Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

My god!!* How intellectually dishonest can you be?

I'm not "wrong". It says "not" right there in the definition.

Why don't you read what I posted, instead of being so eager to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?

The second entry specifically says: ": not : without".

So, there is a meaning of "a-" that means "lack of".

You left out the "without" part. If anyone is intellectually dishonest here, you are.

I have yet to find a definition** of atheism that doesn't describe it as active quality, yet you continue to assert your claim despite any evidence.

eta: **any currently used definition.

It's in the dictionary.

Try reading a little about the entymology of atheism before forming an opinion:

Or do you only except evidence that supports your position rather than taking all the evidence into account?

See above.

Being accurate is not the same as being right.

But close enough....

 

[Upchurch]

Why don't you read what I posted, instead of being so eager to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?

The second entry specifically says: ": not : without".

So, there is a meaning of "a-" that means "lack of".

You left out the "without" part. If anyone is intellectually dishonest here, you are.

Then you can point out where I was, as you said, "Wrong" when I said that "a-" means "not-".

(I won't hold my breath.)

It's in the dictionary.

Okay, fine. Let's look at the dictionary (again):

Atheism

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Act

1 a : the doing of a thing : DEED b : something done voluntarily
{snip}
4 : the process of doing : ACTION <caught in the act>

Need I go on, or will you simply ignore the evidence?

See above.

Ignore the evidence it is, then....

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's try again:

The second entry specifically says: ": not : without".

So, there is a meaning of "a-" that means "lack of".

Get it?

 

[Upchurch]

Let's try again:

The second entry specifically says: ": not : without".

So, there is a meaning of "a-" that means "lack of".

Get it?

That isn't what I asked. Please show me where I was wrong about "a-" meaning "not-".

 

[CFLarsen]

That isn't what I asked. Please show me where I was wrong about "a-" meaning "not-".

I didn't say you were. That's why I specifically I posted:

The second entry specifically says: ": not : without".

I said you were wrong, when you said there wasn't a meaning of "a-" that means "lack of".

Why did you leave out the "without" part?

 

[Upchurch]

I said you were wrong, when you said there wasn't a meaning of "a-" that means "lack of".

Why did you leave out the "without" part?

Because it is not relevent, but I'm sorry. I forgot that you have absolutely no concept of context.

Does "atypical" mean "lack of typical" or "not typical"? The latter.

Does "asymptomatic" mean "lack of symptoms" or "not symptoms"? The former.

So, we see, the meaning of words, especially in English, depend upon the context in which they are used. This is why a single word may have several definitions. The "correct" one is dependent on how it is used. (See the definition of Act above.) Now, given both the definition and etymology of the word "atheism", which describes it as an active quality rather than a passive one, "atheism" takes the form of "not believing in gods" rather than "lack of believing in gods".

As you say, get it?

 

[VanillaCone]

The baby just handed me two pacifiers and pointed to CFLarsen and Upchurch.

I believe he also indicated via pantomime that jangling a set of keys might placate them.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And if so, then to call myself atheist is completely meaningless. It means my well-considered philosophy is the same as something that has no possible conception of God. I say it is an insult to atheists to call atheism "the default position". "Default" means a complete brainless position. I choose a different meaning for the word that I think references a philosophically contemplative position.

Since babies don't know yet, agnostic would seem to me a more accurate descriptive, yet EG attempts to play this semantic game again. What a shocker.

Mercutio, I disagree with your (and Claus') "default" response as a fairly useless soundbyte, and an innacurate one.

Agnostic (doesn't know) is more consistent with a baby, as depicted in the OP, in terms of not knowing enough for the lack of knowing in general. By attempting to frame the discussion with the word atheist, you all have set up a self defeating argument, just as I would by trying to discuss cows in terms of frogs.

I'll leave you all to your hair splitting. Cheers.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

Agnostic (doesn't know) is more consistent with a baby, as depicted in the OP, in terms of not knowing enough for the lack of knowing in general. By attempting to frame the discussion with the word atheist, you all have set up a self defeating argument, just as I would by trying to discuss cows in terms of frogs.

You read my mind. I was thinking this very thing on the way back from lunch.

Agnostics have a "lack of belief in gods" so, by Claus' definition, they must be atheists, as is everyone and everything in the universe that either lack or are incapable of believing in gods.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Atheism/Atheist is only meaningful within a context that is aware of religion. If one does not grok religion one can not understand what atheism is.

On the outside, looking in, we can label the child atheist (understanding our limits of certainty regarding what the child's mental faculties are capable of), just as we can label the child innumerate, or illiterate.

The root issue is, is it reasonable to label a baby without belief when the baby doesn't grok belief?

What can be said with certainty?
The child can not communicate its belief, or lack thereof, to us.
The child can not communicate its understanding, or the lack thereof, of the idea of belief.
We can not say, with absolute certainty, that we can know what the child is thinking, or capable of thinking.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because it is not relevent

It proves you wrong, which may be the reason you left it out. I'm only guessing here, of course.

Agnostics have a "lack of belief in gods" so, by Claus' definition, they must be atheists, as is everyone and everything in the universe that either lack or are incapable of believing in gods.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that because some things in the universe are incapable of believing in gods must be atheists.

Misrepresenting someone's point and then declare victory is a very ineffective method. Especially if it is this obvious.

 

[Tricky]

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that because some things in the universe are incapable of believing in gods must be atheists.

This simply shows that you do not accept your own definition of "atheist".

You say atheist means "without belief". Full stop.

Rocks are without belief, therefore if one uses your definition, rocks are atheist.

So either you do believe rocks are atheists, or you are admitting that "without belief" is an insufficient defintion of "atheist."

 

[CFLarsen]

This simply shows that you do not accept your own definition of "atheist".

You say atheist means "without belief". Full stop.

Rocks are without belief, therefore if one uses your definition, rocks are atheist.

So either you do believe rocks are atheists, or you are admitting that "without belief" is an insufficient defintion of "atheist."

We've already been through this. See post #50.

 

[Upchurch]

It proves you wrong, which may be the reason you left it out. I'm only guessing here, of course.

Why guess when you could read the rest of my post? You know, the part that explains why that definition of "a-" is not the relevant one. It is also the one that you continually ignore.

Perhaps you are projecting?

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that because some things in the universe are incapable of believing in gods must be atheists.

But you believe that infants, who have very little in the way of cognitive abilities, are atheists? How does that track?

Misrepresenting someone's point and then declare victory is a very ineffective method. Especially if it is this obvious.

You're projecting again, Claus.

The "everything in the universe" argument is a natural conclusion of your definition. Perhaps you would like to re-frame your definition to explain how you conclude that babies, who are incapable of such abstract belief, are atheists but trees, for example, are not?

 

[CFLarsen]

Like I said, we've already been there.

 

[Upchurch]

We've already been through this. See post #50.

Of course not. That makes no sense. We are talking about humans.

That isn't an argument.

We're talking about humans, yes, but we're talking about humans who lack the capacity to make such determinations about abstracts like faith and god. If an infant can be an atheist despite lacking the tools to make that sort of determination, why not other forms of life (or non living objects) as well? What makes humans so special?

 

[tmackean]

It's in the dictionary.

OK...

Atheism, defined.

"a + theos, denying god"
- Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

"Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being"
- Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion

Whilst researching this, I've noticed that although 'A-' can mean either 'NO/NOT-' or 'WITHOUT-' the weight of scholarly etymological opinion is that it only makes sense in the context of 'atheos' when read as 'NO-'. If this is the case, then every argument that starts with 'a-theism literally mean without-theism' is utterly moot.

However, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is the current meaning, and that is hard to dispute;

"the theory or belief that God does not exist"
- The Concise Oxford Dictionary

"rejection of Gods or belief in Gods"
- Collins English Dictionary

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".
- American Heritage Dictionary

"The atheist disbelieves the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call 'creation' is the result of natural laws."
- Brewer's [rather long winded] Dictionary of Phrase and Fable


Disbelief, defined:

"Refusal or reluctance to believe."


Atheistic philosopher Ernest Nagel has this to say on the matter:

"...a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he is not denying any theistic claims."

I'm not being selective. There are plenty more, but life's too short.

So, it would seem that the original term *probably* means 'no god' and the current understanding *definitely* means 'disbelief in God'. This simply cannot be a default. It is a philsophical opinion, and requires knowledge of the idea of God.

We are not born this way.

 

[Tricky]

Like I said, we've already been there.

Yes, and post fifty clearly shows that you agree that the defintion "without belief" is insufficient to define atheist. You have qualifications.

 

[Upchurch]

The baby just handed me two pacifiers and pointed to CFLarsen and Upchurch.

I believe he also indicated via pantomime that jangling a set of keys might placate them.

There was a day, imho, when R&P was way more of a grudge/snipe-fest than Politics. This is nothin'.

 

[VanillaCone]

There was a day, imho, when R&P was way more of a grudge/snipe-fest than Politics. This is nothin'.

The baby didn't know that because he is, by definition, a noob.