Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
Define "ended", "pointless", "zero consequence", and "meaningless". Thanks.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
CurtC
Illuminator
Mmmmmmmm - newborns.
barrymore
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 267
I do not think the discussion is pointless because it has helped to clarify different definitions of atheism. Maybe inconsequential is a better word (how would someone act based on the knowledge of whether babies are atheist or not? Setup indoctrination camps?).
skeptiform5
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 58
Your are absolutely correct, if a parent looks at their children they would never say 'burn the nonbeliever' or 'I feel sorry for you' they would never consider it. They are nuetral. I am an atheist because I have decided that, in my opinion, god doesn't exsist and that is what makes me an atheist . In a babys case they haven't been introduced to the arguements and haven't made a personal opinion so hasn't 'denied god, the just do not have any idea.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
bump
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Bumped for comparison to new thread.
Mister Agenda
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,139
Unless we also want to stop using analogies like 'atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby', we're stuck with default baby atheists. They're not theists, so....
I'm not opposed to a definition that necessarily implies agency, rather than 'denial or disbelief', but the common definition is inclusive of both active and nominal atheism.
For example 'a person of the opinion that belief in a supernatural deity is unjustified' works fine for me...but it will be hard to say that is a 'lack of belief'. Rocks aren't Republicans, either, so there's that.
I'm not opposed to a definition that necessarily implies agency, rather than 'denial or disbelief', but the common definition is inclusive of both active and nominal atheism.
For example 'a person of the opinion that belief in a supernatural deity is unjustified' works fine for me...but it will be hard to say that is a 'lack of belief'. Rocks aren't Republicans, either, so there's that.
Trent Wray
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 4,487
Rocks aren't Republicans .... that's true. So what are we doing when we feel the need to identify them as such, even though it's completely irrelevant and practically meaningless ? With rocks, it's anthropomorphizing them ... but what is it when we do it with babies ?
I don't think babies are theists either, but calling them atheists by default seems on par with the rock analogy. I say settle the debate by asking the babies what they are. Their replies give you the answer, same as the rock.
Last edited:
Charlie Brown
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 63
-.Hello everybody, this is my first post and is an honor to be here sharing with you!
Well, not only I find the claim that a "Baby is an Atheist" broad and plain ludicrous, I also find the silly quest some atheists have engaged in to associate ATHEISM with absolute ignorance or total unawareness self damaging and with zero argumentative value.
First, I think that, suggesting that the realm/origin/principle of Atheism is total ignorance and absolute lack of understanding, we are actually giving the theist and the religious arguments to discredit Atheism.
We are giving them a loaded gun and begging to be shot!!
To say that the belief in deities, superstitions and supernatural beings is an "unnatural, artificial fact consequence of indoctrination" is uninformed to say the least. I'm not an expert but, like it or not, the belief in some kind of deity or supernatural beings has been with us practically since the beginning of, well, human species. At least this has been true throughout recorded human history. Human burials from between 50,000 and 30,000 B.C. (yes, that far back!) provide evidence of human belief in an afterlife and possibly in deities.
Not only this is an historic fact but also anthropological. No matter how remote and isolated a human community is (or were), you'll find at least some kind of primitive tribal animism or supernatural belief.
Who indoctrinated them?
These facts tells me that, at least, there is some kind of innate human predisposition to embrace the supernatural.
On top of this, this ridiculous "Atheism=Absolute Ignorance" concept/definition is argumentatively useless.. It doesn't add nor take anything away to the fact a god /deity is an imaginary, fantastic and, most likely, non existent being. It doesn't give us any pragmatic advantage in discussions, debates or arguments. It does not change a bit the fact that we atheists don't carry the burden of proof. Even if this concept was technically correct, (which I seriously doubt) It actually does "water down" the atheist stance and perception from an active conscious position out of critical thinking, reason and enlightenment to a mere passive psychological state consequence of absolute ignorance or total unawareness.
And, I don't know about you but, as an Atheism advocate, I personally prefer to be associated with reason rather than with sheer ignorance.
I'd like to add that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. Not a single one. Do your research. And, I haven't heard (please note I saying "I haven't heard") the "babies are atheists" concept from any reputable and well known Atheist/philosopher/scientist. Not even from the ones who advocates to the "Lack of Belief" definition.
Best regards
Well, not only I find the claim that a "Baby is an Atheist" broad and plain ludicrous, I also find the silly quest some atheists have engaged in to associate ATHEISM with absolute ignorance or total unawareness self damaging and with zero argumentative value.
First, I think that, suggesting that the realm/origin/principle of Atheism is total ignorance and absolute lack of understanding, we are actually giving the theist and the religious arguments to discredit Atheism.
We are giving them a loaded gun and begging to be shot!!
To say that the belief in deities, superstitions and supernatural beings is an "unnatural, artificial fact consequence of indoctrination" is uninformed to say the least. I'm not an expert but, like it or not, the belief in some kind of deity or supernatural beings has been with us practically since the beginning of, well, human species. At least this has been true throughout recorded human history. Human burials from between 50,000 and 30,000 B.C. (yes, that far back!) provide evidence of human belief in an afterlife and possibly in deities.
Not only this is an historic fact but also anthropological. No matter how remote and isolated a human community is (or were), you'll find at least some kind of primitive tribal animism or supernatural belief.
Who indoctrinated them?
These facts tells me that, at least, there is some kind of innate human predisposition to embrace the supernatural.
On top of this, this ridiculous "Atheism=Absolute Ignorance" concept/definition is argumentatively useless.. It doesn't add nor take anything away to the fact a god /deity is an imaginary, fantastic and, most likely, non existent being. It doesn't give us any pragmatic advantage in discussions, debates or arguments. It does not change a bit the fact that we atheists don't carry the burden of proof. Even if this concept was technically correct, (which I seriously doubt) It actually does "water down" the atheist stance and perception from an active conscious position out of critical thinking, reason and enlightenment to a mere passive psychological state consequence of absolute ignorance or total unawareness.
And, I don't know about you but, as an Atheism advocate, I personally prefer to be associated with reason rather than with sheer ignorance.
I'd like to add that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. Not a single one. Do your research. And, I haven't heard (please note I saying "I haven't heard") the "babies are atheists" concept from any reputable and well known Atheist/philosopher/scientist. Not even from the ones who advocates to the "Lack of Belief" definition.
Best regards
Last edited:
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
This is an interesting premise and probably worthy of its own thread.
Early animistic religions are probably a result of human instinct towards understanding cause/effect relationships. I have to think on this some more.
Welcome, by the way.
Charlie Brown
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 63
.- Thank you, my friend!!
I'd also like to add that, since I've been an atheist (a very long time) I've always had the perception of a Deity/magical being as the primary, the most primitive, the elemental answer to the unknown. When humans had no other meanings or knowledge to explain the natural phenomena, my first guess would be something like some kind of magical being was their first answer.
I'm a second generation "half breed" atheist (my father is both strong atheist and anti-religious) and my mother, while not an atheist, is totally apathetic. My dad never took us to mass or any other religious ritual, he just talked to us about god just to say it didn't exists and he did give my brothers and I lots of arguments against religion and theism. And still, with everything apparently favoring my atheism, I had doubts when I was young and I even embraced (briefly) religious groups and some kind of supernatural ideas . What's worse, one of my brothers still is a convinced theist.
That tells me the "atheism-theism affair" being a simple lack of knowledge/indoctrination matter is, well, not that simple. It also tells me that nobody is completely safe or isolated from any kind of religious/magical belief influence.
Also, it's my opinion that indoctrination belongs to RELIGION, not to Theism or the belief in the Supernatural. You can be a person who does not adhere to any religion, who does not agree with any religious precept, you can even be against religions and religious dogma and still be a convinced, genuine Theist. Actually, I personally know a lot of people that fits in this category.
I'd also like to add that, since I've been an atheist (a very long time) I've always had the perception of a Deity/magical being as the primary, the most primitive, the elemental answer to the unknown. When humans had no other meanings or knowledge to explain the natural phenomena, my first guess would be something like some kind of magical being was their first answer.
I'm a second generation "half breed" atheist (my father is both strong atheist and anti-religious) and my mother, while not an atheist, is totally apathetic. My dad never took us to mass or any other religious ritual, he just talked to us about god just to say it didn't exists and he did give my brothers and I lots of arguments against religion and theism. And still, with everything apparently favoring my atheism, I had doubts when I was young and I even embraced (briefly) religious groups and some kind of supernatural ideas . What's worse, one of my brothers still is a convinced theist.
That tells me the "atheism-theism affair" being a simple lack of knowledge/indoctrination matter is, well, not that simple. It also tells me that nobody is completely safe or isolated from any kind of religious/magical belief influence.
Also, it's my opinion that indoctrination belongs to RELIGION, not to Theism or the belief in the Supernatural. You can be a person who does not adhere to any religion, who does not agree with any religious precept, you can even be against religions and religious dogma and still be a convinced, genuine Theist. Actually, I personally know a lot of people that fits in this category.
Last edited:
Charlie Brown
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 63
.- Thank you, my friend!!
I'd also like to add that, since I've been an atheist (a very long time) I've always had the perception of a Deity/magical being as the primary, the most primitive, the elemental answer to the unknown. When humans had no other meanings or knowledge to explain the natural phenomena, my first guess would be something like some kind of magical being was their first answer.
I'm a second generation "half breed" atheist (my father is both strong atheist and anti-religious) and my mother, while not an atheist, is totally apathetic. My dad never took us to mass or any other religious ritual, he just talked to us about god just to say it didn't exists and he did give lots of us arguments against religion and theism. And still, with everything apparently favoring my atheism, I had doubts when I was young and I (briefly) embraced religious groups and some kind of supernatural ideas. What's worse, my brother is a convinced theist.
That tells me the "atheism-theism affair" being a simple knowledge/lack of knowledge/indoctrination matter is, well, not that simple. It also tells me that nobody in this world is completely safe or isolated from any kind of religious influence.
Also, it's my opinion that indoctrination belongs to RELIGION, not to Theism or the belief in the Supernatural. You can be a person who does not adhere to any religion, who does not agree with any religious precept, you can even be against religions and religious dogmas and still be a convinced, genuine Theist. Actually, I personally know a lot of people that fits in this category.
I'd also like to add that, since I've been an atheist (a very long time) I've always had the perception of a Deity/magical being as the primary, the most primitive, the elemental answer to the unknown. When humans had no other meanings or knowledge to explain the natural phenomena, my first guess would be something like some kind of magical being was their first answer.
I'm a second generation "half breed" atheist (my father is both strong atheist and anti-religious) and my mother, while not an atheist, is totally apathetic. My dad never took us to mass or any other religious ritual, he just talked to us about god just to say it didn't exists and he did give lots of us arguments against religion and theism. And still, with everything apparently favoring my atheism, I had doubts when I was young and I (briefly) embraced religious groups and some kind of supernatural ideas. What's worse, my brother is a convinced theist.
That tells me the "atheism-theism affair" being a simple knowledge/lack of knowledge/indoctrination matter is, well, not that simple. It also tells me that nobody in this world is completely safe or isolated from any kind of religious influence.
Also, it's my opinion that indoctrination belongs to RELIGION, not to Theism or the belief in the Supernatural. You can be a person who does not adhere to any religion, who does not agree with any religious precept, you can even be against religions and religious dogmas and still be a convinced, genuine Theist. Actually, I personally know a lot of people that fits in this category.
Stankeye
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 281
That's how I got here. Presbyterian, than anti-religion theist, agnostic, atheist.
Presbyterian/Christianity was taught to me. Anti-religion theist, because organized religion didn't work for me. At some point I realized no one had any answers on anything about deities so I became agnostic, and realized that was just lazy and said it was silly to pretend I didn't have "knowledge" about unknowable things.
It was quite liberating.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
So babies already know their parents language without any teaching?
Just because a baby can learn language and religion does not mean they have to be taught poor critical logic skills.
Paul
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
So babies already know their parents language without any teaching?
Just because a baby can learn language and religion does not mean they have to be taught poor critical logic skills.
Paul
Kids are born with poor critical logic skills, they have to be taught good logic skills.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
And not with gods, a poor logic skill.
Paul
I think Charlie Brown's point was that they are born with a predisposition to invent superstitions when trying to make sense of the world. A belief in god or gods is a very likely outcome.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
That is why I talked about language. Just because one can learn something (like the idea of a god) doesn't mean we jump to the idea that a god will come out of our questions about the universe. Some are easly lead that way because we come to believe what our parents tell us, that is also in our makeup as humans. But I have yet to hear that god idea jump out of a child's mouth without that input from an older person, most likely the parent. Also, funny how the god is the same as the parents god, a child doesn't come up with a new one.
When I was a child I was told about god as an answer to many of my questions, that god idea did not come from me. At the age of about 7, that god idea did not make any sense to me and so that idea went away. Why, because it didn't fit the world I read about, it was not logical.
Paul
Last edited: