Are you born atheist or agnostic?

Question

I've read that many agnostics refuse the label atheism because they think that "non belief" requires a value judgment that they are incapable or unwilling to give. But atheists see their state as a light switch: on for deity belief, off if not. In that situation, the value only applies to the one who chooses to believe, the non-belief is not a value judgment in their eyes.

So which is it , are you born agnostic or atheist? Are we just playing semantic games?

DrY, I think you are carrying the idea of antibelief and universally applying it to the term of atheism. The problem here is that many atheists claim that non-blief isn't a decision not to believe but a state lacking belief ( which would outwardly appear to not be a choice) . I agree with the antibeleif concept as there are people/social groups who embody this paradoxal concept.

Answer 1

People play fast and loose with language. There are discernible differences between atheism and agnosticism that can and should come into play, beyond the appearance that it is all a semantic game. But many do not take the time to understand the terms.

Atheism is not in any way equivalent to theism. A lack of belief is different from a belief, no matter how you try to spin it. Many religious people (and ironically, agnostics) will often say to an atheist "Your position is irrational because, by your own admission, god is unprovable so to say that he does not exist is an act of faith just as much as our belief". This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his pals all show up, or the standard point that even the religious person is an atheist, with respect to Thor, Zeus, Apollo etc. the atheist says "We just go one god further!"

In order to be reasonable, a person's level of belief should correspond to the level of evidence in favor of a proposition. An atheist could reasonably say "There is zero evidence in favor of the god hypothesis, so I hold no belief in it." (Let alone that god is logically impossible as well).

Agnostic is a word invented by Thomas Huxley (famous as Darwin's bulldog). He believed human beings could have certain knowledge only of material phenomena, and since god is clearly not one of those, we cannot have certain knowledge about his existence or non-existence. ("A" meaning without, and "Gnosis" meaning knowledge). Being agnostic originally meant taking the position, not that god exists or does not, but that the existence of god is Unknowable, no matter what happens in science or theology we can never take a stance on the existence of god.

Agnostic today has acquired a wishy-washy half-definition, and is often used by people who want to seem hyper-reasonable by saying "I don't know whether god exists or not, and that is the only sensible position to take." (See Bertrand Russell's "Teapot Atheist" argument to see one reason this is incorrect)

We are born atheists. (A) Without (theism) a belief in god. It would be a very sophisticated toddler who could grasp the agnostic epistemological concept of the unknowable.

The colloquial agnosticism that is espoused by some armchair philosophers is actually not a position at all, but rather a mere muddled confusion. The refined agnosticism of Huxley is an anachronistic and pre-modern position that should not be held by reasonable people in the 21st century. Atheism is the way to go, but that is another post...

Answer 2

I think it is just a semantic game. I think it becomes too easy for some people to see a passive nonbelief as being a "value judgment" because an atheist can be very outward, be very passionate and emotional in her or his defense.

But the fact remains that belief is the value judgement, that is the "positive." In the same sense you can't "prove a negative," nonbelief is the "negative," not making the value judgment.

Believing is the act. Nonbelieving is not acting. You can't really suggest logically something is the "act of not acting."

So, a person is born an atheist. Agnostic, to me, implies some sort of suggestion of a belief somewhere, the possibility, but for a baby, the framework for a belief system of any sort just isn't there. It is taught (action, positive)

Answer 3

There is a very large difference between agnosticism and atheism. Atheists believe that there are no gods, and no afterlife, that the world in which we live is the only world. Good and Evil are words and words alone. Agnostics believe that it is impssible for humans on Earth to truly know the spiritual and supernatural answers asked by the various religions, and so they claim the possiblity of gods.

However, at birth, a child's mind is more instinctual and simple, as the minds of all other animals are. And they, therefore, think of survival and not of philosophy and religion. Those ideas are outside their reach, and are only discovered when the society of men in which they live causes by question and teaching these thoughts. And since both atheism and agnosticism require the knowledge of religion, which is beyond infants, they too are beyond them.

Answer 4

What you have to consider is that there is belief and also anti-belief. Allow me to explain.

A person who has no opinion on something has no belief whatsoever. They may have never thought about it before, or simply never cared. This is what we're talking about with the newborn - they don't really pop out of the womb with too many preconcieved notions (so to speak).

There are many people, however, who not only have no belief in an idea, but they believe in things that CONTRADICT with that idea. You aren't starting from zero, but from some place below zero. If you want to get them to belief in a god or whatever, you will also have to overcome those other ideas as well. I call this anti-belief so as not to be confused with disbelief, which is sometimes used in this sense and sometimes used in the sense of non-belief.

Having said all that, I know many atheists who don't just have no belief in one god or another, they are anti-believers. And by the same token, many believers in one religion become anti-believers in all the others (though there are some non-exclusive religions out there). The difference between this and just not-belief is NOT semantic by a long shot!

A person with no belief of any kind is certain an agnostic (not-knowing). But I don't think they could be said to be atheist. Although they do literally have no god, they also don't have no god (if that makes any sense) - they have no position on the gods at all. Maybe it would be easiest if we could rename some of the atheists antitheists instead.

That's my take, anyway, for what it's worth. Peace.

Answer 5

"Do you agree or disagree that we are all born atheist-agnostic?" Agree, interior the experience of all babies being born and not using a theory in any gods. That makes them atheists by default. (Implicit atheists, to be greater specific.) As for ignosticism, in accordance to the wiki article: "Ignosticism is the theological place that each and each different theological place (alongside with agnosticism) assumes too lots concerning to the belief of God and actually some different theological recommendations." ..I very lots doubt any infant would have been born with a theory like that? somewhat one does not truly have an opinion that each physique theological recommendations assume too lots.

Answer 6

I don't think anyone is born anything. I'm a Christian, but a lot of it is from life experience. Granted, once I grew up, I became skeptical, and started looking around, but all my questions eventually led me right back to where I started. I think everyone should go through the same searching I did.

Answer 7

I believe our belief system comes from our maturing, parents, people we look up to that are important in our lives. .

Then when we fully mature, and make our own decisions, we
come to 'our' beliefs. Some of each of the above and the life around us.

Answer 8

we are born with the ability to 'believe', which is the same as saying 'take someone else's word for a fact', and the ability to believe in realities beyond our five senses
we can literally believe *anything* that is taught or told to us by someone who seems sincere and is convincing enough
we must, as humans, resist having beliefs, any beliefs, and to test everything we are told or taught

Answer 9

Awww Hell...Semantics...definitely semantics.
I'd say that we're all born as highly developed animals, no more, no less...all else beyond the base instincts are resultant from conscious differentiation throughout life.
Unfortunately...it would seem that the bulk of humanity prefers to remain closer to the base instincts and avoid the pain and trouble of raising consciousness.....BUMMER:-(

Answer 10

Those who value the TRUTH will not believe.

Besides from what iv heard, God is a rather arbitrary character.

Its hard to place value on a nonexistent being, for it cannot be proved or dis proved.