Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

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?

Do people need to follow the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion?

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.

And I think differently.

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

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

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?

Why not? Is it guaranteed that people will agree on something, as long as it is covered well?

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

Nope. Sometimes, it suffices.

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

I have.

So that's a "no", then.

No, that's not a "no".

...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. What gave you that idea?

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.

Babies have the ability to become literate.




Is something new emerging here? Or are we agreeing to disagreeing?

 

[Oppressed]

Are newborn babies Atheists?
No. In order to be an Atheist one must understand the issue well enough to decide they believe there are no gods or deities.

Are newborn babies true believers of any religion?
No. In order to become a true believer in any religion, one must first be taught enough about that religion to decide they believe in it.

Are newborn babies Agnostic?
No. In order to be an Agnostic, one must be able to understand the issue well enough to decide that it is impossible to truly know if gods or deities truly exist or truly do not exist.

If anything, newborn babies are closest to an Agnostic, but due to lack of knowledge. Newborn babies do not know or understand enough to believe or disbelieve in any religion or lack of religion.

Religion is taught by other mortal Human beings. A person can not make any decisions with regard to believing or not believing in something they have not yet been taught. In order to not believe in something you must know what it is you don’t believe in, otherwise it is just something you are lacking the knowledge of.

For example, I am thinking of something as I write this sentence. Now, do you believe in the subject matter of what I was thinking about or do you disbelieve in it? The only rational answer is that you neither believe nor disbelieve because you know nothing about the subject matter I was thinking about.

 

[Tricky]

Are newborn babies Atheists?
No. In order to be an Atheist one must understand the issue well enough to decide they believe there are no gods or deities.

Are newborn babies true believers of any religion?
No. In order to become a true believer in any religion, one must first be taught enough about that religion to decide they believe in it.

Are newborn babies Agnostic?
No. In order to be an Agnostic, one must be able to understand the issue well enough to decide that it is impossible to truly know if gods or deities truly exist or truly do not exist.

If anything, newborn babies are closest to an Agnostic, but due to lack of knowledge. Newborn babies do not know or understand enough to believe or disbelieve in any religion or lack of religion.

Religion is taught by other mortal Human beings. A person can not make any decisions with regard to believing or not believing in something they have not yet been taught. In order to not believe in something you must know what it is you don’t believe in, otherwise it is just something you are lacking the knowledge of.

For example, I am thinking of something as I write this sentence. Now, do you believe in the subject matter of what I was thinking about or do you disbelieve in it? The only rational answer is that you neither believe nor disbelieve because you know nothing about the subject matter I was thinking about.

Welcome Oppressed and congratulations on a good first post. I think your newness to this argument illustrates what many have been saying: It makes little sense to refer to newborns as atheists. Even if it is technically correct in the sense that atheists hold no religious beliefs and babies hold no religious beliefs, it is not the way people normally use the word. If a person uses "atheist" that way, then they will be misunderstood by most people, as your entry into this discussion demonstrates.

It is my opinion that the benefits of clear communication outweigh the need to nitpick technicalities.

 

[CFLarsen]

Even if it is technically correct in the sense that atheists hold no religious beliefs and babies hold no religious beliefs, it is not the way people normally use the word. If a person uses "atheist" that way, then they will be misunderstood by most people, as your entry into this discussion demonstrates.

And then, you explain.

Do people normally use the word "skeptic" the way we do?

 

[Tricky]

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

I answered it clearly. Go back and read post 541. With comprehension.

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

LOL. You suggested that I claimed to "know" god. (post #544) No gobbledygook like the above can obscure the fact that this is a blatant strawman.

I distinctly make a distinction between newborn babies and adults.

Yes, you have distinctly superannuated the baby until the discussion goes from babies to adults, yet when I try to use the same logic, by going from zygote to baby, you cut off discussion with a curt "this discussion is about babies". Well Claus, if you can throw into the discussion what babies become, then it is only fair that I be allowed to include what babies come from. Don't you think that is fair? If I ask you that question again, will you answer it this time?

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

Because they would assume you were not using "dead" in the sense of "never having lived", which is exactly what I have been telling you.

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

No, Claus, rocks are not babies. It is an analogy, used to show the way I understand the term "privative". I am sorry that you either cannot understand the analogy or refuse to discuss it. You have some very odd rules about what topics you will address in discussions.

Any concept will have to be explained at some point.

Non sequitur.

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

And rocks aren't living.

Dead Rocks.
Atheist Babies.

Neither term is meaningful in the vast majority of cases. I think that the first post by Oppressed demonstrates that.

 

[Tricky]

Do people normally use the word "skeptic" the way we do?

Who is "we"? You and I, or most people on this board? Or something else?

 

[Checkmite]

Most people certainly don't use the word "bright" the way some here want to use it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I answered it clearly. Go back and read post 541. With comprehension.

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."

I don't see your "clear" answer.

LOL. You suggested that I claimed to "know" god. (post #544) No gobbledygook like the above can obscure the fact that this is a blatant strawman.

I can rephrase it, if you like: How do you know your understanding the concept of god is the right one?

Yes, you have distinctly superannuated the baby until the discussion goes from babies to adults, yet when I try to use the same logic, by going from zygote to baby, you cut off discussion with a curt "this discussion is about babies". Well Claus, if you can throw into the discussion what babies become, then it is only fair that I be allowed to include what babies come from. Don't you think that is fair? If I ask you that question again, will you answer it this time?

I don't think there is much doubt what babies come from.

Because they would assume you were not using "dead" in the sense of "never having lived", which is exactly what I have been telling you.

Do you speak for other people now?

No, Claus, rocks are not babies. It is an analogy, used to show the way I understand the term "privative". I am sorry that you either cannot understand the analogy or refuse to discuss it. You have some very odd rules about what topics you will address in discussions.

Not all analogies are valid.

Non sequitur.

Huh? Of course a concept will have to be explained at some point. You think people understand concepts just like that? Osmosis? Divine illumination?

And rocks aren't living.

Oh, I don't know...

Who is "we"? You and I, or most people on this board? Or something else?

Skeptics.

 

[Tricky]

Most people certainly don't use the word "bright" the way some here want to use it.

A good example. Few people even consider "bright" to be a noun. If you use it in that sense in the general populace, you will be misunderstood. Only in rare, specific circumstances do people agree that it refers to critical thinkers. Frankly, I think this was an ill-conceived attempt to redefine a word.

 

[CFLarsen]

Most people certainly don't use the word "bright" the way some here want to use it.

But then, it can be explained.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't think there is much doubt what babies come from.

A little advice: If you aren't going to actually reply to a particular portion of someone's post, then don't quote it. It confuses people when the quote and the alleged "response" don't seem to have anything to do with each other.

 

[CFLarsen]

A little advice: If you aren't going to actually reply to a particular portion of someone's post, then don't quote it. It confuses people when the quote and the alleged "response" don't seem to have anything to do with each other.

I'm not going to waste my time on discussing where babies come from.

 

[Checkmite]

But then, it can be explained.

No. It must be explained, to every single person who hears it, because "bright" as a noun is improper English (as yet), so everyone will assume you're using it in the context of an adjective.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not going to waste my time on discussing where babies come from.

There's generally no misunderstanding that babies turn into adults eventually either - yet you feel that's important enough to warrant discussion...?

 

[CFLarsen]

No. It must be explained, to every single person who hears it, because "bright" as a noun is improper English (as yet), so everyone will assume you're using it in the context of an adjective.

So?

Don't you have to explain what a skeptic is?

There's generally no misunderstanding that babies turn into adults eventually either - yet you feel that's important enough to warrant discussion...?

Not that they do, but what happens when they do.

 

[Checkmite]

I hate computers (i.e. double post)

 

[Checkmite]

So?

Don't you have to explain what a skeptic is?

I haven't yet. But in any case, because skeptic is a noun, people are a little more receptive to your explanation. When you try to explain that "bright" is a noun instead of an adjective, most people will have trouble understanding, and most of those that do understand simply don't buy it.

 

[Tricky]

I don't see your "clear" answer.

The first sentence.

I can rephrase it, if you like: How do you know your understanding the concept of god is the right one?

It doesn't matter. It just has to be some concept of god.

I don't think there is much doubt what babies come from.

So will you answer my repeatedly-asked question now?

Do you speak for other people now?

I don't feel the need to insert "in my opinion" after each sentence. I notice you don't either.

Not all analogies are valid.

In my opinion, this is a valid one. They both refer to the privative meaning of words. On to the privative meaning of "dead" and one to the privative meaning of "atheist". If you think the analogy is invalid, you might try explaining why in a little more detail than saying "rocks aren't babies".

Huh? Of course a concept will have to be explained at some point. You think people understand concepts just like that? Osmosis? Divine illumination?

Still a non-sequitur. Who ever said concepts don't have to be learned?

Oh, I don't know...

If you define a rock as a "rock-like plant", then your example is valid. Is that how you define rocks?

Still, I agree that there are certain, narrowly defined situations that it is correct to refer to rocks as "dead". To do so without first carefully defining that situation is, in my opinion, an incorrect usage of the word "dead".

Skeptics.

I don't have good evidence that you have yet learned that concept.

 

[Mercutio]

Do people need to follow the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion?

You have not demonstrated that they will come to the same conclusion. I have given a counterexample to show that they need not.

And I think differently.

Yes, you do. Could you let us in on how you are thinking? Do you honestly still think that if they apply their reasoning to their own god, they will see why you are an atheist?

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

And again, we would all love to know what definitions you are using.

Why not? Is it guaranteed that people will agree on something, as long as it is covered well?

I had considerably better luck getting understanding from Interesting Ian and from hammegk; they did not agree with me, but it was quite clear that we understood one another. I would call that "covered well". Here, I think there is still one person in the thread whose definitions are still unclear, and whose application of those definitions changes.

Nope. Sometimes, it suffices.

Sometimes. When one is not interested in dialogue, it suffices. When one is running from one's own arguments, it suffices. When one's position is too weak to defend, it suffices. When there is no "because", it is necessary. (I don't claim that these are all the possible situations, but they are the ones that come to mind at present.)

I have.

Perhaps you should share them with the rest of us. Perhaps then the things that appear to be nonsensical will become more reasonable.

No, that's not a "no".

I missed where you cited the appropriate scientific data. Did you just invoke science in a rhetorical sense, or were you serious about that?

No. What gave you that idea?

Of the very few reasons for saying what you did, that one seemed to be the only one remotely related to our discussion here. I have asked you to explain your reasoning, but you have declined; I would be happy to have you explain your reasoning instead of having to try to deduce it myself.

Babies have the ability to become literate.

No, Claus. Babies have the ability to grow older. They do not become literate while they are babies. Again, caterpillars do not fly.

Is something new emerging here? Or are we agreeing to disagreeing?

I cannot disagree with a position that has not yet been expressed. Your "nonsense" dismissal tells me you disagree, but does not tell me why. Your "one god short" rhetoric has fallen apart. You say you are using the privative definition with babies, but have not demonstrated that it is appropriate, and you enigmatically do not say what definition you are using with adults.

You would do better, Claus, to actually explain your position coherently. Your objections to others' positions do not point to a cohesive whole view on your part. I would be happy to eat my words if you can put your view out for any to see, but if you simply say something like "If you can't see it from what I have written, too bad", I am left with the conclusion that you, yourself, do not understand your own position.

 

[CFLarsen]

I haven't yet. But in any case, because skeptic is a noun, people are a little more receptive to your explanation. When you try to explain that "bright" is a noun instead of an adjective, most people will have trouble understanding, and most of those that do understand simply don't buy it.

You don't have to buy into an idea in order to understand it.

The first sentence.

Which you have misunderstood. There is only one god:

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit.
Source

A Christian is merely one god short of being an atheist.

It doesn't matter. It just has to be some concept of god.

You said you understood the concept of god. Not some.

So will you answer my repeatedly-asked question now?

See post #572.

I don't feel the need to insert "in my opinion" after each sentence. I notice you don't either.

Then, don't blame me for doing the same.

In my opinion, this is a valid one. They both refer to the privative meaning of words. On to the privative meaning of "dead" and one to the privative meaning of "atheist". If you think the analogy is invalid, you might try explaining why in a little more detail than saying "rocks aren't babies".

Your analogy breaks down when you say "dead". Rocks have never been alive, so they can't be "dead", the same way a baby can be dead.

Still a non-sequitur. Who ever said concepts don't have to be learned?

I have no idea what you are getting at.

If you define a rock as a "rock-like plant", then your example is valid. Is that how you define rocks?

And people say I have no sense of humour...

Still, I agree that there are certain, narrowly defined situations that it is correct to refer to rocks as "dead". To do so without first carefully defining that situation is, in my opinion, an incorrect usage of the word "dead".

Rocks have never been alive, so it is silly to compare them to babies.

I don't have good evidence that you have yet learned that concept.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, do people normally use the word "skeptic" the way we do, here on this forum?

You have not demonstrated that they will come to the same conclusion. I have given a counterexample to show that they need not.

That doesn't answer the question: Do people need to follow the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion?

Yes, you do. Could you let us in on how you are thinking? Do you honestly still think that if they apply their reasoning to their own god, they will see why you are an atheist?

Yes, if they are honest enough.

And again, we would all love to know what definitions you are using.

I had considerably better luck getting understanding from Interesting Ian and from hammegk; they did not agree with me, but it was quite clear that we understood one another. I would call that "covered well". Here, I think there is still one person in the thread whose definitions are still unclear, and whose application of those definitions changes.

I have explained again and again what I mean.

Sometimes. When one is not interested in dialogue, it suffices. When one is running from one's own arguments, it suffices. When one's position is too weak to defend, it suffices. When there is no "because", it is necessary. (I don't claim that these are all the possible situations, but they are the ones that come to mind at present.)

I hardly think this long thread is evidence that I am not interested in dialogue.

Of the very few reasons for saying what you did, that one seemed to be the only one remotely related to our discussion here. I have asked you to explain your reasoning, but you have declined; I would be happy to have you explain your reasoning instead of having to try to deduce it myself.

No, I have not declined. Read the thread, and try to understand what I am saying.

No, Claus. Babies have the ability to grow older. They do not become literate while they are babies. Again, caterpillars do not fly.

Babies don't have the ability to become literate? O....K.

I cannot disagree with a position that has not yet been expressed. Your "nonsense" dismissal tells me you disagree, but does not tell me why. Your "one god short" rhetoric has fallen apart. You say you are using the privative definition with babies, but have not demonstrated that it is appropriate, and you enigmatically do not say what definition you are using with adults.

I disagree that my "one god short" point has fallen apart, and I do believe I have demonstrated that it is very appropriate.

You would do better, Claus, to actually explain your position coherently. Your objections to others' positions do not point to a cohesive whole view on your part. I would be happy to eat my words if you can put your view out for any to see, but if you simply say something like "If you can't see it from what I have written, too bad", I am left with the conclusion that you, yourself, do not understand your own position.

Again, read the thread.