Are newborn babies atheist?

.- How "lack of belief" came up as a definition of Atheism/Atheist is beyond me.

This is the etymological definition of Atheist:

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god".



There is no mention/inclusion of "unawareness". "lack of belief", "absence of belief " nowhere to be found

I simply don't see how "without gods" can be equal to "Without beliefs in gods"

Am I crazy?? Does these two sentences means the exact, same thing??

What do you think?

Yeah, Some could argue that "without" can be equal to 'Absence". but the problem is that "absence" don't refer to "beliefs", it refers to gods

I could easily say that atheism simply means "there is no gods" and my definition would be way more precise and correct than the "lack of belief" definition.



But wait!! I forgot the "IST"!

Lets see what IST is (From Dictionary.com):



-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.



I also can't see anything passive or something that resembles a mere static psychological state in this definition.

No wonder it hasn't been accepted by any serious, reputable dictionary.

And, most likely it won't be.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people know that many atheist don't like the term, mainly because being a atheist is much like not believing in a lot of other things and there is no term for those people, also I'm not here to make a list of those other nonbeliefs. OK just one, there is no term for not believing in Peter Pan. Seems the main reason for the word atheist is because there are so many that have a so-called god and being human, they need to call them something because they are labeled too.



Paul


:) :) :)
 
"This thread was concisely answered in the 2nd reply over 5 years ago."



.- Yeap, you are absolutely right. So is the 2nd reply.

But the problem is that over 5 years later, still some people doesn't know or doesn't get it.

Still there are some atheists who thinks that Atheism being closely associated with an absolute state of ignorance and perceived as a static, passive psychological state out of total unawareness is of any advantage.

Like it was an Honor!

What's next? A new slogan?

"Weak Atheist, absolutely ignorant and proud"

I think a refresh is in order
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
"Weak Atheist, absolutely ignorant and proud"
Click to expand...


You forgot, it is on only one subject, and not one Atheist I know is ignorant about it, if fact many know more about the theist's bible and god then many theists know and it is why they are atheist.


And thinking about it more, theist have to be ignorant on so many things for their world view to work.




Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:

You forgot, it is on only one subject, and not one Atheist I know is ignorant about it,


.- I know a lot of brilliant, smart and very well educated atheists but there is also some ignorant ones.


"in fact many know more about the theist's bible and god then many theists know"


Well, I guess you meant "the idea of the biblical god".

And since gods are Human inventions which can be can created/modified at discretion and convenience, since there are so many different ones and since they don't exist, there is not a clear definition of what a god is, you have to be specific on what god you are talking about.

But, who's talking about the Bible? What relevancy the Bible have in this thread?

And is not the "Theist Bible", is the "Christian-Jewish Bible". A Muslim is also a theist and they don't use the Bible, they use the Q'uran. My wife is not religious but is a theist.


"And thinking about it more, theist have to be ignorant on so many things for their world view to work."


.- The proponents of the "lack of belief" definition and the "Babies are atheists" concept are practically shouting that you don't need to know squat about religion, god, deities, etc in order to be an atheist. Actually, if you are absolutely, 100% ignorant about everything is even better, you are automatically accepted/labeled as atheist, no need to worry. You don't even need to talk. :-DDD

What a folly.





"and it is why they are atheist."


.- I thought atheists were all born atheists... ...Just kidding.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
"Theist" make your god anything you want it to be and let it justify everything you believe.



.- ???????
Click to expand...


Yep, see and hear it all the time.


Over 30,000 different chuches in the U.S.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
"Well no newborn babies are theist (or even agnostic)."

.- Actually, since they have no knowledge or references of anything, they would be more toward agnosticism than any other of the available options.

But

No reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. Not a single one

Neither is accepted by many reputed atheists philosophers scientists and also is not accepted in many atheists sites by many "commonners" like me.

Some, like Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher of science, considered one of the major figures of the logical positivist movement, goes even further, not even accepting implicit atheism as valid Atheism:

"Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

" I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."


And last but no least, 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 or the "implicit Atheism" concept

I'll be posting all the links in the near future. Before my 15th message I'm not allowed to post URLs

I have plenty.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say newborn babies are atheists, I said they aren’t theists or agnostics. I don’t like or accept the “no belief in a god” definition of “atheist” being applied to myself. Neither do I like or accept the “denial or rejection of a god” definition. As far as I’m concerned I’m only happy to be called an “atheist” if it means I don’t accept theistic claims that a god exists. By the definition of “atheist” I accept I therefore don’t think it’s correct to describe newborn babies as being “atheists“.
 
Neither do I like or accept the “denial or rejection of a god” definition.



.- What definition is this?

Definition of what?

Anti-theism perhaps?




The correct and most accepted definition of ATHEISM is:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

(Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989)

. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
2000.)

The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being(s).

(1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)


Some irrelevant variations, but they are all basically the same.
 
Last edited:
.- And this is the definition of disbelief:

disbelief, n.
/dǺsbǺɑliəf/
Etymology: < DIS- prefix 2d + BELIEF n.
The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or
assertion; positive unbelief.


(Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989)
 
You do know that they update those books from time to time because the useage of a word can change over time and many times there is more then one useage of a word.


Just look up GAY.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:



Paul


:) :) :)
Click to expand...


.- The video is basically uninformed nonsense and logical fallacies, but just this fact absolutely disqualifies this folly:

She is using a false, etymologically incorrect, ridiculous and non accepted definition of Atheism.

The rest is not worthy of any comment.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
.- The video is basically uninformed nonsense and logical fallacies, but just this fact absolutely disqualifies this folly:

She is using a false, etymologically incorrect, ridiculous and non accepted definition of Atheism.

The rest is not worthy of any comment.
Click to expand...


To you, not to me, seems we are done, have a nice life.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
Charlie Brown said:
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.
Click to expand...

Total pile of hot bovine manure! This is just another example of argument from ignorance.
I'm intellectually lazy or retarded to look for an actual explanation there for boogeyman dejour. Magical thinking of all kind is a negative bi-product of the development of the human brain. Humans, and in fact primates brain development specializes in the recognition of patterns and the ability to memorize them and draw conclusions

-In fact humans are not even the best at some aspects of this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...impanzees-far-BETTER-human-study-reveals.html chimpanzees are able to recall the location of numbers in sequence from viewing a screen for milliseconds. In Fact in so much shorter time that the average human brain doesn't even register that they saw numbers.

This ability to see patterns and to able to infer future outcomes IS what makes humans unique. This is what gives us empathy and sympathy. It's what allows us to create societies, rules and laws and concepts like the "golden rule". It's what makes children, see bunnies in the clouds and monsters at night from the shadows of trees.

The human brain through is hardwired to see and seek patterns! Because of millions of years of evolution, this instinct is so strong that we see patterns where none exists - whether it's clouds, shadows, the night skies or where ever. When we can not find a rational explanation we invent one. This is what humans have been doing since they have been in social groups. As soon as a group of humans learned to communicate while huddling together in the darkness in fear they sought security in explanations. For good or bad someone put magical one together and they went with it.

Who indoctrinated them?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean here the babies. It's simple their elders! This is exactly how religious people TODAY become Jews, Protestants or Muslims. Baby gets told from day one that if they don't behave the -fill in your monster - will come and get them. They're told that -fill in your sky daddy de jour - will save them.


You talk about how humans 50K ago had "religion" what ever. But think about this. In any ancient isolated society do you ever see any evidence that "Joe" one day saw the light and became a mana worshiper even though his whole clan worshiped Krom?


These facts tells me that, at least, there is some kind of innate human predisposition to embrace the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Yup, but again see first part of my post - argument from ignorance is not a reason to believe in fairies.
 
"You do know that they update those books from time to time because the useage of a word can change over time and many times there is more then one usage of a word."



.- Can you give me an example, just one, of a word which was radically changed in definition?

Like in "Dog" now means "a tract of land completely surrounded by water, and not large enough to be called a continent."

Give me just one.

No, That won't happen to Atheism.

Mainly because, as you should see, it hasn't been widely accepted.

They won't change a word radically just because a bunch of ignorant people simply wants to define it the way they like.

Language is not an Anarchy nor is open to vote or opinions, is not something you can change because you simply want to.

Besides, this derisive and demeaning definition of Atheism already have a name: "Implicit Atheism"

Which BTW, it hasn't been accepted either. And is that debate is not new.



BTW, you need a dictionary badly, your spelling and syntax are atrocious.
 
Magyar said:
Yup, but again see first part of my post - argument from ignorance is not a reason to believe in fairies.
Click to expand...


Seems he hasn't looked up the word GAY, and can't read when one tells him, he are done and to have a nice life.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
NO, definitely I don't want to be linked to atheists like you.

Good luck with your demeaning definition of Atheism.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
"You do know that they update those books from time to time because the useage of a word can change over time and many times there is more then one usage of a word."



.- Can you give me an example, just one, of a word which was radically changed in definition?

Like in "Dog" now means "a tract of land completely surrounded by water, and not large enough to be called a continent."

Give me just one.

No, That won't happen to Atheism.

Mainly because, as you should see, it hasn't been widely accepted.

They won't change a word radically just because a bunch of ignorant people simply wants to define it the way they like.

Language is not an Anarchy nor is open to vote or opinions, is not something you can change because you simply want to.

Besides, this derisive and demeaning definition of Atheism already have a name: "Implicit Atheism"

Which BTW, it hasn't been accepted either. And is that debate is not new.



BTW, you need a dictionary badly, your spelling and syntax are atrocious.
Click to expand...

barrack
boot
gay
macintosh

BTW, You *badly* need a grammar checker, as your syntax is atrocious...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom