son."
The old man said, "Them why the hell did you tell me about it?"

Kinda sums up this debate: if you had no idea that "God" was a concept, then you wouldn't be able to deny its existence. I think you would have to have heard of the concept and then looked into it to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the concept of a god. If you grew up never having heard about it and someone tried to tell you about it, you would listen and weigh the evidence before you could say yay or nay. Personally, if someone told me about it for the first time, and I could see where this would lead me in the future, I would punch him in the face.

Who said anything about denying its existence? The, controversial, definition of the atheist is a lack of belief in god or gods. This has nothing to do with a baby denying existence. Hell, I don't even deny existence. What would be the point? God is something that can't be proved nor disproved.

Edit:
If I grew up never having heard about god, and someone tried to tell me about it, (this is reality for everyone), I would listen and weigh the evidence (if there was any at all) before I could say yay or nay.
This speaks to the existence of god, not to whether humans are born atheists.

[Poindexter]

It does boil down to opinion at this point since as you said can't prove either side of the debate definitively. Reminds me of a conversation I had 30 years ago with this crazy guy that used to walked around New West carrying a sign saying the end of times is coming soon. That god was going to judge us all and only the righteous would be called to paradise. I said to him one day that he had it all wrong, it is humans that hold all the power, not god. God would not exist if humans didn't believe and it's us who could pull the plug on him . not the other way around. His eyes rolled back in his head for a few seconds and he walked away. So far neither of us were right, god hasn't shown up despite the 7 signs of the apocalypse arriving every year and mankind still hasn't pulled the plug on the almighty. Not sure who will end up being right in the long run but at 50 years of age I doubt I'll be around for either so might as well just get on with life, be kind to others and simply make the most of it. Whether he exists or not is irrelevant since there's a good chance if he does exist all religions have it wrong and following any of them would work against me at the pearly gates.

[fluffy]

Hell, I don't even deny existence. What would be the point? God is something that can't be proved nor disproved.

Which, once upon a time, would have made you an agnostic. These modifications to the traditional definition of atheism are emanating largely from atheists themselves, and I'm wondering why. Negative atheists, positive atheists, implicit atheists, explicit atheists, the list goes on. There seem to be as many flavours of atheists as there are christians.