A silly question

[OnceConvinced]

I see the group "Former Athiest" and I can't help but think to myself that all people are born athiests. But then I thought maybe not because an athiest is someone who does not believe in God. Not necessarily someone who has never heard of God.

So what do you class someone as who has never heard of a concept called God. ie. a young child or someone who lives somewhere where the topic of God is non-existant (if there is such a place)

[Fallibleone]

I actually think that the word 'atheist' describes this quite well. If one takes the definition of one who is without God, or does not believe in God or gods, it's spot on for a person who has never heard of the concept of God.

[OnceConvinced]

I notice a lot of Christians who class themselves as "former atheists" wear it as a badge of honor as if they have overcome a great handicap to get where they were. As if somehow their conversion was more miraculous than the average Christian's.

However if the term "atheist" fits in the scenario I have described, then the term "former atheist" means nothing as we have all been one - whether we remained one of not. It would be like saying "I was a former child" or "I was a former virgin"

[McCulloch]

I see the group "Former Athiest" and I can't help but think to myself that all people are born athiests. But then I thought maybe not because an athiest is someone who does not believe in God. Not necessarily someone who has never heard of God.

So what do you class someone as who has never heard of a concept called God. ie. a young child or someone who lives somewhere where the topic of God is non-existant (if there is such a place)

Atheism implies a denial of the existence of God. We are born neither believing or disbelieving in God. We are all former agnostics.

[OnceConvinced]

I don't think you can call them agnostic though. Because that implies that the person has heard of the God concept but finds that the evidence presented is unconvincing.

[C-Nub]

The word that best fits here is 'ignorant'.

There is no religious lable to be put on such a person because they aren't religious, they're removed from the concept.

With that said, as they age, depending on how isolated this person is, they may or may not develop spirituality of some sort, there's a great number of ways for something like this to occure.

Lets say that this person lives on a deserted Island, and out of boredom one day, trace a pattern in the sand by the edge of the sea. Let's say that, coincidentally of course, it starts to rain just as they finish the pattern. This sort of thing could, if it happens another time down the road, lead one to develop a crude spirituality or sense of communication with a higher power.

But up until that point, they aren't atheistic or agnostic or anything else, they're ignorant of the concept. The word has a negative connotation that we have to ignore here, but I can't think of one that better describes the supposed religious P.O.V. of just such a person.

[OnceConvinced]

I guess. But ignorant could be a bit of a subjective term. Also if there is no God, then does that mean they are ignorant of him?

[C-Nub]

Ignorant of the creator concept, the potential existance (or non-existance) of God is irrelevent to the point.

[catalyst]

I see the group "Former Athiest" and I can't help but think to myself that all people are born athiests. But then I thought maybe not because an athiest is someone who does not believe in God. Not necessarily someone who has never heard of God.

So what do you class someone as who has never heard of a concept called God. ie. a young child or someone who lives somewhere where the topic of God is non-existant (if there is such a place)

I personally call those not having heard the concept of "god", the UNTOUCHED rather than atheist as you have to know of the concept of "God" or god/gods" to be considered a theist in the first place.
Fortunately, there are still many UNTOUCHED areas of the world doing just fine and dandy and as such, I will not post the names of these places. They are just doing their 'own thing" anyway and loving, living and learning of self as of eachother, and really, they just don't require a "god" concept within their lives to ...JUST GET ALONG, beautifully amongst themselves.

If anything, places like that should be mirrored "out here", rather than visa versa.

[realthinker]

I see the group "Former Athiest" and I can't help but think to myself that all people are born athiests. But then I thought maybe not because an athiest is someone who does not believe in God. Not necessarily someone who has never heard of God.

So what do you class someone as who has never heard of a concept called God. ie. a young child or someone who lives somewhere where the topic of God is non-existant (if there is such a place)

I personally call those not having heard the concept of "god", the UNTOUCHED rather than atheist as you have to know of the concept of "God" or god/gods" to be considered a theist in the first place.
Fortunately, there are still many UNTOUCHED areas of the world doing just fine and dandy and as such, I will not post the names of these places. They are just doing their 'own thing" anyway and loving, living and learning of self as of eachother, and really, they just don't require a "god" concept within their lives to ...JUST GET ALONG, beautifully amongst themselves.

If anything, places like that should be mirrored "out here", rather than visa versa.

First of all "touched" is a bit euphemistic. Ignorant is, in my opinion, far more appropriate, of the terms offered. I think "godless" would be perhaps more appropriate still.

Secondly, since you've declared that you won't list those places, I'd then like to know your basis for the the idea that there are places that have no concept of God. To be isolated enough to not be influenced by the concept of God it would have to be a community, smaller still than what we'd generally term a society. The documentaries I've seen or articles I've read about such isolated communities have left me with the impression that spiritualism on the order of religion is present in pretty much every one of them. Given no further facts I'd dismiss your claim that there are societies with no God concept. I've no particular facts on which to base that dismissal, but I think that's in line with your baseless claim.