Is it true that we're all born atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

Worship of a dictator is VERY akin to religion.

It can be said to be a "religion" onto itself at times--especially in a de facto sense.

Sure. In the same sense that there's a link between having power and abusing those who don't. My view of religion is that it's a tool used to justify rather than the cause of said justification - at least, initially. When it becomes more endemic in a given society, there's an argument that the justification might become it's own cause, but that would require ignoring the 'genetic' history of religion.



The word has but a single meaning with two different connotations, as it has done for many centuries, and which is arguably (with good justification) the result of the influence of theistic prejudice on the development of language. Cleaving to one connotation over the other or claiming purity of the theological definition can only be the result of ignorance of the etymology or bias due to ideological preferences, especially if you go back as far as the Greek "atheos" as it was applied.

I recommend "Atheism in France" by Alan Charles Kors if you're interested in the subject from the perspective of a Historian. Or you can save yourself some reading and take my word for it that it's nowhere near as cut-and-dry as you're presenting it, nor are there suddenly multiple additional meanings "now".



Their stated goal (and indeed their policy) was anti-theistic, not atheistic. What they actually wanted was to eradicate non-Marxist ideologies and replace them with Marxism, with a side order of expropriation of religious property. Unlike (e.g.) the United States' separation of church and state, the Soviets effectively created a pseudo-religion where the church was the state, and vice versa. Also worth noting is that it was the Soviets themselves (or at least some of them) that first recognised the contradiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Cu ... nsequences

So I maintain that it is a disingenuous and massively over-simplified description.



I don't think you've demonstrated any link beyond "human beings have ambitious dreams". As I alluded to, striving for perfection seems to be hardwired into us - which makes sense if you accept the theory of evolution.



From an atheistic perspective, what other kinds of utopianism is there? The Christian heaven is no different from any other utopia. In fact, if you view the Bible as pure allegory, it contains not one, but two of the oldest examples of Earthly Utopian writing in Eden and Heaven (though they can be seen as aspects of the same 'place').



It's massively complicated, but also incredibly interesting - especially if we ignore the clamouring masses of the anti-theistic cult of Scientism and their theistic counterparts.



I don't think the majority of said League are capable of speaking for themselves, let alone atheists in general. As much admiration as I have for Christopher Hitchens, the "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse" effectively created their own personality cult, prone to the same closed-mindedness common to any other ideological faction.

the problem is when that belief goes too far, as if we actually have the power to universally agree on what's ideal and then achieve it for everyone (or worse, the predestination or obligation to achieve it without consensus), and the obligation to practice and promote ideal elements without an ideal context. then people start defending (and pushing) outrageously unrealistic ideas with dire consequences (drifting further away from the ideal in reality -- i count your "reparations" idea as an example) and accusing those who oppose them as if they don't share the same ideals, even if they actually do, and accusing their opponents of being the reason why those unrealistic implementations are failing

that's where i agree with mikah on the "earthly utopia" thing. it's a dangerous fantasy. it sets the stage for witch hunting and totalitarianism (because radical egalitarians "know what's best for you" better than you do). if it sounds orwellian, it's because, yes, i do believe political correctness is probably going to be one of the main phenomenons eventually leading to that sort of scenario

now, where i firmly disagree with mikah is when he advocates the adoption of an official religion as a solution. that sounds to me like nothing other than a particular case of what i just described. promoting the readoption and relegitimization of heavenly utopia as the solution to problems that have nothing to do with it. it would be a part of the problem all the same. you can't just tell people "hey, it makes more sense for us all to believe in heaven, even if we don't". you need sneaky tactics that you can never reveal to the converted. and "what could possibly go wrong" with that, right?

My whole point was that an ideology can be taken to extremes. But atheism itself is the lack of one.

babies lack cognitive ability to believe or disbelieve in any gods, I mean this is like asking if potatoes are republicans or democrats. lol

or not

there's no point in arguing which meaning is "the correct one". both exist, and neither is archaic or obscure, even if one may be more common than the other (which usually depends a lot on what social circle you're talking about). some words are annoying or have inconvenient meanings. such is life. saying one meaning is right and the other is wrong doesn't help, unless you're actually an authority with ample influence on the usage of words

Exactly.

Which means it is also true that atheism is not believing in any gods, I'd think...otherwise I am confused.

It's the absolute lack of belief in the idea of gods. It can be extended, pretty easily, to the absolute lack of belief in anything "supernatural."

What do you call lack of belief in God, other than atheism?

You are denying a common usage of the term, and you are saying that all atheists believe there is no God, which is demonstrably false.

what do you call a strict repudiation of a belief in god that you're culturally expected to have?

Atheism!

You're contradicting yourself how can athiests believe there is any god if they lack belief in gods? lack of belief in gods and believing there are no gods is the same thing.

no, i'll agree with aspe on that one. there's a difference. a baby does lack a belief in god, just like a potato does. obviously neither is an atheist in any significant way (especially because the suffix -ist implies intent or autonomy), even if technically they may be

but the distinction also applies to adults. a belief that there is no god denies all forms and possibilities of the existence of a god, while the lack of belief in god is much less specific, and it's open-ended. which is commonly know as... agnosticism. but is also called atheism sometimes, which is consistent with the etymology of the word (just not the usage)

Last edited by anagram on 01 Sep 2016, 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But both come down to not believing in the concept of god or gods so doesn't seem a very big difference...or are you saying athiests are open to the idea of gods but just don't have a specific belief about them? I thought that was more along the lines of agnostic...but based on this it seems atheism and agnostic mean the same thing?

Most atheists I've talked to say they don't believe in any gods and certainly aren't open to the possibility that there could be. So that is also the impression I have gotten of atheism from atheists.

Atheists are NOT open to any belief in gods.

Atheistic agnostics are open to it.