Are newborn babies atheist?

[Tricky]

That may be so. Am I wrong? Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

Or three, depending on your concept of the holy trinity.

But one god or a hundred gods short of being atheist, he is still a theist. How about this for a working definition of theist which works for most (if not all) situations. "A theist is someone who has a concept of gods and believes in at least one of them."

If so, it works for all religious people. Can you - or anyone - claim that they are capable of understanding what "god" is?

I am capable of understanding the concept of god. Several concepts in fact. I think you probably are too. You seem like a fairly bright guy. However, if I have damaged your reputation by calling you "capable of understanding the concept of God", I apologize.

No, they don't. Classes are held with the priest alone.

Oh. Well you weren't clear when you said:

It's it not a graduation ceremony. The classes do go on for weeks (a few hours a week), but it is held in front of the church, the priest.

When you said, "the church" I thought you meant the whole church, not just the "priest" part of it.

If you accept the concept of privative atheists, you have to accept the concept of atheist babies.

I understand the concept of privative atheists and I see its application in very limited situations, but the situations are so limited that I wouldn't often have occasion to use that concept. In the vast majority of situations, it is not meaningful. As always, in my opinion.

I can also understand the concept of dead rocks and a very few situations where it could be a meaningful concept, but in most cases, I would find "dead" to be an adjective not useful for describing rocks.

 

[Mercutio]

That may be so. Am I wrong? Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

"Not even wrong" comes to mind. A Christian is merely the entire definition of atheist away from being an atheist, yes, Claus.

If so, it works for all religious people. Can you - or anyone - claim that they are capable of understanding what "god" is?

Why not? You claim to understand what babies believe.

If you accept the concept of privative atheists, you have to accept the concept of atheist babies.

And flightless babies.

 

[Mercutio]

But everyone is an atheist: Nobody believes in all gods, they have a lack of belief - declared or otherwise, even often an expressed disbelief - in at least one god.

This is why I do not care for the "strong" and "weak" atheism bit. The people who are "strongly atheistic" about "god X" are quite possibly that way because of their strong belief in "god zed".

But.

That does not make them atheists. It might make them heathens, or infidels, or whatever the proper word is for "people who are not part of the religion featuring god X", but they are not atheists. They believe in god zed, which is 100% of the requirement for being a zedist, and 100% disqualifying of the label "atheist".

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, no, no, no, no! See, this is why the privative definition makes more sense--otherwise, Claus can say "everyone is an atheist". By the privative definition, anyone who believes in even one god--any god whatsoever--is not a "none of the above". (And Trixie, I didn't think I'd have to remind you, a geologist, that the subject does not have to be the one checking the boxes. A privative atheist is "none of the above" simply by virtue of not having checked any of the [actively checked] religious categories.)

"One god short of being an atheist" is utter crap. One god believed in is all it takes. "A little bit pregnant" is enough.

No, it isn't crap. Because if a Christian understands why he doesn't believe in other gods, he understands why you don't believe in his.

All he needs is to apply the same criteria to his own god, to come to the same conclusion as yours.

Or three, depending on your concept of the holy trinity.

But one god or a hundred gods short of being atheist, he is still a theist. How about this for a working definition of theist which works for most (if not all) situations. "A theist is someone who has a concept of gods and believes in at least one of them."

How about answering the question? Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

I am capable of understanding the concept of god. Several concepts in fact. I think you probably are too. You seem like a fairly bright guy.

How can you say that? How can you claim to know God? Heck, you don't even believe in any of them.

However, if I have damaged your reputation by calling you "capable of understanding the concept of God", I apologize.

Still as good as your word, I see.

I understand the concept of privative atheists and I see its application in very limited situations, but the situations are so limited that I wouldn't often have occasion to use that concept. In the vast majority of situations, it is not meaningful. As always, in my opinion.

It is meaningful in each and every one of the situations where we are talking about newborn babies.

"Not even wrong" comes to mind. A Christian is merely the entire definition of atheist away from being an atheist, yes, Claus.

Huh?

Why not? You claim to understand what babies believe.

No, what they don't believe. Based on scientific knowledge of what we know of babies.

And flightless babies.

Again, babies will never be able to fly.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is why I do not care for the "strong" and "weak" atheism bit. The people who are "strongly atheistic" about "god X" are quite possibly that way because of their strong belief in "god zed".

But.

That does not make them atheists. It might make them heathens, or infidels, or whatever the proper word is for "people who are not part of the religion featuring god X", but they are not atheists. They believe in god zed, which is 100% of the requirement for being a zedist, and 100% disqualifying of the label "atheist".

You are quite simply wrong.

You say I am "simply wrong" because you don't care for certain definitions, based on why you think they are possibly a certain way?

No need for logic there!

 

[Mercutio]

No, it isn't crap. Because if a Christian understands why he doesn't believe in other gods, he understands why you don't believe in his.

So...why do you think they don't believe in these other gods? Do you honestly think it is for the same reasons you do not?

All he needs is to apply the same criteria to his own god, to come to the same conclusion as yours.

For one student of mine, the answer would be "because my priest told me that these other gods were false". Would she be correct in concluding that your priest told you that all gods were false?

How about answering the question? Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

I know this was for Tricky, but yes, Claus, a christian is merely 100% short of being an atheist.

Huh?

If you can put your failure to understand into words, I could help you. Meanwhile, what is the definition of an atheist? That should give you the answer.

No, what they don't believe. Based on scientific knowledge of what we know of babies.

You have not cited any. And "inability to believe" is quite different from "not believing".

Again, babies will never be able to fly.

Nor read, but you said they can. What do babies believe, Claus? Based on scientific knowledge--what do babies believe? You are using adult criteria to label infants, Claus; are you prepared to demonstrate, with scientific data, that babies have the capacity to believe in god, but simply do not?

Tricky is right (damn you for making me say that); it's dead rocks.

 

[Mercutio]

You say I am "simply wrong" because you don't care for certain definitions, based on why you think they are possibly a certain way?

No need for logic there!

The "you are wrong" part is separate from my distaste for strong and weak atheism. Please do try to read my posts before you comment on them.

 

[Tricky]

How about answering the question? Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

I already answered it.

How can you say that? How can you claim to know God? Heck, you don't even believe in any of them.

Well, if you'll show me where I said I "know" God, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, take your strawman and stuff it.

Still as good as your word, I see.

My word is worth its weight in gold.

It is meaningful in each and every one of the situations where we are talking about newborn babies.

I distinctly saw you mention adults.

Nevertheless, I have given several examples of where it is meaningless to call babies "atheists".

As I understand "privative" it means defining something as being "lacking" a thing. Well, that works well with some things like "apolitical" being the privative sense of political, but it doesn't work for all things.

Going back to my example of rocks. It could be said, in the privative sense, that rocks are dead if you define dead as being "without life". That is indeed one definition of dead and it serves well in some instances. But for most instances, dead means "having lost life". If you say someone is dead, it is most likely the second definition they will assume.

If someone said to you, "My pet cat is dead" and you replied with, "I know how you feel. My pet rock is dead", you would probably not gain that person's understanding.

Words should be meant to foster communication, not to obscure it. To refer to a person as "atheist" because there are one or more gods of which they have no concept does not foster communication.

 

[Herzblut]

Im eternally amused by those who beleive in a default position. Not coincidentally, it is always the position they tehmselves hold near and dear to their hearts.

Exactly. And that's why I am not amused at all. Declaring how we are supposed to be "by nature" rings all my alarm bells. Cause it too oftenly has been deployed to justify racism and discrimination.

Based on a subjective feeling of injustice, persecution and suppression against ones own community humans tend to seek a culprit. They accept simplistic, paramountly dicriminating ideas implanted by ugly writings to find those culprits.

They then raise hatred against and fight off those alleged evil people.

Claus' reasoning e.g. is absolutely meaningless - except inside his culprit-seeking community. All irrational finger-pointing based on those kind of reasoning should be rejected without any ifs and buts. These things must be nipped in the bud. Why? History tells only too well.

Herzblut

 

[The Atheist]

You should charge for rides:

 

[Herzblut]

You should charge for rides:

I donate it to charity.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

So...why do you think they don't believe in these other gods? Do you honestly think it is for the same reasons you do not?

They have made up their minds that this particular god is not something they can possibly bring themselves to believe in.

For one student of mine, the answer would be "because my priest told me that these other gods were false". Would she be correct in concluding that your priest told you that all gods were false?

I don't have a priest.

I know this was for Tricky, but yes, Claus, a christian is merely 100% short of being an atheist.

I didn't ask for percentages of belief, but number of gods.

If you can put your failure to understand into words, I could help you. Meanwhile, what is the definition of an atheist? That should give you the answer.

Long covered.

You have not cited any. And "inability to believe" is quite different from "not believing".

No, "inability to believe" is a subset of "not believing".

Nor read, but you said they can.

Being able to fly and being able to read is quite different.

What do babies believe, Claus? Based on scientific knowledge--what do babies believe? You are using adult criteria to label infants, Claus; are you prepared to demonstrate, with scientific data, that babies have the capacity to believe in god, but simply do not?

I don't agree that atheist is an adult criteria.

Tricky is right (damn you for making me say that); it's dead rocks.

Rocks don't develop. Babies do.

The "you are wrong" part is separate from my distaste for strong and weak atheism. Please do try to read my posts before you comment on them.

Pardon me for taking your post as a whole.

I already answered it.

No, you said he was still a theist. Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

Well, if you'll show me where I said I "know" God, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, take your strawman and stuff it.

How do you know that you "knowing" god is the correct understanding?

I distinctly saw you mention adults.

I distinctly make a distinction between newborn babies and adults.

Nevertheless, I have given several examples of where it is meaningless to call babies "atheists".

As I understand "privative" it means defining something as being "lacking" a thing. Well, that works well with some things like "apolitical" being the privative sense of political, but it doesn't work for all things.

Going back to my example of rocks. It could be said, in the privative sense, that rocks are dead if you define dead as being "without life". That is indeed one definition of dead and it serves well in some instances. But for most instances, dead means "having lost life". If you say someone is dead, it is most likely the second definition they will assume.

If someone said to you, "My pet cat is dead" and you replied with, "I know how you feel. My pet rock is dead", you would probably not gain that person's understanding.

But if I replied with "my baby is dead", I would probably gain that person's understanding.

Newborn babies are not rocks. Again: Newborn babies are not rocks.

Words should be meant to foster communication, not to obscure it. To refer to a person as "atheist" because there are one or more gods of which they have no concept does not foster communication.

Any concept will have to be explained at some point.

Exactly. And that's why I am not amused at all. Declaring how we are supposed to be "by nature" rings all my alarm bells. Cause it too oftenly has been deployed to justify racism and discrimination.

You have completely misread my point. My point isn't what newborn babies are, but what they aren't. They aren't religious.

Based on a subjective feeling of injustice, persecution and suppression against ones own community humans tend to seek a culprit. They accept simplistic, paramountly dicriminating ideas implanted by ugly writings to find those culprits.

They then raise hatred against and fight off those alleged evil people.

Claus' reasoning e.g. is absolutely meaningless - except inside his culprit-seeking community. All irrational finger-pointing based on those kind of reasoning should be rejected without any ifs and buts. These things must be nipped in the bud. Why? History tells only too well.

How am I "finger-pointing", to a degree where you have to refer to History??

 

[The Atheist]

I donate it to charity.

Herzblut

Not a bad idea. Maybe if I ran it in conjunction with a book on how many pages this goes before everyone else gives up in disgust.

I have pretty high hopes for Mercutio and I see Tricky making a reappearance, so I think there's probably 200 posts left in it. Say $1 a post and I'll go overs?

 

[Herzblut]

Rocks don't develop.

Who created them?

You have completely misread my point. My point isn't what newborn babies are, but what they aren't. They aren't religious.

I better forget your first and second sentence and come to the third.

"Infants are not religious" makes sense because it is not pure self-evidence. It states that religion is socially conditioned. Like reading and writing.

How am I "finger-pointing", to a degree where you have to refer to History??

I didn't say you were. I just sensed some normative statements you gave to explain your strange obstinacy here.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

Who created them?

Huh?

I better forget your first and second sentence and come to the third.

"Infants are not religious" makes sense because it is not pure self-evidence. It states that religion is socially conditioned. Like reading and writing.

Infants are also privative atheists.

I didn't say you were. I just sensed some normative statements you gave to explain your strange obstinacy here.

What is my "culprit-seeking community"?

 

[Herzblut]

Huh?

If rocks can't develop they were created and since then remained unchanged and will so forever.

What is my "culprit-seeking community"?

The suppressed, forced-upon ones.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

If rocks can't develop they were created and since then remained unchanged and will so forever.

I have no idea where you are going with this.

The suppressed, forced-upon ones.

And who am I suppressing and forcing something on?

 

[Mercutio]

They have made up their minds that this particular god is not something they can possibly bring themselves to believe in.

Please take a good look at your answer here. Note that all it does is restate your assertion; it does nothing to explain why they don't believe in these other gods. "They have made up their minds" explains nothing; it is what behaviorists call an explanatory fiction, a fictional "cause" circularly inferred from its alleged result. Try again.

I don't have a priest.

So, then, your disbelief is for different reasons than hers. Thank you for illustrating my point.

I didn't ask for percentages of belief, but number of gods.

Belief in how many gods is required in order to fulfill 100% of the definition of "believer"? If you want to use the privative definition of atheist, you must use it in both directions. It makes utterly no difference how many gods are believed in, and this strawman position of yours is ridiculous. It makes you look like you are grasping for anything to serve your point, rather than using reason.

Long covered.

So then you agree that your "number of gods" is irrelevant? Somehow I think "long covered" is handwaving.

No, "inability to believe" is a subset of "not believing".

By this criterion, it is meaningful to speak of atheist rocks, illiterate trees, and flightless babies. This could be great fun with venn diagrams--the set of entities/objects that are unable to believe, and the ones that are not believing despite the ability to believe (the population we are interested in) is the merest sliver of this larger population.

Being able to fly and being able to read is quite different.

For purposes of this topic, they are similar in that babies can do neither. They are different in that you agree in one instance and do not in the other.

I don't agree that atheist is an adult criteria.

Ok, let me repeat my questions: What do babies believe, Claus? Based on scientific knowledge--what do babies believe? You are using adult criteria to label infants, Claus; are you prepared to demonstrate, with scientific data, that babies have the capacity to believe in god, but simply do not?

Rocks don't develop. Babies do.

And what do they develop into? And when they do, are they still babies? Claus, when somebody calls you "a big baby", they are not striving for accuracy.

Pardon me for taking your post as a whole.

I was trying to find something you wrote that I could agree with. Serves me right.

 

[CFLarsen]

Please take a good look at your answer here. Note that all it does is restate your assertion; it does nothing to explain why they don't believe in these other gods. "They have made up their minds" explains nothing; it is what behaviorists call an explanatory fiction, a fictional "cause" circularly inferred from its alleged result. Try again.

Not at all: They have compared gods to their own, and made up their minds that e.g. Thor is not for them.

So, then, your disbelief is for different reasons than hers. Thank you for illustrating my point.

If she relies on priests to tell her if there are other gods, is it reasonable to say that she has considered it herself?

Belief in how many gods is required in order to fulfill 100% of the definition of "believer"? If you want to use the privative definition of atheist, you must use it in both directions. It makes utterly no difference how many gods are believed in, and this strawman position of yours is ridiculous. It makes you look like you are grasping for anything to serve your point, rather than using reason.

Who said I wanted to use the privative definition of atheist on adults?

So then you agree that your "number of gods" is irrelevant? Somehow I think "long covered" is handwaving.

No, I don't agree on that. It is long covered.

By this criterion, it is meaningful to speak of atheist rocks, illiterate trees, and flightless babies. This could be great fun with venn diagrams--the set of entities/objects that are unable to believe, and the ones that are not believing despite the ability to believe (the population we are interested in) is the merest sliver of this larger population.

Nonsense.

For purposes of this topic, they are similar in that babies can do neither. They are different in that you agree in one instance and do not in the other.

Nonsense.

Ok, let me repeat my questions: What do babies believe, Claus? Based on scientific knowledge--what do babies believe? You are using adult criteria to label infants, Claus; are you prepared to demonstrate, with scientific data, that babies have the capacity to believe in god, but simply do not?

Already covered.

And what do they develop into? And when they do, are they still babies? Claus, when somebody calls you "a big baby", they are not striving for accuracy.

They develop into adults. I doubt you can find a clear demarcation line between babies and adults.

 

[Mercutio]

Not at all: They have compared gods to their own, and made up their minds that e.g. Thor is not for them.

Another restatement of the claim. You have still not explained why this decision was made. The implication of your claim is that they will come to the same conclusion that you will; how can you know this if you don't know their reasoning?

If she relies on priests to tell her if there are other gods, is it reasonable to say that she has considered it herself?

You said: "Because if a Christian understands why he doesn't believe in other gods, he understands why you don't believe in his.

All he needs is to apply the same criteria to his own god, to come to the same conclusion as yours." I have told you why my student does not believe in other gods. The same criteria, when applied to her own, tell her that hers is real. I think, Claus, that you are ignoring their reasons for belief, projecting your belief about what their reasons must be according to your world view, and attacking your own strawman.

Who said I wanted to use the privative definition of atheist on adults?

Claus, we'd all like to know what definitions you believe you are using.

No, I don't agree on that. It is long covered.

Ah... so, you are using "covered" in a new and different sense. If we disagree, it could not have been covered terribly well, could it?

Nonsense.

(psst! Claus! Here is the part where you put in another part, starting with "because...")

Nonsense.

(again, "because...") Perhaps you should examine the assumptions that underlie your argument.

Already covered.

So that's a "no", then.

They develop into adults. I doubt you can find a clear demarcation line between babies and adults.

...oh, please. The thread is about "newborn babies". Do you really want to make a "slippery slope" argument saying that we might be mistaken, and it was an adult that just popped out?

No clear demarcation line is needed, Claus. You may feel free to draw one anywhere you like, if you feel you need one.

But yes, Claus, they develop into adults. (and into toddlers, children, adolescents...) So saying that babies can be literate is wrong. Babies grow into children who are literate, and adults who are literate. Caterpillars do not fly.