Are newborn babies atheist?

[Beleth]

You did not quote the context. For obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

I'm not saying they should. They don't have to. Just continue in the same vein. The more science is progressing, the stronger the evidence gets.

A god is as likely as fairies. For all practical purposes, nil.

"Ideology"? I have an "ideology"?

 

[CFLarsen]

What obvious reasons?

They show you quote out of context.

 

[Beleth]

They show you quote out of context.

/shrug
If you say so.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Now you're being an Interesting Ian.

I've shown you exactly why my point of view is consistent, logical, meaningful and NOT silly. But instead of replying, you ignore the post and then go repeat your pot shots. It makes me lose respect for you.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

An interesting point, but theism seems to be a more general term. Polytheism refers to any religion that believes in multiple Gods etc., so atheism probably refers to a lack of belief in any God. And I haven't heard any religious people refer to people of other religions as atheist.

 

[Mercutio]

An interesting point, but theism seems to be a more general term. Polytheism refers to any religion that believes in multiple Gods etc., so atheism probably refers to a lack of belief in any God. And I haven't heard any religious people refer to people of other religions as atheist.

But interestingly, "heathen" refers to anyone who does not believe in the Abrahamic god (the god of Jews, Christians, & Muslims); that blanket term covers most polytheists, some monotheists, and all atheists in one fell swoop.

 

[Herzblut]

I'm not saying they should. They don't have to. Just continue in the same vein. The more science is progressing, the stronger the evidence gets.

Irrelevant wishful thinking. Irrational prophecy. Manipulative wording "the stronger the evidence gets" whereas the evidence is identically zero.

A god is as likely as fairies. For all practical purposes, nil.

Irrelevant. Faith in a God is abundant. Changing ones faith by "hardcore atheism" is as likely as teaching a fish to play piano. For all practical purposes, nil.

"Ideology"? I have an "ideology"?

You might not be aware, but: yes. Irrational anti-theistic believings, wishful thinkings, prophecies and other fallacies.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

Irrelevant wishful thinking. Irrational prophecy. Manipulative wording "the stronger the evidence gets" whereas the evidence is identically zero.

Irrelevant. Faith in a God is abundant. Changing ones faith by "hardcore atheism" is as likely as teaching a fish to play piano. For all practical purposes, nil.

Atheism is the opposite of faith.

You might not be aware, but: yes. Irrational anti-theistic believings, wishful thinkings, prophecies and other fallacies.

Why are they irrational?

What prophecies?

What "other fallacies"?

 

[EGarrett]

But interestingly, "heathen" refers to anyone who does not believe in the Abrahamic god (the god of Jews, Christians, & Muslims); that blanket term covers most polytheists, some monotheists, and all atheists in one fell swoop.

Sure, but 'heathen' doesn't mean the same thing as atheist. And I haven't heard Christians, Jews, or other religious people who speak English refer to Muslims etc. as atheists. I don't think they consider each other that way, because I think they mostly agree that atheist refers to simply not believing in any god.

 

[Herzblut]

Babies do what they do by instinct. Not faith or evidence.

You have chosen a religious framework, not me. Stick to it.

I rightfully insist that you accept given evidence above that a baby is a "believer". Full of faith, lack of knowledge. All this is btw self-evident.

Provided evidence directly discourages the notion to call a baby "atheist".

Your chosen framework also grants permission to call its mother or even its whole little Universe "God" according to usual definitions, see above.

Read provided Wikipedia article next time before making further obviously contradicting claims.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

Atheism is the opposite of faith.

Wrong.

Why are they irrational?

Why your believings are irrational?

What prophecies?

The more science is progressing, the stronger the evidence gets.

Irrelevant wishful thinking. Irrational prophecy. Manipulative wording "the stronger the evidence gets" whereas the evidence is identically zero.

See above, please read my posts.

What "other fallacies"?

First of all, send me a concrete offer for a survey.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

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

Herzblut: "Yes. God is the light in my fridge. Each time I look for him he shines a light on me. And on these bottles of beer ...yummy... AND he makes sure that Prof. Dr. Steelhammer Klitschko will be smashing Lamon Brewster off his frikkin feet."

Cheers!

Herzblut

 

[Tricky]

Read the context.

What? Are you telling us that whether something is properly referred to as atheist or not depends on context??!!

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

 

[Tricky]

I've shown you exactly why my point of view is consistent, logical, meaningful and NOT silly. But instead of replying, you ignore the post and then go repeat your pot shots. It makes me lose respect for you.

And I've said that in certain contexts your point of view is technically correct. However, in normal conversation, it would be silly to call a baby "atheist" because it would requre... what is it now... seven days worth of explanation.

As for pot-shots, I don't recall taking any at you, though I apologize if my use of the word "turd" offended you deeply. The pot shot at Merc was well-deserved because he is a pointy-headed intellectual. Also because he is a good friend of mine.

But if you feel the need to withdraw respect from me, I will brush away a tear and carry on.

 

[Herzblut]

DING DING DING! We have a winner.

Did Brewster do a good fight? I think yes! So, why didnt he go for ONE MORE round?

H.

 

[Tricky]

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.

Okay, it would be difficult to tell. I withdraw the example. But the difference between "instinct" and "belief" is a very fuzzy one here.

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.

As I said to Claus, this is going to resolve to a semantic squabble over the definition of "god". It could be argued that babies, and maybe even small children, regard their parents as "gods", at least until the children reach their teens, at which point they regard them as ATMs.

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.

By this set of criteria, I could not be an atheist because I allow that it is not impossible I may someday be convinced by a different concept of god. Again, this may be technically correct, but it is... um... what is the word... silly. It inhibits clear communication.

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.

I don't see any other way to do it and still have "atheist" be a meaningful word for a considered philosophical position. I'm not ready to throw that away for the sake of a semantic technicality. Call me a traditionalist.

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

Close enough.

 

[Mercutio]

Sure, but 'heathen' doesn't mean the same thing as atheist.

You are quite correct--my point was that "heathen" as a category includes both atheists and non-Abrahamic religions, so that at least in that eliminative sense they are seen as the same. In fact, that is a microcosm of the reason for the privative definition of atheism. If each religion has its "heathen-equivalent"--that is, a word that means "non-adherents to our religion" (as opposed to "members of that other religion over there"), "atheist" is the set of people who only fit in the "not us" categories, and not in the "us".

And I haven't heard Christians, Jews, or other religious people who speak English refer to Muslims etc. as atheists. I don't think they consider each other that way, because I think they mostly agree that atheist refers to simply not believing in any god.

These particular groups most certainly should not be refering to one another as atheists--recall from the "heathen" definition that these three groups are one family (the Abrahamic religions), and so should of course recognize one another as religions.*

When Christian missionaries attempted to convert the heathens in new territories, was there a meaningful distinction between Atheism and Belief in a False God or Gods? In truth, I suspect the assumption was that there was no atheism, and that the only true distinction was between true and false religion. "Simply not believing in any god" is a relatively recent idea, whereas "not believing in my god" has been important for much longer. In my opinion, this is yet one more example where the privative definition is more accurate and useful.


*true story--when discussing the "in god we trust" issue with my dad, he found to his surprise that, while he was amused but not offended by the possibility of "in Thor we trust", he was not amused and was a bit offended by the possibility of "in Allah we trust". When I pointed out to him that his own belief has a much closer tie to Islam than to Norse Polytheism, and that Allah and his God were both Abraham's god, he was a bit chastened.

 

[Mercutio]

Okay, it would be difficult to tell. I withdraw the example. But the difference between "instinct" and "belief" is a very fuzzy one here.

As both are too often used, the similarities exist because both are circular. If someone acts in accordance with his beliefs, or according to her instinct, and the only evidence we have for belief or instinct is the action, both are circular and irrelevant. Examples abound in this thread.

As I said to Claus, this is going to resolve to a semantic squabble over the definition of "god". It could be argued that babies, and maybe even small children, regard their parents as "gods", at least until the children reach their teens, at which point they regard them as ATMs.

It could indeed be argued. But only by assuming what babies "regard". It is not just the definition of "god" that gets this argument into trouble.

By this set of criteria, I could not be an atheist because I allow that it is not impossible I may someday be convinced by a different concept of god. Again, this may be technically correct, but it is... um... what is the word... silly. It inhibits clear communication.

I agree completely. The privative definition is much more useful and coherent than this "considered and rejected" definition. It is not a useful term for describing the infant (although it is trivially true), but the "considered and rejected" version is still worse. The "considered and rejected" version only works if you presuppose one version of god to begin with. The moment other gods are allowed, "c&r" logically does prohibit you from being a true atheist. Will Rogers said something about there being no strangers--just friends you haven't met yet. Cute, but with nearly 3000 known gods, the idea of "no atheists--just believers who haven't met their god yet" tells us there is something very wrong with the "c&r" definition.

I don't see any other way to do it and still have "atheist" be a meaningful word for a considered philosophical position. I'm not ready to throw that away for the sake of a semantic technicality. Call me a traditionalist.

The privative sense is a meaningful word for a considered philosophical position. But the considered philosophical position is a subset of, and not the entire definition of "atheist". Remember, some atheists found it necessary to positively define "Brights".

Close enough.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wrong.

How so?

Why your believings are irrational?

Just explain.

The more science is progressing, the stronger the evidence gets.

Irrelevant wishful thinking. Irrational prophecy. Manipulative wording "the stronger the evidence gets" whereas the evidence is identically zero.

See above, please read my posts.

I have. Have you read mine? I am talking about scientific evidence that excludes the possibility of a god. What evidence did you think I was talking about?

First of all, send me a concrete offer for a survey.

No answer from you, then.

Okay, it would be difficult to tell. I withdraw the example. But the difference between "instinct" and "belief" is a very fuzzy one here.

Why?

And I've said that in certain contexts your point of view is technically correct. However, in normal conversation, it would be silly to call a baby "atheist" because it would requre... what is it now... seven days worth of explanation.

As I said to Claus, this is going to resolve to a semantic squabble over the definition of "god". It could be argued that babies, and maybe even small children, regard their parents as "gods", at least until the children reach their teens, at which point they regard them as ATMs.

If it is a semantic squabble, and you argue that babies only might think of their parents as gods, why do you keep saying that I am wrong?

By this set of criteria, I could not be an atheist because I allow that it is not impossible I may someday be convinced by a different concept of god. Again, this may be technically correct, but it is... um... what is the word... silly. It inhibits clear communication.

No, it clarifies. Atheists are not just someone opposing religious beliefs, people start as atheists.

I don't see any other way to do it and still have "atheist" be a meaningful word for a considered philosophical position. I'm not ready to throw that away for the sake of a semantic technicality. Call me a traditionalist.

Who has said anything about throwing that meaning away?