"There must first be a claim about God" refuted
Atheists often state that there must first be a claim about God in order for an atheist to exist as atheism is a response to a claim. In other words, a lack of belief in something must first have that something posited in the form of a claim.
Is the claim "There must first be a claim about God" itself true?
The definition of an atheist is a person with a lack of belief in God. " There must first be a claim" is an added adopted atheist qualification with no logical step from the primary presupposition of "a lack of belief in God" to " There must first be a claim about God".
I am an A-jadioditudist. I do not need to have a claim made about jadioditud in order to lack a belief in it. I lack a belief in many things that I have never heard mentioned. All belief requires content. If there is no content ( description / definition) then there can be no belief.
If you believe that I cannot be an A-jadioditudist without a claim being made about jadioditud then please provide me with any claim made about jadioditud. (This may be extremely difficult as I invented the word.)
Am I automatically a jadioditudist if no claim about jadioditud has ever been made? How can I have a belief in jadioditud if I don't know what it is?
Atheists also claim that everyone is born an atheist. I totally agree. However this contradicts the claim that one must first have a claim about God in order to be an atheist. Newborn babies have no concept of God and have no knowledge of any claim about God. Without a concept of the object of belief there can be no belief in that object. New born babies thus contradict the claim "There must first be a claim about God in order for an atheist to exist".
You can only logically have one or the other claim. You cannot logically hold both claims simultaneously.
1. A claim about God is required - because there must first be a claim about God to be an atheist.
2. A claim about God is not required - because everyone is born an atheist.
Which is the one and only correct claim? Dependent or independent?
It is odd that such an obvious logical contradiction exists within a group of people who keep telling the rest of humanity how they are so much more logical than anyone else.