Roots boosting: We are all born as atheists..

[Murphy Jnr]

The topic is about being an atheist and if it would include someone that as no concept of a God so I would say we are on topic.

 

I don't know what a God is and people that claim to know God won't tell me a God is so for now I AM SCEPTICAL that a God exists.

 

 

My bold. This is also possible as it is with the existence of ghosts and the Loch Ness monster. We don't have to be on one side or the other. We invented a word for that as well.

[RootsBooster]

No! until I am made aware of something i neither believe or disbelieve as the very thing is not even on my radar is it. It's not a thought, not even the nucleus of a thought. I have to be aware of something to draw any conclusion or make any decision about it. The only way I can lack belief that something exists is to learn that others see it as real or believable and I think otherwise.

 

You seem to be confusing a lack of belief (belief just not there at all) with disbelief (a decision/conclusinon aginst belief).

 

I'm with you on this Murphy jnr. I think the whole thread has been dragged over and the more some people play with words the more it will lose its direction.

Then why play with words, why not just keep to the bare Roots?

 

Atheism literally translates as "Without belief in God"

(see post #27)

Not "Denial of God" or "Disbelief in God" or "Wishing there wasn't a God" or "Oh my God"

 

Some atheists have a habit of doing that- playing with words to suit their stance and to actively seek out flaws- a lot of 'but' and 'if' etc.

 

Are you for real? Does anyone else see the rather colossal amount of irony in this statement?

 

I also uphold the fact that some dictionaries do give a more broader definition of 'atheism' and it is not JUST a lack of belief. They also add that it is a denial of God, or a doctrine that there is no god or gods.

 

Yes some do, but like you said, that's an add-on. Playing with words if you will. What do you think the criteria for an antitheist is then?

 

Can you really have a position of "lack"?

You can lack belief, just as you can lack morals, or lack hair or lack money.

 

The topic is about being an atheist

 

No it's not, go back and read the OP.

 

I don't know what a God is and people that claim to know God won't tell me a God is so for now I have no belief that a God exists.

So would be described as an atheist.

 

Yes!

[RootsBooster]

I think the best way to understand the difference between denial of God and being without belief in God is if we use an example paid for and supported by many atheists as a unified slogan. There were or are famous/infamous slogans on buses in London, designed and paid for by atheists, which read:

 

"There's probably no God

now stop worrying and enjoy your life"

 

The word "PROBABLY" is NOT a denial. These are the agreed words of atheists themselves, they have spent money on it.

 

Now, if it was antitheists who came up with this, the slogan would likely read:

 

"There's DEFINITELY no God"

 

See?

[Murphy Jnr]

You seem to be confusing a lack of belief (belief just not there at all) with disbelief (a decision/conclusinon aginst belief).

QUOTE]

 

I don't think so but it's likely that what with trying to decide whether Toads exist or not, and lets not forget omnipotent Steve that the I might have so to clarify. I am not an atheist nor am i a believer, I sit in the middle and wait for a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

I tend not to dangle definitions of words as they often come with more than one possible meaning.

 

Your thread title seems to be a statement of fact, I however don't/won't/can't accept it.

[RootsBooster]

 

 

I don't think so but it's likely that what with trying to decide whether Toads exist or not, and lets not forget omnipotent Steve that the I might have so to clarify. I am not an atheist nor am i a believer, I sit in the middle and wait for a definitive answer one way or the other.

 

I tend not to dangle definitions of words as they often come with more than one possible meaning.

 

Your thread title seems to be a statement of fact, I however don't/won't/can't accept it.

 

Then by sitting in the middle, undecided you are not denying belief in God (that means you are not an antitheist)...

 

...but currently you do not have a belief in God (that makes you an atheist)...

 

...until you have decided either way (that makes you also agnostic).

 

This is the case with many people. I think that some atheists or athesist agnostics don't like the term atheist because it is sometimes stigmatised as a negative trait. Which it isn't.

 

You don't have to accept this of course, that's your right. Doesn't hurt to have a good long think about it though.

[Murphy Jnr]

Then by sitting in the middle, undecided you are not denying belief in God (that means you are not an antitheist)...

 

...but currently you do not have a belief in God (that makes you an atheist)...

 

...until you have decided either way (that makes you also agnostic).

 

This is the case with many people. I think that some atheists or athesist agnostics don't like the term atheist because it is sometimes stigmatised as a negative trait. Which it isn't.

 

You don't have to accept this of course, that's your right. Doesn't hurt to have a good long think about it though.

 

Maybe I will, and maybe not (it's a sturdy fence)

 

It's been a pleasure, we must do this again one day.

[fake]

One does not need to consciously choose to be an atheist. That's exactly what the OP is saying. That atheism is the default setting.

 

But its not the default setting in a newborn no more than it is in a tree or stone. You need an active consciousness with the ability to think and rationalise to be able to say you have an absence of belief that any deities exist. Ask a baby if its atheist and they wont reply as they haven't the faintest idea what you are on about.

 

You don't need to have a 'sense of lack of belief' to be an atheist.

 

I said "A baby does not know what a belief is therefore any sense of a lack of belief in a deity is nonsense and illogical," and the bit underlined does apply to an atheist.

 

It is entirely possible to be an atheist without ever having heard of religion.

 

If you haven't heard about religion then how can you know what a deity is? If you don't know what a deity is then the the question of being an atheist holds no meaning.

 

Basically there are two options, either babies are born believing in god/s, or they are born atheists. There is no third option.

 

To a baby the concept of God is meaningless and so is everything else to it including any idea of options. That idea is also put forward in the Bible in that any child that has not been taught about God is devoid of any sins.

 

So to recap, unless a newborn knows about God and what a deity is the whole concept of it being atheist has no meaning and shouldn't be applied.

[RootsBooster]

But its not the default setting in a newborn

That's EXACTLY what it is.

A baby is born without belief in God. Can you guess which word that translates exactly into? (it's atheist by the way)

 

You need an active consciousness with the ability to think and rationalise to be able to say you have an absence of belief that any deities exist.

There are several people in this thread who keep claiming this but don't seem to know where they got this information from. The whole point of the thread (if you've read the OP) is to not just take information to be fact without getting to the source yourself. My source is the word "atheist", it means "without belief in God" LITERALLY translates as that, as said many times already. So simple.

So I ask, what is the source of your information regarding the need to have an ability to rationalise? Where does it say anywhere that atheism must be the result of rationalising or thinking?

 

Ask a baby if its atheist and they wont reply as they haven't the faintest idea what you are on about.

 

Ask a baby ANYTHING and it won't reply, you know that right?

 

 

 

I said "A baby does not know what a belief is therefore any sense of a lack of belief in a deity is nonsense and illogical," and the bit underlined does apply to an atheist.

 

We're not talking about a "sense" of a lack of belief (if that's even possible), we're just talking about plain, simple lack of belief, ie: the belief is not there.

Why mince words like this?

 

 

 

If you haven't heard about religion then how can you know what a deity is? If you don't know what a deity is then the the question of being an atheist holds no meaning.

 

Again, what makes you think there's any questioning involved in a belief simply NOT BEING THERE ?

 

 

 

To a baby the concept of God is meaningless

 

EXACTLY !!! So it does NOT have a belief in God !!!

 

So to recap, unless a newborn knows about God and what a deity is the whole concept of it being atheist has no meaning and shouldn't be applied.

 

Unless you can come up with a better argument, then no this statement is wrong.

 

Cavegirl has given the best comparison so far I think with something which is abiotic (without life). A rock doesn't need to be able to think about if it's abiotic to actually BE abiotic. It's just abiotic by default.

 

Translations-

 

a(without)biotic(life)

 

a(without)theism(belief in God)

[f0rd]

All hail the omniscient dictionary.

[flamingjimmy]

But its not the default setting in a newborn no more than it is in a tree or stone. You need an active consciousness with the ability to think and rationalise to be able to say you have an absence of belief that any deities exist.

True, but you don't need to say that you have an absence of belief in order to have an absence of beleif, you just need to have an absence of beleif.