Are newborn babies atheist?

[Upchurch]

Thank you for calling.

Cherry picking: You took one definition out of the dozen or so presented and ignored the rest of the information, including the etymological history of the term.

Try again.

 

[HarryKeogh]

It doesn't have to.

OK, so a baby doesn't have to draw a conclusion about the existence of God to be an atheist. But you say yourself that drawing that conclusion is the crucial point to the definition of an atheist.

Wrong. Or, rather, you are missing the crucial point: An atheist is someone who sees no evidence for the existence of any superior being and then draws the conclusion that such a being doesn't exist.

Are newborn babies exempt from your definition?


OK, so you say you're an atheist.

Are you one now?

Yes.

But previously you've said this...

Yep. Which is why I pointed it out: Atheists do not allow for the possibility of deities. It follows that atheists are not skeptics.

Do you still believe that it follows that atheists are not skeptics?

 

[CFLarsen]

Conclusion: Both Tricky and Claus are wrong.

You use a biblical text to determine what an atheist is?

Cherry picking: You took one definition out of the dozen or so presented and ignored the rest of the information, including the etymological history of the term.

Try again.

You seem determined to misunderstand me.

I am not cherry picking, nor am I ignoring anything. I have explained several times now that atheist can mean the first 3, if the atheist is declared. It can also mean 4, if the atheist is undeclared.

 

[Tricky]

OK, so you say you're an atheist.

But previously you've said this...

Atheists do not allow for the possibility of deities. It follows that atheists are not skeptics.

Do you still believe that it follows that atheists are not skeptics?

LOL. Hey, can I call 'em?

You're moving in on their territory. Keep it up and you may have to change the name of your webzine to "BleeverReport".

 

[Beleth]

But you are willing to ignore one definition in favor of the one that supports your argument. In other words, select your data.

Liar.

That is what you are doing.

I am taking the entirety of post 45 and weighing all the factors in it.

You are a waste of time.

 

[CFLarsen]

OK, so a baby doesn't have to draw a conclusion about the existence of God to be an atheist. But you say yourself that drawing that conclusion is the crucial point to the definition of an atheist.

Are newborn babies exempt from your definition?

We were not discussing newborn babies, but people capable of making a decision.

Do you still believe that it follows that atheists are not skeptics?

No, I don't. I've read Dawkins and Harris (among others) since then. They've convinced me that religion has even less positive sides than I previously thought. I find their hardcore stance more convincing. And if we are to take a scientific approach, then, with a less and less possibility of the existence of deities, we have to come to the scientific provisional conclusion that there is no god.

 

[Beleth]

I have been talking about newborn babies all along.

We were not discussing newborn babies, but people capable of making a decision.

Which one of those statements is a lie, Claus?

 

[CFLarsen]

Liar.

That is what you are doing.

I am taking the entirety of post 45 and weighing all the factors in it.

You are a waste of time.

Nonsense. I distinguish between the two meanings.

 

[Mercutio]

You use a biblical text to determine what an atheist is?

I used a biblical text to demonstrate that my definition was not an atheist-constructed strawman, but thanks for playing.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which one of those statements is a lie, Claus?

Read the context.

 

[CFLarsen]

I used a biblical text to demonstrate that my definition was not an atheist-constructed strawman, but thanks for playing.

Thou shall be cast into a pit of fire.

 

[Beleth]

Read the context.

Done.

Answer the question, please. Was the first statement a lie, or was the second statement?

 

[CFLarsen]

Answer the question, please. Was the first statement a lie, or was the second statement?

Oh, well. If you want to quote out of context, it's your loss.

 

[Beleth]

Oh, well. If you want to quote out of context, it's your loss.

I quoted you in your entirety both times. If you wish to remain inaccurate, that's your choice.

 

[CFLarsen]

I quoted you in your entirety both times. If you wish to remain inaccurate, that's your choice.

You did not quote the context. For obvious reasons.

 

[Mercutio]

For those more interested in the actual question than in a pissing contest...

You have repeatedly asserted this. I hope that you will eventually come around to supporting it with evidence, but I'm not holding my breath. It seems quite clear to me that babies have some beliefs. They believe, for example, if they cry, someone will attend to their needs. You think that is not a belief? Well, you may have some problem demonstrating that it isn't. You'll have to carefully define what a belief is, opening up a big can of worms.

How can you tell the difference between a baby that cries because it believes that someone will attend to its needs, and a baby that cries because it is hungry? Your example is iacchian in its circularity.

You like the "considered and rejected"* version of atheism--as long as we are examining your circularities, could you tell me how you can tell how anyone is an atheist by that definition? How many of us can name 100 gods, let alone honestly claim that we have considered them and rejected them? And yet, godchecker claims to list over 2850 of them. By your definition, your claim of atheism must be restricted to the gods you have "considered and rejected"--after all, you might actually believe in Abeguwo, but not realize it until you actually consider and choose not to reject....and as I have said elsewhere, the people quickest to reject gods beta through omega are those who already believe in god alpha. This definition of atheist is a terribly high bar to set for an adult, let alone a baby.

Now, I know you will consider an adult atheist to have considered and rejected sufficient gods to count, but that might just be your circularity rearing its ugly head again.

*scare quotes--I do not recall whether you used those precise words.

 

[Mercutio]

Well said, Merc. However I said as far back as post #10 that it might be "technically correct" to call babies atheist even if "useless" (I should have said "silly"). I might have used the word "privative" if I were a hot-shot college professor like you.

But previously you have said this:

I shall add "privative" to my lexicon and use it at every opportunity. People will hear me and marvel at my wisdom and erudition. I won't give you any credit. I'm just that way.

Do you still believe that people will marvel at your wisdom?


[/mode = HarryKeogh]

 

[CFLarsen]

How can you tell the difference between a baby that cries because it believes that someone will attend to its needs, and a baby that cries because it is hungry? Your example is iacchian in its circularity.

We can't. In fact, we behave like we believe in the baby's divinity: We do various stuff to it (feed it, change it, cuddle it, whatever) until it stops crying, but we can't really know what stopped the crying: It could go on crying for a while after being fed (it was hungry), simply because it takes time for it to calm down. Yet, if we have changed diaper after we fed it, we believe that it is that action that stopped it.

You like the "considered and rejected"* version of atheism--as long as we are examining your circularities, could you tell me how you can tell how anyone is an atheist by that definition? How many of us can name 100 gods, let alone honestly claim that we have considered them and rejected them? And yet, godchecker claims to list over 2850 of them. By your definition, your claim of atheism must be restricted to the gods you have "considered and rejected"--after all, you might actually believe in Abeguwo, but not realize it until you actually consider and choose not to reject....and as I have said elsewhere, the people quickest to reject gods beta through omega are those who already believe in god alpha. This definition of atheist is a terribly high bar to set for an adult, let alone a baby.

Now, I know you will consider an adult atheist to have considered and rejected sufficient gods to count, but that might just be your circularity rearing its ugly head again.

That's a good point. It's somewhat equivalent to the atheist argument against believers:

Atheist: "Do you believe in Thor, or any of the other gods?"

Believer: "No."

Atheist: "Do you understand why you don't believe in those gods?"

Believer: "Yes."

Atheist: "Then you understand why I don't believe in yours".

 

[Herzblut]

And if we are to take a scientific approach, then, with a less and less possibility of the existence of deities, we have to come to the scientific provisional conclusion that there is no god.

Wishful thinking. The world won't waist in the least any valuable scientific power (which science, btw?) and start digging into non-falsifiable, thus non-scientific, claims.

Your ideology and personal wishes are irrelevant for science.

Herzblut

 

[EGarrett]

Your incompetence is annoying. Total faith is the only survival strategy for a baby.

Faith has two general implications which can be implied either exclusively or mutually:

• To Trust
• To believe without reason:

Faith as the basis for human knowledge

One illustration of this concept is in the development of knowledge in children. A child typically holds parental teaching as credible, in spite of the child's lack of sufficient research to establish such credibility empirically. That parental teaching, however fallible, becomes a foundation upon which future knowledge is built.[citation needed] The child’s faith in his/her parents teaching is based on a belief in their credibility. Unless/until the child’s belief in their parents’ credibility is superseded by a stronger belief, the parental teaching will serve as a filter through which other teaching must be processed and/or evaluated. Following this line of reasoning, and assuming that children have finite or limited empirical knowledge at birth, it follows that faith is the fundamental basis of all knowledge one has. Even adults attribute the basis for some of their knowledge to so called "authorities" in a given field of study. This is true because one simply does not have the time or resources to evaluate all of his/her knowledge empirically and exhaustively. "Faith" is used instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

These empirical evidences erode your case - which is weak anyways - into non-existence.

Not just that. They support exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Your position is indefensible.

Herzblut

Babies do what they do by instinct. Not faith or evidence. Then, as they get older, they quickly learn that their parents know a lot more then they do, so they should do what they say...and very often, their parents will punish them if they don't...so again, they do what they say.

It's not a matter of faith. Don't confuse terms. And don't sling personal attacks at people.