Everyone starts atheist

^^^ Would "We're all born Atheist" have been a better way for the OP to have stated it for you?
Atheism does not require an assertion of god to rail against or reject with rational intellect. After all Atheism is by definition, a lack of theism. Not the rejection of theism...
That would be called something like... I don't know... anti-theism....
or Stalin-ism.

ZW

 

Analytically, there's a difference between a person who consciously decides not to believe in God and one who doesn't believe because the concept never occurred to him/her. Definitions are tools. What is the usefulness in pinning an "ism" on a baby or someone who's been raised by wolves.

 

If people (parents) would stop polluting young minds with irrational notions of supreme beings/omniscient deitys, pretty sure most religions would just dry up and blow away...

ZW

 

I think the OP is trying to exemplify what it means to know something.

Baby's have nothing but what they see, taste, feel, think (citation needed) and hear, which are the same tools adult naturalists use to reject the 'God' idea. We learn to talk by listening, we learn the subjective quality of hot by feeling it, we learn what fish tastes like by smelling or eating it.

Atheists have no reason to believe god exists the same way babies don't. There is nothing indicating its existence.

Parents answering their children's questions with "God did it" or "God made it happen" are exploiting their ignorance, whether they are aware that the answer is false or not.

 

that's exactly right. and that's exactly what applies to me. I'm an atheist. I don't use the action called 'believing'.

not believing in god is not some choice you make in your life. i never made that choice. you either develop to be a person whose behavior is characterized by belief (what the person believes in is irrelevant in itself; god, UFOs, conspiracy theories---it's all the same thing) or you remain intact like you were when you were born. atheists represent the latter group.

 

Babies are quite narcissistic. I dont think a baby can be born agnostic, which implies a conscious belief in something greater but which cannot be defined, or atheist, which is an intellectual and conscious rejection of a belief. Babies aren't born as anything; babies just are.

However, it could be said that a human, without assistance from outside forces, will develop into a sentient being that is aware that something greater than itself exists. I think this is quite instinctual; if it weren't, religion wouldn't be so widespread. The belief in something greater than humanity has existed since the dawn of mankind.

 

The OP is trying to exemplify what it means to know something.

Baby's have nothing but what they see, taste, feel, think (citation needed) and hear, which are the same tools adult naturalists use to reject the 'God' idea. We learn to talk by listening, we learn the subjective quality of hot by feeling it, we learn what fish tastes like by smelling or eating it.

Atheists have no reason to believe god exists the same way babies don't. There is nothing indicating its existence.

Meaning the status of gods existence that atheism posits, is exactly the same as a baby who simply cant understand the idea. They are both caused by the lack of indication.

Sometimes, human beings have things to gain by lying to one another. The fact that religion is so widespread could just be an indication of how gullible our species is.

 

For alternative viewpoints, see Robert Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy; Paul Davies, The Mind of God;and Eric Reitan, Is God a Delusion?

Or it could possibly be an indication that there's something out there that's eluded your myopic outlook.

 

I'm going to the library tomorrow. Though I don't think i'm going to read all of these.

Mine and every other Atheist? Possibly.

Or perhaps there is just nothing there. Imagine that...
This conclusion is also adequate in describing what we call space.

The shoe fits both subjects very, very well.

 

Actually, I would highly recommend Paul Davies. I haven't read the particular book mentioned, but I'm currently reading About Time by Paul Davies and its a very well researched book. Atheism should be entirely theoretical; atheists should always be in search of research and theories which suggest the possiblilty of a God. Otherwise atheists are being just as close minded as those who have chosen a particular religion.

But I was not referring to organized religion. I was referring to an individual belief that something greater than mankind exists.

 

I'm curious as to why you think we should "always be in search of research and theories which suggest the possibility of god." when god is only one idea in an incomprehensible expansion of possibility that is our universe. I think its very closed minded to stay with the idea that the universe is either "god exists or god doesn't exist."

I also think that observing the universe in an attempt to somehow breathe life into a whimsical bronze age ideal is a disgrace to everything science stands for.

Normally, I would categorically refuse to read books like these because they are usually "God or not" and more often geared at the religious, which is painstakingly obvious when the "evidence" is brought forth.

Its like the lady from the other thread telling me, "god made science". I laugh out loud every time I rewrite that.

I wasn't just talking about religion in this case. People will lie about anything. Santa clause, the easter bunny, the shape of the planet....I have a HUGE quarrel with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow story, which is exploiting peoples ignorance about the dynamics of refracted light.

My point is that the fact religion is so widespread doesn't necessarily mean it is IN human beings to come to that conclusion. Just like I'm sure plenty of people were hit on the head by falling apples before newton and didn't come up with gravity.

Rather, one human being thought it up and told the rest of us. A theory about what the sun is, perhaps. Though, some of the explanations about the sun that are still in tact today probably date back to before human beings appeared.

Its actually ridiculous how well historical theology, cosmological events and weather match up but i'm ranting and pretty much off topic.

 

no, atheism isn't a rejection of belief --it is a lack of belief. exactly the condition babies are born in. I never rejected anything, I simply never had any beliefs. that's how i was born and that's how I am today. nothing changed along the way to make me an atheist. I've always been this way ergo I've always been an atheist. and if i were the only person on this planet, strolling the meadows and staring up at the nighttime sky alone (I did that as a kid) I would've never come up with an idea of god. such a thing would've never occurred to me.

living in this world, yes, atheists come in touch with religious beliefs devised by other people. and yes, upon familiarizing themselves with those beliefs they do not accept them. but that's not the reason they are atheists. they were atheists before they rejected those beliefs. they rejected them because they were born and raised without any beliefs. that condition came first. the rejection of belief later.

I agree that babies are born as atheists, because I know it from first hand experience that it can be true. in my case it is. and for a lot of other people it is too.

 

Stop spreading what you THINK words should mean, when it's not what they mean. If you're using a word wrong, go learn to use it right, don't try to convince the rest of the world to use it your way.

 

well, why don't you get out of your little hole and educate yourself a bit.
don't try to manipulate the discussion to your side by throwing out some platitudes and trying to make a bigger impression of what you really are.
there's not one single argument in your post. the sky isn't brown just because you say it is.

 

Atheism actually does mean the belief that there is no god, marked by rejection of the belief.

You are describing the status of Atheist belief rather than what the the word means.

 

it doesn't only mean that. it has broader meaning than just that. the number of atheists who say they believe there is no god is actually very small. atheists will say they think (a completely different term than 'believe') there is no god, but atheists who actually claim to *believe* there is no god are rare.

but of course, the mass media and its representatives fail to make a distinction between the terms 'think' and 'believe' and falsely keep defining atheism as belief that there is no god. whence all the other people not atheists themselves and unfamiliar with it keep accepting that definition. talk to any serious atheist and he will tell you he doesn't believe anything.

Wikipedia:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

 

A rejection of belief isn't the same as an absence of belief. Which is it? It's possible to define atheism as an absence of a belief in deities, but doing so blurs the distinction between atheist and agnostic. Why do we want to do that? For analytical purposes, is that distinction worth retaining?

 

if im a baby, G-D is a BOOB..

 

I think the only difference between Atheist and Agnostic is that agnostics cater to the god idea when Atheism doesn't.

You wont ever find anything about probability or any other possible origin of the universe in a definition of "Agnosticism", and that just isn't fair.

Treat god like we treat everything else.

 

you have to learn the MEANING of words before you can intelligently discuss politics, economis, history, or philosophy. There is no way to prove a negative. Proof is required of he who asserts something is. The theists have the burden of proof, and they can't meet that burden, ever. There is no reason to believe in a god, or a life after death, so why do so? It doesn't help a thing, really. It's a delusion, in the same way that drinking alchohol isn't going to help a problem, etc. Fix the problem, not "drown" the symptoms. If you are lonely, depressed, etc, find a way to fix it, instead of postulating "another life', etc, etc bs.