Is it true that we're all born atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

there

A lack of theistic belief is a paradoxical theological position. It is theological though---even though it depicts a lack of it.

I think the important distinction is that no-one is born a theist, in that newborns do not have a concept of and belief in God(s). They are atheists in the sense my dog is an atheist.

I do not think 'we are born atheists' in the sense of, a human would not conceive of or believe in God(s) if only we got rid of all such notions. I think the things that go toward a theistic belief - meaning, narrative, teleology, projection, magical thinking, etc - are part and parcel of the human condition, and plenty evident in many areas in life, in atheists and theists alike.

As such, whether or not we can say (via definition) we're 'born atheists' is a matter of whether or not one thinks non-belief requires the ability to conceptualise a belief to not believe in or lack in the first place. That is, does atheism require a consious rejection of theistic belief? As either perspective bears out the same, it's all a bit of arguing the toss. To be clear, I really enjoy arguing the toss.

I'm starting to wonder how long that appendage of the definition will be able to hold on credibly. Word usage changes over time and with this it seems like it's frustrates accurate communication rather than aiding it. For example the saying 'We're all born atheists' would be completely non-controversial and this thread wouldn't have gone anywhere if that's what was meant in both letter and spirit with that particular phrase/slogan and if that were the exact meaning - 'water is wet' is much snappier, has far fewer letters and syllables.

But no one is born an Atheist...because no one is born with a disbelief in a God whose concept is unknown to he/her.

Just like no one can not believe in peanut butter if the person has never heard of it.

It's been used in that context for 400 years in English.

This is an important concept that some people can't seem to grasp. It's the same reason they can blame atheists for deaths in the USSR and China, as if atheism could be a motivating factor. It's not a belief, it's the lack of one. If you blame lack of belief for murder, then you have to show how belief prevents murder, and you can't. Babies and communists have the exact same lack of belief in God.

the thing is, from that quick definition alone (which sounds perfectly accurate to me), the word has four different meanings, each one with very different implications. it's essentially as if those were different words with the same spelling and pronunciation. but, as usual when there's this kind of ambiguity, that distinction is rarely made in debate. typically each side will simply adopt the most convenient meaning for them, and nobody will acknowledge that they're talking about different things

never underestimate the role of semantics in debate. the ambiguity of words is inevitable, but failure to clarify what is meant is not inevitable. it's a weapon

Atheism isn't a motivating factor? Some interesting mental gymnastics you must be performing. It's true there is no Atheist Quran telling you to kill the infidels, but when you believe there is no afterlife, no God, no eternal justice that you must face and this life is all you have ... couldn't that possibly... possibly be linked with Earthly utopianism? The New Society? To not believe in Paradise often creates a rather strong urge to create one here on Earth, it is no accident that western atheism is often concomitant with all kinds of left-leaning utopian views.



I don't want to get into a dictionary war again, lack of belief is something closer to saying "I don't know" a reasonable position, one that does not encompass the traditional definition of atheism. Atheism is believing there is no God and acting accordingly. The Soviets were very much atheist in that sense. It was a spiritually atheist state among many other things, it vehemently persecuted all opposing belief systems. The modern western atheist, upon being confronted with the knowledge that an atheist state looked very much like the worst kind of theist state, tries to write it off as a form of religion and says they are opposed to religions and religiosity in general - ignoring of course that religion and belief go hand in hand. But but but atheism isn't a belief ... utopianism has nothing to do with a godless worldview...



Those who wish to blame Christian belief for the various atrocities of its followers can't really complain when people blame atheist belief for the communist bloodbath. The logic is the same as I just demonstrated above. Only a believer, they say, could torture someone of a different belief, after all they are doing them a favour by converting them to the right side, they have saved their enemy's immortal soul. Any guesses as to what the Soviets got up to?

I think that'd be something of a stretch. In those cases you'd be best looking at the motivation behind why they identify as atheists in the first place.



Because, like so many other things, it's been co-opted by them. There's nothing inherently "left" or "utopian" about atheism.



You're the one starting the "war" by trying to impose your preferred definition on atheists who reject it. It's rather like me refusing to acknowledge any definition of "christian" other than "someone who worships an omnipotent dictator with a penchant for global genocide, murdering babies and sacrificing his own offspring".

What exactly do you mean by "traditional" definition? Do you still use the traditional definition of the word "girl"?



The Soviet state was founded on a Marxist-Leninist philosophy, not an atheist philosophy. Describing it as an atheist state is disingenuous. Whilst atheism may have been an aspect of Marx' philosophy, Marxism is not an aspect of atheism. It resembled a theistic state because it followed a set of tenets and dogma that are indistinguishable from religious tenets and dogma in every sense other than the nouns used to describe those things which are unquestionable.



Dreams of utopia are, to my mind, the inevitable outcome of a species which has evolved a highly-developed capacity for abstract thought. The concept of a paradise in the afterlife is a utopian dream. You're actually making a very good argument for the idea that religions were invented precisely because of a common human desire to live forever in a perfect paradise, combined with a fear of the unknown.



Marxist belief, not "atheist belief".



i.e. flawed.



Who is the "they" you're referencing? And do keep in mind that the only thing all atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a god or gods.

i think mikah has a point there though. because when it's okay to postpone utopia until after you're dead, you don't need to chase it in your lifetime, you only need to practice virtue instead. chasing utopia on earth is inherently problematic regardless of what utopia you believe in, because it implies humans have godlike powers (which we don't). not that focusing on virtues is necessarily any better. it's often much worse. but it's not necessarily problematic. it depends on the particular virtues being promoted and focused on

still, there's at the very least a third way, not coincidentally called "the middle way" (which i suppose is passively practiced by many who prefer to identify as "agnostic" or "irreligious" or something to that effect, or prefer to not identify as anything and simply stay out of the debate altogether). and, also not coincidentally, even in arcane poetic form it's mentioned very explicitly as the main outcome of unveiling false dichotomies. because the thing is: we probably do need a sense of perfection attached to something, but do we really need a notion of any utopia to look forward to, be it in heaven or on earth? (and be it "perfect equality" or "the american dream". earthly utopia is not just a communist or "leftist" thing)

the same capacity for abstract thinking that allows us to dream up utopias (worldly or otherworldly) also allows us to visualize perfection in imperfect things as they are. which has loopholes all the same (you can always argue that "war is perfect in its imperfection", for instance. and iirc japanese history is full of greedy and merciless wars that were fought using buddhism as a rationalization). but, from my point of view, the inherent loopholes and implications of refraining from drawing a sharp line between earthly and heavenly are much less insidious and destructive than those of either extreme (anthropocentric or theocentric)


on the other hand... correspondingly, it can easily be argued that crusader belief isn't "christian belief" either. if you think about it, it's incredibly paradoxical that jesus's teachings (advocating more equality and denouncing hypocrisy and double-standards) became the official religion of the most powerful empire the earth had ever seen (when empires are essentially dependent on very high levels of inequality and hypocrisy/double-standards)

and ironically, the empire that had been largely based on cultural/religious tolerance until then, became intolerant after it adopted christianity (probably because at that point they were more concerned with consolidating their power and squeezing even more taxes, rather than expanding their reach). the only conclusion i can draw is that historical christianity as we know it is essentially "late-romanity", an opportunistic appropriation of the original faith it claimed to be spreading

so, similarly to the question of "what is atheist belief", there's also the question of "what is christian belief", and there's ambiguity in both, even if you disregard schisms and their resulting denominations

Last edited by anagram on 01 Sep 2016, 2:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

All I argue is there is a link. Just as I can see and accept the link between a belief in an absolute extra-human authority, an absolute moral code and various religious atrocities.



As has been noted, the word has so many meanings now, it's difficult to say which one is more correct, I am just making sure everyone understands how I am using the word, any self-identified atheists (who I would probably call agnostics) who feel slandered should know it is unintentional.



I think to say it wasn't is disingenuous. It was explicitly atheist, one of its stated goals was the destruction of religion and replacing it with atheism, modern western atheists (unknowingly I hope) use the same language as the Soviet communists, the same tactics, the same smears. I don't say Atheism necessarily leads to Marxism, but there is a link there between the godless world view and the belief in creating a worldly utopia of which communism and the whole Russian disaster was one.



Seems a reasonable statement to me, I should have said Earthly utopianism again where you quoted me there.



No arguments here, the big picture is always much more complicated. "No True Christian" when it comes to the Inquisition etc. "No True Muslim" when it comes to Islamic atrocities. "No True Atheist" when it comes to the Soviet Union.



I was referring to the modern incarnation of the League of the Militant Godless. The internet atheists, followers of the "four horseman" conducting the great internet debate on religion over the last 10-15 years.

Last edited by Mikah on 01 Sep 2016, 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Christianity teaches what is called predestination or foreordainment, that God chooses you, and a man is known from the womb.

Atheists are born atheist, Christians are born Christian, as God is in control of that.

Most everyone has heard John 3:16, with cheesy, sacrileges references, finding their way to baseball and pro-wrestling.

Almost noone has heard John 3:18 --
"...he that believeth not is condemned already..."

A choice cannot be made, already, if we are truly creatures of free will.

I don't happen to believe in the above notions.

And not all Christians believe in them, either.

Calvinists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others believe this.

I would say most people believe in a degree of "free will" which does not exist for Calvinists and people with their theological beliefs.

and that's the branch of christianity all major denominations split from

the funny thing is, despite advocating, enforcing and effectively promoting a higher emphasis on religion in daily and lifelong practices and attitudes (both social and individual), "double predestination" actually promotes an anthropocentric view. because attaining heavenly utopia is not up to you anyway, so why even bother. you live a virtuous life if it suits you, or you life a wicked life instead if it suits you better. it's what god intended for you, after all

Like preventing sin which will cause God to punish society as a whole, like in Noah's time?


Believing there is no god is not the definition of atheism. In modern terms we would call that hard atheism, which is just one form of atheism. The USSR was officially an atheist state. But that doesn't mean it was without ideology. It was Communist ideology, or Maoism, Leninism, or Stalinism. Although ostensibly scientific in nature, it did make assumptions about the world that were not strictly derived from empirical evidence, as a Communist system had never before been attempted. In that sense, it was somewhat of a faith position. I say somewhat, since Marx did have good reasons for his economic theories. But in practice, people were killed for opposition, or the fear of opposition to the ruling party, who's authority could not be questioned. That resembles religion. Atheism can be an ideology, as soon as you diverge from the mere lack of belief in god. But as it has no founding documents or core beliefs other than a lack of one, it's hard to conflate all kinds of atheism with what the Communists were doing. In term of numbers, which people often cite as a measure of the degree of evil, they were assisted by modern technology. Christianity was killing and torturing in it's name for centuries. The core issue is one of faith, not religion.

I'm not so sure it's even evil to kill in the cause of Communism. If I believed that control of the means of production is a human right, I might fight for it. We killed more than half a million people in the Civil War which ended slavery. Of course, Communist atrocities became the means to ensure the power of one person, and many hardcore Communists died in defense of Communism at the hands of the USSR. I acknowledge that Communist Atheists killed tens of thousands of priests in the name of their personal atheist ideology, which stated that religious people are a threat.

One could also argue that the USSR was never purely atheist, since most of the population was Russian Orthodox (and still is), which was tolerated in later years. And that worship of their leadership as divine was a Russian tradition from the times of the Czars.


Unlike pure atheism, Christian belief is a complex system with a sacred text. In that sense, it can be blamed for tenets that explicitly order one to enforce belief on pain of death. At best, it can be blamed for mixed messages.

Modern atheists tend to be humanists, against the death penalty, and in favor of human rights.