We are all born Atheists

[cliffy1]

We are, at our core, conscious energy. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. Spirits are just conscious beings without physical bodies, which are nothing more than vehicles that their spirit uses to navigate this physical reality. Ghosts are conscious energy/spirits not in physical form. One does not need gods to understand quantum physics and mechanics. That seems to be a very difficult concept for the religious to understand. God is a human creation back when there was little science to explain stuff. Quantum science is bridging the gap between the superstition of religion and science, the gap between mysticism and modern reality.

[Donald G]

Since it has been determined that we can hear when in the womb who is to say what we know when we are born ?? If, as some claim, we know nothing how can a person be an atheist which involves a belief in something ??

[cliffy1]

Since it has been determined that we can hear when in the womb who is to say what we know when we are born ?? If, as some claim, we know nothing how can a person be an atheist which involves a belief in something ??

We are not brain dead when born. I have memories from the womb. I think people think babies are empty headed cuz they cannot communicate through language, but a mother knows her baby is communicating by other means. My son's mother always knew what he wanted because he projected images into her mind. I did not have that ability.

[fluffy]

We are not brain dead when born.

No, we're not. The argument offered by the OP is that atheism is non-committal, that as soon as one "lacks a belief in god(s)" that he/she is atheist by default, which by extension would apply to newborns. To me that's nonsense as the longstanding basis of atheism is a disbelief in god(s). It's not an absence of belief, quite the contrary, it's a belief that there is no such thing as a god. It takes a conscious decision to adopt the label of atheist. We are all free to make our own choices in these matters, but let's not muddy the waters with semantics, it is a choice.

[Omnitheo]

Actually the A- prefix when coming from Greek origins simply means not. It does not mean against. For that we have the Greek prefix Anti.

Therefor, Atheist simply means not being theist, or not believing in gods. People in this thread keep trying to treat atheist as though it can only be a willful denial of God, but the correct terminology for that, as dictated by language would be Antitheist.

Therefor, we are all born atheists, those who have never learned of gods are atheist. It is possible to be both atheist and Antitheist, but not all atheists are antitheists.

[Glacier]

Fair enough, but that's hardly something to be proud of or something to trumpet as valuable. We are all born a-everything (well, except *bleep*) since a means "not." We are all born apolitical, aswimmers, amusicians, arocket-scientists, apedophiles, and amurders.

[Donald G]

Unread postby Omnitheo » 35 minutes ago

Therefor, we are all born atheists, those who have never learned of gods are atheist. It is possible to be both atheist and Antitheist, but not all atheists are antitheists.

Speaking as a present day atheist you are theoretically correct, but in the EVOLVING modern meaning of the word atheist the word includes both interpretations and in my experience most often means a disbelief in the god professed by all of the modern day religions. God is a myth.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"

[fluffy]

Actually the A- prefix when coming from Greek origins simply means not. It does not mean against. For that we have the Greek prefix Anti.

That may be true when discussing the origin of the word, but as Donald G says above agrees with just about every dictionary definition you can find. The essence of atheism, especially among most atheists, is a disbelief in god(s). It's my guess that those who hang on to the "absence of belief" definition do so merely for argumentative reasons, as absence of belief is more in keeping with agnosticism than the traditional definition of atheism.

[Ptolemy Soter]

Still debating this topic and anything related to it, eh?

[youjustcomplain]

No, we're not. The argument offered by the OP is that atheism is non-committal, that as soon as one "lacks a belief in god(s)" that he/she is atheist by default, which by extension would apply to newborns. To me that's nonsense as the longstanding basis of atheism is a disbelief in god(s). It's not an absence of belief, quite the contrary, it's a belief that there is no such thing as a god. It takes a conscious decision to adopt the label of atheist. We are all free to make our own choices in these matters, but let's not muddy the waters with semantics, it is a choice.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the way atheists define themselves? Why do you feel that you should be the one to define what an atheist is?
Atheism is NOT a belief. Therefor, it is NOT a belief that there is no god.

Yes, it takes a conscious decision to adopt a label, but that has nothing to do with making a conscious decision to not belief in something.

If you truly don't want to muddy the waters with semantics, then why do you continue to tell atheists what it is to be an atheist based on your lack of understanding of the definition atheists use for themselves? I'm not here to tell you what you believe or don't believe in.

Fair enough, but that's hardly something to be proud of or something to trumpet as valuable. We are all born a-everything (well, except *bleep*) since a means "not." We are all born apolitical, aswimmers, amusicians, arocket-scientists, apedophiles, and amurders.

Glacier gets it, sort of. Right. It's not valuable to not believe in something. Mostly agree. We are born apolitical, arocket-scientiests, apedophiles and amurders. Though from reading this thread, I'm willing to bet that those arguing that we aren't born atheists would find some way to disagree with you.

[Donald G]

fluffy wrote:
No, we're not. The argument offered by the OP is that atheism is non-committal, that as soon as one "lacks a belief in god(s)" that he/she is atheist by default, which by extension would apply to newborns. To me that's nonsense as the longstanding basis of atheism is a disbelief in god(s). It's not an absence of belief, quite the contrary, it's a belief that there is no such thing as a god. It takes a conscious decision to adopt the label of atheist. We are all free to make our own choices in these matters, but let's not muddy the waters with semantics, it is a choice.

IMO fluffy has clearly identified the difference between an atheist and a newborn in that atheism takes a conscious decision to adopt the label of "Atheist". The autonomic nervous system that a baby is born with is not capable of making a conscious decision. (Which is my last comment on the somewhat prolonged matter).

[fluffy]

Why is it so hard for you to understand the way atheists define themselves? Why do you feel that you should be the one to define what an atheist is?
Atheism is NOT a belief. Therefor, it is NOT a belief that there is no god.

This is all just so much wordplay. How would you put it? Every dictionary definition of atheism contains an element of disbelief or denial, why are you trying to make it into something else? If I ask an atheist if he/she believes in god(s) the overwhelming majority is going to say "No". Isn't that the root of atheism? Your whole line of reasoning sounds to me like you're trying to swell the ranks of atheism with people who may not want to identify with that label. Doesn't that make you the one who's trying to define what an atheist is? Like hanging that label on babies?

[youjustcomplain]

This is all just so much wordplay. How would you put it? Every dictionary definition of atheism contains an element of disbelief or denial, why are you trying to make it into something else? If I ask an atheist if he/she believes in god(s) the overwhelming majority is going to say "No". Isn't that the root of atheism? Your whole line of reasoning sounds to me like you're trying to swell the ranks of atheism with people who may not want to identify with that label. Doesn't that make you the one who's trying to define what an atheist is? Like hanging that label on babies?

Oh, I couldn't care less if I was the only atheist on the planet. It just so happens that I'm not. My belief is that all human life starts atheistic then either stays that way or changes.

I'm unsure how this is wordplay on my behalf though. I just searched google and took the first result I found. (I know, not necessarily the most credible) Search Criteria : atheist definition
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

So, by this definition, I can either disbelieve in god(s) or I can lack belief in god(s). In that sense, we're both right on our definitions? Except, in order to meet the criteria of being an atheist you need to meet one or the other.

Do babies lack belief in the existence of god(s)? It's my opinion that they lack belief in god. This meets the criteria from the definition I provided. They need not disbelieve. If this was the definition, I would agree that babies aswell as myself would not be atheists.

If I ask an atheist if he/she believes in god(s) the overwhelming majority is going to say "No". Isn't that the root of atheism?

If you walked up to me and asked me if I believed in god. I would answer by saying "no", as you stated. Fact is, you're right, it is the root of atheism. I'd be surprised to hear any atheist claim they believe in god. They'd be confused if they did.

Sorry if this is getting old. I enjoy the conversation. :)

[fluffy]

I just searched google and took the first result I found. (I know, not necessarily the most credible) Search Criteria : atheist definition
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

That would be the Oxford Dictionary version, and it puzzles me. I've checked all the reputable dictionaries I could find online and that is the only one that uses the wording of "lack of belief". It does introduce a level of confusion into the subject as it infers that atheism would include people who have never given the god question a moment's thought, technically it would make atheists out of agnostics who, as I do, choose that label to set themselves apart from atheists and theists alike.

[fluffy]

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.