CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There's only one definition that matters. Dictionary. "My" definition of atheist might be "Guy who eats potato chips". Which is of course wrong. We cant take anyone elses opinions in place of the bottom line definition which is:
Atheist- A person with a lack of belief in a deity.
Dictionary? No. Let's go back to the very beginning. The greek word atheos, the prefix "a" means without, and "theos" means god. So literally, without god.
Technically, though some dictionary's disagree, majority of the atheist community would define atheism as a lack of belief in god. Also if you dissect the word "atheism" the prefix A- means "not or without", and the word theism means "belief in god". So if we go with atheism not being the definition being "not or without belief in god" we might as well throw all consistency of the English language out the window.
Do babies hold any belief in god? then they are atheists. Yes they are apatheists since they are also not concerned with god, but that are still atheists.
Assuming that by atheist you are referring to a lack of religion, you aren't born with any specific religion. You may be raised with a religious view from a young age, but you aren't directly born with a religion as you haven't been introduced to it yet.
I'm quite sure about my standing.... I've never met a religious person until my 22 I've had compulsory religious studies so we learnt about religions, their rituals, mythology, etc. But i thought that it's pretty much dead. I'm Eastern Europe... I thought that in west it's completely gone.. What a fucking surprise when I land in the UK... Right in the Luton Airport a guy with huge beard wearing skirt commanding a crow of chick wearing black tents. In the London city on every second st. there was in least one freak wearing a board with "Jesus is the Truth" or "Jesus will save you..." Or when first time I heard a doorbell and on the other side were two guys in suits asking me if I know about Jesus Christ ...and if they can come in ...and I said OK... hat a freaks, they really scared me... I kept checking that the knife that was on table is closer to me rather than to them...
Or when fist time saw word Creationism. I couldn't translate it, it didn't made any sense so I clicked on the video. I thought that they were trolling. I was really laughing. I didn't know that it's real. I would understand that in Africa, Middle East, India etc. Places without schools or so... but in US? That is so fucking freaky... more than 100 000 000 people in US are somehow fucked up...
..so yes without brainwashing from your childhood, you never even think about gods... you don't really differentiate between Bible/Quran and Lord of the rings.
To be an atheist, one does not need to know of religion, and to reject it. We do not even need religion, religious beliefs, or even the idea of theism, to be atheists. If we lived in a world where no one ever considered a 'supernatural' theistic worldview, then you would agree that everyone would be atheists.
Babies are born into this world - before they can actively understand the debate between atheists and theists, or even understand anything other than their raw emotions. Unless you tell me that atheists require religion or theism to be atheists, you cannot tell me that babies are born anything but atheists.
I don't think we're born anything, my definition of an Atheist (it might not match the Dictionary definition it's just my view) is someone who has experienced Religion and decided it's not for them, if anything we're born Agnostic as we have not experienced anything to do with Religion so do not know.
I don't think we're born with any belief really because we haven't learnt enough to actually process religions. They're babies who can only depend on the mother they can't really think for themselves yet.
Which is precisely why we were all born atheist. Anyone who has never even heard of god yet is technically and by default atheist. Though I do agree babies have put absolutely no thought into the existence of a god, how could they?
Let me interfere a bit. According to you, Atheism is a lack in the belief in God. Do tell me, do babies not lack disbelief in a deity as well? It goes both ways. One CHOOSES to believe in something just as one CHOOSES to disbelieve in something. Not believing is a belief. "I believe a God doesn't exist."
An infant is very oblivious to anything. That includes the intellect to decide you do not believe in something or believe. Atheists reject the nature of theism. You think an infant can decide that logically? All they care about is their basic needs. They care not whether a deity exists it vice versa.
Let me interfere a bit. According to you, Atheism is a lack in the belief in God. Do tell me, do babies not lack disbelief in a deity as well?
You can only lack disbelief in a deity by having a belief in a deity. Essentially you can't lack belief in a deity, anymore than you can have a lack of dark. To lack darkness would mean to possess light. Thus babies don't lack disbelief, because disbelief is already a lack of belief. Saying babies lack disbelief is like saying babies do not not have belief which by double negative would make them believers. It is like saying this object is not blue but it is not not blue, which would make no sense. The prefix A- is replaceable with non, nontheism, AKA not a theist. Are babies theists? No. Atheist by default then. To say babies are not atheists is like saying they are not not theists which by double negative makes them a theist. To say they aren't a theist makes them an atheist. To say they are neither an atheist nor a theist makes them both at the same time. You are trying to argue against my argument of atheism being a lack of belief by saying you can lack, a lack of belief, which would mean you hold belief... You see where you are going with this makes no sense, the only way you can not not have something is by having it by double negative.
One CHOOSES to believe in something just as one CHOOSES to disbelieve in something.
Technically you don't have to choose to disbelieve, you disbelieve by default, you hold no belief by default. Once you are introduced to theism do you choose to believe it or not believe it. So you don't necessarily choose to disbelieve, you disbelieve unroll you choose to believe.
Not believing is a belief. "I believe a God doesn't exist."
No it is not.
"I believe god doesn't exist" =/= "I don't believe in a god"
The former is a belief, the latter is a lack of belief.
Gnostic atheists believe god doesn't exist, agnostic atheists which makes more of of the atheist population don't believe in the first place. Babies don't believe in god, which makes them an agnostic atheist, they also don't believe god doesn't exist, however all that means is they aren't gnostic atheists.
An infant is very oblivious to anything. That includes the intellect to decide you do not believe in something or believe.
I completly agree with this, thus they can have no belief either way, which makes them agnostics atheists.
Atheists reject the nature of theism. You think an infant can decide that logically?
Atheists don't reject anything at least not until they are introduced to theism. Atheism is merely not being a theist, Gnostic atheism is the opposing belief to theism.
All they care about is their basic needs. They care not whether a deity exists it vice versa.
Exactly why they must lack belief.
We are born agnostic.
I completely agree however agnosticism/Gnosticism does not replace atheism/theism. You see one is about belief while the other is about knowledge. What you know is not a direct answer to what you believe.
My argument on this will be very much the same as my argument why you aren't born homosexual.
I don't think you are born being attracted to a specific gender, nor do I think you are born believing or disbelieving any God.
As a child you don't fit under any sexual orientation, nor do you fit under any religion. Because your mind is simply not developed to have an independent opinion on these things.
You aren't born libertarian either, are you?
You aren't born a doctor, are you?
You are born a human being, and you will become whatever you will become.
But here, you are all describing things that require active participation or opinions before someone can be classified as one or the other.
Atheists do not require active thought to be atheists. They simply have to not believe in a God (not believe is not the same as disbelieving, by the way). Do babies believe in a God? No, then they are atheists.
To be a lesbian (or to have a sexuality in general), you must have an active attraction for females (and be female). Not having an attraction in boys does not mean you have an attraction for females.
If we lived in a world without Fongisjawar, no one would know what it is, and therefore no one would have an opinion on it. But if we lived in a world without the idea of religion, of theism, of God, then we would all be atheists.
Not having an attraction in boys does not mean you have an attraction for females.
Exactly, that's kinda the point I was trying to make - Not having a brain to believe in a God with doesn't make you atheist.
But if we lived in a world without the idea of religion, of theism, of God, then we would all be atheists.
The word atheist comes from the word theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist - Atheism can only exist if theism also does, because the word says it self - it is an opposition. Oppositions can only become a thing if they are opposite to something. So if this world was without religion, there wouldn't be an opposition, thus would atheism not exist either.
Imagine everyone being blind, then the word and expression ''blind'' wouldn't exist. Because being blind is a way to describe the opposite of seeing, if no one could see, we wouldn't know what sight was, nor would we have an expression to describe our blindness.
Exactly, that's kinda the point I was trying to make - Not having a brain to believe in a God with doesn't make you atheist.
See, I disagree. I consider someone an atheist if they do not believe in God. But I guess it is also important that someone has the capacity to believe in a God as well (it would be unreasonable to say that a rock is an atheist, for it does not believe in a God). All depends upon your definitions.
The word atheist comes from the word theist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist - Atheism can only exist if theism also does, because the word says it self - it is an opposition. Oppositions can only become a thing if they are opposite to something. So if this world was without religion, there wouldn't be an opposition, thus would atheism not exist either.
The word, and its origins, are unimportant (or at least to me). If we define something as being everything other than something else, and then the other thing goes away, its not that people stop being the first - simply that using the first definition would become redundant, as everyone is part of that group.
By the way, you have me less sure of myself, but neither do I think that I will change my mind on this. I would be happy to end the debate here, unless you feel I have said something new / you want to say something new.
A baby is born ignorant and believes nothing making him agnostic. atheist is the firm belief that there IS NO GOD, baby's are born UNAWARE OF RELIGION.
Incorrect. The majority of the atheist community define their stance as a lack of belief in god. You don't have to believe there is no god to be an atheist, you just don't have to believe there to be one in the first place. An atheist makes the statement "I don't believe in god" rather than "god doesn't exist". To give you a good analogy to help understand an atheist is merely someone "that guy who doesn't buy into theism" does a baby buy into theism? no? then the baby is an atheist.
To accept your definition of atheism we'd have to throw all consistency of the human language out the window, at that point that is counter-productive to the English language purpose.
The prefix A- in this situation means "not or without" (I.E. asymmetrical, apolitical) the definition of theism means "belief in god" thus if we are to be consistent with these, Atheist has to mean "not or without belief in god".
Do babies possess a belief in god? no. Atheist by default.
Do babies possess a belief in no god? no. irrelevant. Simply means they aren't a gnostic atheist, however doesn't dispute that they are an agnostic atheist.
My links for definitions are in my argument on the other side.
Atheism is defined as "the rejection of the existence of deities". Now elucidate me on this, how indelibly are you supposed to reject deities when you don't even know what a deity is?
According to one definition. according to mine atheists are people who disbelieve, which according to the same dictionary is to hold no belief. Also to accept that as the definition of atheism, we have to throw all constistency of the human language out the window.
The prefix A- means "not or without"
Theist means "belief in god"
Atheist means "without or no belief in god"
Thus to be consistent with the prefix A- we have to reject that definition of yours, also when arguing with someone it makes more sense to understand their stance rather than their label as that is more relevant, also it would make more sense to go with the definition that those by that label define themselves by.
Therefore "not or without a belief in god" is more reasonable of a definition because it doesn't require the entire population of atheists to change their label or stance, and it doesn't go against the definitions of the prefix and attached word it is made up of.
Edit: also links for my definitions in my argument on the other side.
Except you are completely wrong. The word "atheism" does not come from the prefix a- and the word "theist"; it comes from the Greek word "ἄθεος" meaning "godless"
Atheism is a proposal like any other. A lack of belief would mean you had no opinion which would make you an agnostic.
Except you are completely wrong. The word "atheism" does not come from the prefix a- and the word "theist"; it comes from the Greek word "ἄθεος" meaning "godless"
That is it's greek origins, those words have changed over the years, if we are to accept this old ancient origin to be today's meaning, then all theists are claiming to be god, where the prefix A- means "without" and "theos" means god. So Theist means gods. Also Godless could mean to lack a relationship with god, rather than to be claiming god doesn't exist, it doesn't specify, and that makes it unique like the term "gnostic" where it means to have knowledge (usually referring to god's existence) however it is a title "claiming" to have knowledge (usually on god's existence), which one can argue that there is no reason to think anyone is truly gnostic. Theos meaning "god" meaning theist mean,s god if we go with that, then theist meaning that theists are claiming to be god. Theos is different from theist, as where theos meant god, however it "evolved" to theist meaning to believe in god.
Atheism is a proposal like any other. A lack of belief would mean you had no opinion which would make you an agnostic.
Agnosticism/Gnosticism does not replace theism/atheism, one is about knowledge where the other is about belief, knowing whether god exists or not does not directly answer whether you believe directly, especially in the case of agnostics.
Lacking something is not the same as denying it. I lack a Ferrari, but I don't deny that they exist. A newborn baby does not have any knowledge, but they do not deny other people's knowledge.
Atheism is an opinion, and all opinions are about rejecting another opinion.
The idea of atheism is that all things must be proven via evidence. Evidence requires knowledge, and newborns do not have knowledge, nor are they aware of the concept of evidence.
Atheism also claims knowledge, which, again, is something newborns have no concept of.
Simply lacking belief in a deity/deities is not enough to make you an atheist. A Christian denies all the other gods, are they an atheist? No. My t-shirt has neither support for nor opprobrium towards the idea of a god, is it an atheist? No. Atheism is not the idea that the self cannot experience a spiritual world; it is the axiom that no-one can.
And since most theists claim to have physical experience of god, I would say that they are claiming to know their spiritual world, which means that they are sort-of claiming to be god. A fundamental part of all religion the idea that humankind will eventually be able to experience unearthly perception. And you could say that all theists are trying to rise above humanity, by inventing the idea of a god that we will eventually meet. Theists insist that only people like them can become part of this utopia, so that they can convince themselves that God has chosen them, and thus has taken some form inside of them.
Lacking something is not the same as denying it. I lack a Ferrari, but I don't deny that they exist. A newborn baby does not have any knowledge, but they do not deny other people's knowledge.
Exactly, we lack belief in God's existence, not reject it.
Atheism is an opinion, and all opinions are about rejecting another opinion.
Yes, we reject he opinion that theism is believable (at least to said atheist), therefore we do not believe.
The idea of atheism is that all things must be proven via evidence. Evidence requires knowledge, and newborns do not have knowledge, nor are they aware of the concept of evidence.
Not necessarily, typically yes, but not by definition. All an atheist is, is someone whom distuingishes themselves apart from theists. There are spiritual atheists, they are still technically atheists since they lack belief in God. There are buddhist atheists, the atheist that argues against all spirituality are merely your typical atheists.
Atheism also claims knowledge, which, again, is something newborns have no concept of.
Actually they don't, most atheists claim no knowledge when it comes to god, the majority of us claim agnosticism. If what you are talking about is how we claim science to be on our side which science is about knowledge, we aren't claiming that we have scientifically disproven god, but that science is on our side because science doesn't accept anything not based on evidence or proof, or logic.
Simply lacking belief in a deity/deities is not enough to make you an atheist. A Christian denies all the other gods, are they an atheist? No.
That is all takes. Christians are still theists because they possess belief in some kind of god, thus they do not lack belief in god(s).
My t-shirt has neither support for nor opprobrium towards the idea of a god, is it an atheist? No.
First of all, you are totally wrong only people can be atheists, but I'll get back to that in a second. What I want to know is how is that relevant if it were true? Obviously we are not talking about T-shirts here obviously, how would your T-shirt being able to call an atheist invalidate the title of atheist?
Back to my assertion that atheists only refer to people, the suffix -ist refers to people.
Atheism is not the idea that the self cannot experience a spiritual world; it is the axiom that no-one can.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god, thus lack of belief anyone has a relationship with god. The typical philosophy behind most atheists is applied to spirituality to, but it is not required to be an atheist. You can be a spiritual atheist, they do exist, just not as the typical atheist.
And since most theists claim to have physical experience of god, I would say that they are claiming to know their spiritual world, which means that they are sort-of claiming to be god. A fundamental part of all religion the idea that humankind will eventually be able to experience unearthly perception. And you could say that all theists are trying to rise above humanity, by inventing the idea of a god that we will eventually meet. Theists insist that only people like them can become part of this utopia, so that they can convince themselves that God has chosen them, and thus has taken some form inside of them.
They aren't claiming to be god, knowing the spiritual world and experiencing god does not necessarily make you god, I'm sure there are probably some theists who believe that makes them god but not all do.
Apatheism is when you dont care if a God exists. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God.
Infants dont have the knowledge of any Gods or deitys so they are of course born Atheist because they dont posses any belief. That is established. Though you cant go as far to say that they dont care because we dont know if they care or not. They dont have the knowledge to care or not. They dont know anything. So i guess it could work as a label but very loosely. I wouldnt go as far to label them apatheists. Just atheists will suffice.
No one "lacks" belief in anything. You either believe it or you don't. Or you just are oblivious to the idea. Infants know nothing of a deity and thus are agnostic. Oh and for your future reference, according to the mirriam Webster dictionary atheist means "a disbelief in a deity"
No one "lacks" belief in anything. You either believe it or you don't.
If you don't believe then you lack belief correct?
You can hold belief in gods existence, or hold belief in gods nonexistence, however to hold no belief in either means you lack belief.
Or you just are oblivious to the idea.
Which would make you atheist by default.
Infants know nothing of a deity and thus are agnostic.
Agnostic and atheist.
Oh and for your future reference, according to the mirriam Webster dictionary atheist means "a disbelief in a deity"
Which disbelief according to that same dictionary means lack of belief. Read my argument, it shows why it is more reasonable to have atheism defined as a lack of belief.
"Lacking" is having little of something. "Little" belief is not the same as having no belief at all, and in fact makes no sense. Lacking does not mean "little" but means missing. Lacking can be used to refer to the abscense of something, and that essentially its purpose. Thus lack can mean to have little since it refers to how much isn't there or it can refer to the full abscense of something. I lack a home would the homeless man say, I lack a car, does a carless person say, I lack belief in a god does the atheist say.
Well turns out that because I'm on my phone that site refers me to another, now we have two definitions both equally valid, either applies, and how I am referring to having the disbelief how I define it.
Grab one if you don't believe me, otherwise hush up because you have nothing to back up your statements
Well, well, well... How rude?... What I did I do wrong? Even if you proved to me that those words don't mean how I use them, by now you know my actual stance on the issue, you know what we mean when we call ourselves atheists, prove that your definitions are correct and mine are incorrect I just find a better word to describe my stance, nothing will only change but what words that I am using, a new label... Do you think this is an honest argument? Call me a carrot in place of atheism, and say it means to believe in the banana god, it won't make me call myself a carrot and claim I am a believer in a banana god. If you truly were right all I do is,make the same arguments and have the same opinions you'll just make me go through the headache of having to take the time to find a whole new label and words to describe my opinion, and redefine myself correctly. The fact that we claim babies to be atheist is to help others understand exactly what are opinion is where words can't do so, so easily, it helps others to imagine what we probably think on the existence of god.the point is we lack belief. That is what the the claim that babies are atheist are there to help express what we mean by atheist. Now I just wanted to explain to you to consider for future reference, as all this is for the most part irrelevant here, since the debate is in particular about atheism meaning how we actually use it. My definitions I pulled are just as valid and just are supported, the way we use them is valid. Babies are by our valid definition atheist, by your definition no, but by some definition atheist. So we are born atheist by a definition of atheism. Happy?
Your sources yet again tell me nothing, and I havent seen the word "lacking" anywhere in the definition for disbelief. Please specify the objective of your argument in the first place if you cannot find an official meaning for a word?
Edit: People make up their own definitions for words all the time, whether its because they are ignorant or in denial. Who am I not to say that the definition isn't official, but accepted among a certain amount of people because it suits the circumstances?
Well if my links didn't provide anything I suspect it is because they are phone links. When I get back from vacation I will provide you with appropriate links. However the sites on my phone I can assure you had the definitions I claim, if you don't believe me, understandable, I will show you soon enough.
Don't use the dictionary then. Use something else, perhaps the etymology of the word "atheist", which is the greek word atheos. The prefix "a" means without, and theos means god. So literally, without god. Otherwise known as, lack of god, lack of belief in god, etc.
The word "lacking" does not mean to have little of something. It means to not have it at all.
You've merely got the wrong definition of atheist.
So summarize, an atheist in its most inclusive sense is the lack of belief in deities. In a very narrow sense, it is the declaration that god(s) do not exist.
I could still argue that we also "lack" rejection or disbelief in God. Infants are rather spiritual beings, for that reason. Calling an infant an atheist simply because it is not a theist is a laughable query
I could still argue that we also "lack" rejection or disbelief in God.
And what would you call that?
Infants are rather spiritual beings,
How do you know? This is just a statement, with no evidence.
Calling an infant an atheist simply because it is not a theist is a laughable query
Then laugh at it, it's still true though. Infants lack a belief in god, and since the greek work atheos literally meant without god, infants are therefore atheists. Or did the greeks, the people who created the word, attach the wrong definition to the word they created?
Well I would say agnostic. Last time I checked, Atheists become Atheists because of their rejection of a deity existing. Not because they have no knowledge of a deity whatsoever to make that decision. And what I meant by spiritual is the contentment with physical reality, not enough brain capacity to analyze these things. Of course, I could bring up the study that infants and toddlers naturally believe in things that aren't there to the physical eye, but I am not well informed on this. Decide for yourself whether that can be possible or not
Agnosticism/Gnosticism does not replace atheism/theism. The former is about knowledge the latter is about belief. "I don't know if god exists" does not answer the question "do you believe in god" it implies a lack of belief at best A.K.A. atheism.
You don't have to claim to a God exists or not if you are agnostic. Its the reason why you are called agnostic is because you don't know. However, most people do carry a belief/disbelief in a deity that is, discluding infants. They do not claim for a deity to exist/not exist nor do they believe/disbelieve
You don't have to claim to a God exists or not if you are agnostic.
Neither do agnostic atheists...
Its the reason why you are called agnostic is because you don't know.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not about belief. When asked "do you believe in god?" You say "I don't know" is equivalent to someone asking "what is your political stance?" And you saying "existentialism". I am agnostic to, but agnosticism doesn't answer to whether or not I believe. With beliefs I am atheist, meaning to not have any. I'd agree babies are agnostic, they do not know whether or jot god exists, now keys answer the question concerning belief. Do babies whom have no knowledge on the existence of god believe? No? Okay then.
However, most people do carry a belief/disbelief in a deity that is, discluding infants.
Like you have said before yourself, you either believe or you don't. If you believe, you are a theist, if you don't you are an atheist. Everyone can be considered either. Everyone technically is either.
The definition for atheism is to not be a theist... So no it is not laughable that babies are atheist since they aren't theist. To not, not have belief means you possess a belief by double negative. You can't say somethings not blue, and not not blue... It just doesn't make sense...
You can call yourself a pure agnostic if you like, however, pure agnostics are technically atheist.
Not choosing religion doesn't by default make me an atheist
This is a true statement because religion is not necessary to believe in god. However atheism is not being a theist. Just like how assymetrical means not being symmetrical.
Theism (theos)- (belief in) a god or deity/religious doctrine.
Literally: The lack of belief in a god/deity.
Thats it. By definition, religious experience is not required. You can be born and if you are NEVER informed of any religious teachings you will stay ignorant of them forever and therfore stay an atheist.
