We are all born Atheists

[OREZ]

Glacier, the meaning of these terms is all subject to change at a moment's notice so stay awake!

So what would you like it to mean, and the bigger question is why?

I don't mind what it means, but for the purpose of a fair discussion with the title "We're all born atheists" it's handy when it's clearly defined and applied consistently.

(Edited for clarity)

[fluffy]

I don't "believe" in anything. I form my opinions based on what the facts and evidence say. There is ZERO evidence a deity exists so unless something turns up I do not acceptable the existence of a deity as being factually accurate.

Do you identify as an atheist?

[fluffy]

How on earth did I alter anything ? They were directly copied and pasted as they appeared for crying out loud.

We'll deal with that another time. You and I both know what happened there.

So then...the English Oxford Dictionary does not meet your standards as acceptable reference for the definition of words ?

I'm so sorry that all of these perfectly credible definitions do not meet your personal approval.

All those quotes contain elements of disbelief, whether you omitted those sections or not. Disbelief takes a conscious decsion. Something an infant is incapable of. Hence, none of us are born athiests.

[OREZ]

It doesn't really matter whether a person defines atheism as an absence of belief or an adamant belief that there is no god(s)

When a person cares enough about the subject to seek out discussions on it to promote his or her views, he or she is behaving a lot like someone who has more than just a mere absence of belief. They are in fact behaving like people who have a very strong belief. A belief that there is no god(s) And that's fine but why not just own it?

[Farmmaa]

Since none of you will accept any definition of atheism but your own, or simply do not understand how indoctrination differs from simply teaching - are infants born believing in gods?
Do children who have never been exposed to religion believe in gods ?
Very simple questions.

[Farmmaa]

We'll deal with that another time. You and I both know what happened there.


All those quotes contain elements of disbelief, whether you omitted those sections or not. Disbelief takes a conscious decsion. Something an infant is incapable of. Hence, none of us are born athiests.

Nothing was omitted...directly cut and paste.
OMG..how scandalous though - I highlighted some parts in bold italics !!!! That completely twists the meaning of what is written.

Lack of knowledge of gods does NOT, in anyone's books, contain elements of disbelief.

[OREZ]

Since none of you will accept any definition of atheism but your own, or simply do not understand how indoctrination differs from simply teaching - are infants born believing in gods?
Do children who have never been exposed to religion believe in gods ?
Very simple questions.

Are they simple questions?

Can you say for sure and provide evidence of what it is that an infant feels or believes in their heart at a time when they cannot communicate and from which memories could never be recovered in adulthood?

[fluffy]

Since none of you will accept any definition of atheism but your own, or simply do not understand how indoctrination differs from simply teaching - are infants born believing in gods?
Do children who have never been exposed to religion believe in gods ?
Very simple questions.

According to the online Oxford Dictionary:

Atheist - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:
"he is a committed atheist"


Does this not imply that atheism is a matter of choice?

Of course children aren't born with belief in gods. They're not born with beliefs of any kind. I get what you are saying, that being devoid of belief in god or gods makes atheism the default position for humans in general. Is "lack of belief" is the same as "disbelief"? Or does atheism encompass multiple groups? And where does agnosticism fit into the picture? If "lack of belief" is the only requirement for atheism, does that mean that agnostics are atheists too?

[fluffy]

Here's an interesting bit. I just checked a number of online dictionaries and Oxford is the only one that uses the phrase "lack of belief". I wonder why? All the others are clear in their description of an atheist as one who does not believe in the existence of any deities. Why would Oxford use a description that is, to say the least, ambiguous?

[Glacier]

Here's an interesting bit. I just checked a number of online dictionaries and Oxford is the only one that uses the phrase "lack of belief". I wonder why? All the others are clear in their description of an atheist as one who does not believe in the existence of any deities. Why would Oxford use a description that is, to say the least, ambiguous?

Now THAT is VERY interesting because I just checked my own Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism - n. the belief that God does not exist.

[OREZ]

Here's an interesting bit. I just checked a number of online dictionaries and Oxford is the only one that uses the phrase "lack of belief". I wonder why? All the others are clear in their description of an atheist as one who does not believe in the existence of any deities. Why would Oxford use a description that is, to say the least, ambiguous?

Now THAT is VERY interesting because I just checked my own Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism - n. the belief that God does not exist.

And that has always been the definition until this "new atheist" movement which blurs the lines between agnosticism and atheism - for what reason I cannot say for sure but it seems that it would be an easier position to defend.

Like I said before, if you simply are adamant that no gods exist, why not just own it?

But obviously, that is also a belief which requires a choice so perhaps I've answered my own question?

[fluffy]

Now THAT is VERY interesting because I just checked my own Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism - n. the belief that God does not exist.

And that has always been the definition until this "new atheist" movement which blurs the lines between agnosticism and atheism - for what reason I cannot say for sure but it seems that it would be an easier position to defend.[/quote]


That may be it, without an outright denial of the existence of deities, the burden of proof shifts to the theist side. Since this is an unprovable position on either side the move to dilute the meaning of atheism takes on the appearance of legal strategizing.

[Farmmaa]

Here's an interesting bit. I just checked a number of online dictionaries and Oxford is the only one that uses the phrase "lack of belief". I wonder why? All the others are clear in their description of an atheist as one who does not believe in the existence of any deities. Why would Oxford use a description that is, to say the least, ambiguous?

I'm not so sure that saying one who does not believe in deities is really any different than saying lack of belief.

The difference between atheist and agnostic is that an agnostic won't commit one way or another, given the information.
There 'may' be a god, but I've never seen proof.
There 'probably' isn't a god.
Non-committal.

[fluffy]

I'm not so sure that saying one who does not believe in deities is really any different than saying lack of belief.

The difference between atheist and agnostic is that an agnostic won't commit one way or another, given the information.
There 'may' be a god, but I've never seen proof.
There 'probably' isn't a god.
Non-committal.

Yet aren't you saying that having no opinion or knowledge of the issue makes one an atheist by default?

I don't align with any religion, nor do I subscribe to any of the traditional concepts of some all-powerful benevolent dictator with his/her thumbs on the buttons of the universe. I suspect that here is something tying everything together that we haven't uncovered yet but I'm of the mind that it will be physicists who do that and not priests. So, I don't believe in deities but I am open to the possibility that here may be something that qualifies as a higher power, maybe something of an obiwan kenobi-ish nature. Who knows. Technically I lack belief in gods, but I do not feel that I qualify as an atheist.

Am I out of date with the way atheists want the world to see them? Is a disbelief in God no longer the ticket into the atheist club? It's okay to be a little wishy-washy on the whole god question?

[is winter over]

I don't align with any religion, nor do I subscribe to any of the traditional concepts of some all-powerful benevolent dictator with his/her thumbs on the buttons of the universe. I suspect that here is something tying everything together that we haven't uncovered yet but I'm of the mind that it will be physicists who do that and not priests. So, I don't believe in deities but I am open to the possibility that here may be something that qualifies as a higher power, maybe something of an obiwan kenobi-ish nature. Who knows. Technically I lack belief in gods, but I do not feel that I qualify as an atheist.

Am I out of date with the way atheists want the world to see them? Is a disbelief in God no longer the ticket into the atheist club? It's okay to be a little wishy-washy on the whole god question?

There is no atheist club, no set rules or guidelines that need to be followed to be an atheist. Do you have a god belief, if the answer is no then you could be labeled as an atheist. I don't know for sure if a god exists(especially given the multiple definitions and peoples concepts of a god). Given your description I would consider you an atheist, however I don't like to directly label others atheist or myself, as it does not accurately describe what I or others believe of the world. Just as I don't know how all this came too be, and as far as I know no one else knows either. Maybe this is the disconnect, some on here cant get past the idea that an atheist does not hold to absolute certainty, and such doubt is inconsistent with the assertions of religious faith or belief.