Are newborn babies atheist?

[Taffer]

Just skipping to the end...

The way I was taught to apply the word "atheist" was in philosophy. As such, we used "strong" and "weak" to describe the two different types of atheism:

Let B = I [do] have a belief
Let G = God [does] exists
Let "=" = Which is that

Strong B = ~G
Weak ~B = G

There is a fundamental difference between the two positions.

 

[Tricky]

The way I was taught to apply the word "atheist" was in philosophy. As such, we used "strong" and "weak" to describe the two different types of atheism:

Let B = I [do] have a belief
Let G = God [does] exists
Let "=" = Which is that

Strong B = ~G
Weak ~B = G

There is a fundamental difference between the two positions.

That is a very succinct way of putting it, but to take it out of symbolic form, I would say:

Strong: I have a concept of God and I believe He does not exist.

Weak: I have a concept of God, and I have no belief that He exists.

Neither one of these forms of atheism covers "I have no concept of God".

 

[CFLarsen]

Sexuality is not a considered philosophical position.

Can you be gay without knowing you what homosexuality is?

I'll agree that you can call her "a-lesbian" if you like (though I can't imagine why you would), still it has no bearing on the question being discussed.

That's exactly what it has.

False Dilemma. We've had a rather lengthy discussion on this already.

It's not a false dilemma.

What is the default political position?

That's not the point. Can you be a Republican without having heard of Republican policies?

I notice you've avoiding answering the question of why your definition only applies to humans (or as Tricky pointed out recently, certain developmental stages of humans) despite anything within your definition being unique to humans. Do you plan on clarifying that?

If I continue a debate, I'm obsessive. If I stop, I'm avoiding.

I'm not avoiding anything. I just don't have any more to add.

Yes, we know that people use the word different ways. Which way are we discussing? Don't pull a bait-and-switch on us Claus.

I'm not. I'm simply listing the possibilities.

I know what you have asserted. I think it is an incorrect and pointless use of the word.

I'm fine with that.

Besides, children's explanations of things are more likely to be like religion than they are to be like rational explanations. They believe in magic. I'd say the first philosophical position a baby is likely to take is religious, albeit a very simple religion.

No. The one thing that differentiates children's explanations of things from adults', is that children can't tell the difference. To them, there is no difference between magic and reality.

You can't be a Republican if you haven't got the mental capacity to even consider politics. Well, except Bush.

To that, I can only say: And yet, Republicans voted for him.

"Undeclared atheist" is a meaningless term, or at best it means that you know to yourself that you are an atheist but have not said so publicly. Atheism is a philosophical stance. You can't have a philosophical stance of no philosophical stance.

No, it means that you are simply not aware that there are gods, and thus, don't believe in them.

Okay, think of it this way. There is a number line where all the positive numbers indicate various levels of strength of atheism and all the negative numbers indicate numbers indicate various strengths of theism. You are standing on zero. Are you positive or negative? Are you apositive or anegative?* No. You are zero. It has no value either of theism or atheism.

That presupposes that you have heard of gods.

Is it somehow important for you that babies be called atheists?

Not babies in particular, no.

Are you trying to increase the poll numbers or something?

What poll numbers?

 

[Tricky]

Can you be gay without knowing you what homosexuality is?

You can't be gay without being aware, at some level, that you have feelilngs for members of the same sex. Whether or not you know what the word "homosexuality" means is irrelevant.

That's not the point. Can you be a Republican without having heard of Republican policies?

No. It requires a conscious choice.

No. The one thing that differentiates children's explanations of things from adults', is that children can't tell the difference. To them, there is no difference between magic and reality.

There are adults like this too. We call them "theists". The main difference is in the sophistication of their illusions.

No, it means that you are simply not aware that there are gods, and thus, don't believe in them.

You don't disbelieve in them either. You are standing on zero.

Not babies in particular, no.

Zygotes then? Sperm? Rocks? Dead humans?

What poll numbers?

I was thinking of census numbers. It would greatly increase the number of atheists on a census if you put all babies in that category.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can't be gay without being aware, at some level, that you have feelilngs for members of the same sex. Whether or not you know what the word "homosexuality" means is irrelevant.

That's precisely what is relevant. You can be gay without knowing what "homosexuality" means.

No. It requires a conscious choice.

Why?

There are adults like this too. We call them "theists". The main difference is in the sophistication of their illusions.

There are theists who know that their beliefs are not real. Hal Bidlack is one.

You don't disbelieve in them either. You are standing on zero.

Thus, not believing in gods. Thus, an atheist.

Zygotes then? Sperm? Rocks? Dead humans?

No.

I was thinking of census numbers. It would greatly increase the number of atheists on a census if you put all babies in that category.

Yes, it would.

And?

 

[JJM 777]

Thus, not believing in gods. Thus, an atheist.

CFL has invented an excellent way to boost the adherent statistics of his position.

Atheist = any brained creature who is not a theist = everything from insects to some humans = approximately 1,000,000,...(continues)...,000 creatures.

Um, should plants be included too?

 

[CFLarsen]

Atheist = any brained creature who is not a theist = everything from insects to some humans = approximately 1,000,000,...(continues)...,000 creatures.

Where do I say that?

 

[newlyfound]

Can atheism mean a rejection of the existence of god?

Yes, it can.

What else can it mean? ...please keep in mind that I am a student in case I get on your nerves.

Can atheism simply mean a lack of belief in god?

Yes, it can.

that comes only with a required minimum level of awareness, something a baby is without.

So, unless we want to argue that we are born religious, atheism is the default position.
We are born with a lack of belief in god. We are born atheists.

So you are comparing a baby's level of intellect to that of Richard Dawkins for example? because what you said can be translated to this.

You can be X without actually having to declare that you are. E.g., if you have a political stance that is identifiable as Republican, you are a Republican, even though you haven't said so yourself, or are aware that you are. Even if you haven't heard of the Republicans.

We could call it "undeclared atheist" and "declared atheist".

While I agree with the above I need to ask: wouldn't this be just like labeling a baby a christian or a muslim depending what set of parents gave him/her birth? because on the other hand, a baby does not know what being a jew, muslim or christian is. So if it is proper and and rational to decide they are atheist, then I think the other options are just as applicable, unless there is absolutely no way of identifying the baby's origin.

 

[CFLarsen]

What else can it mean? ...please keep in mind that I am a student in case I get on your nerves.

Aren't we all?


.....students, I mean.

that comes only with a required minimum level of awareness, something a baby is without.

That's where we part ways.

So you are comparing a baby's level of intellect to that of Richard Dawkins for example? because what you said can be translated to this.

That's not what I am doing, no. And I don't see how it can be translated to that.

While I agree with the above I need to ask: wouldn't this be just like labeling a baby a christian or a muslim depending what set of parents gave him/her birth? because on the other hand, a baby does not know what being a jew, muslim or christian is. So if it is proper and and rational to decide they are atheist, then I think the other options are just as applicable, unless there is absolutely no way of identifying the baby's origin.

No, it wouldn't, simply because of a belief in a religion requires a belief in something, while atheism doesn't.

 

[JJM 777]

Where do I say that?

This question is more revealing than you ever knew.

What "you say" is not the way how the meaning of words is defined, is it?

I will have no problem with the meaning of the word "atheism", as long as it will be commonly known.

If the word means what you are asserting, then it becomes increasingly obscure and useless, and needs to be replaced with expressions that indicate whether the person is mentally capable of understanding the concept of religion, and whether he is very confident that gods or an afterlife do not exist, or whether his position is skeptical and passively undecided.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Which means that the term "weak atheist" is totally useless for describing any sort of philosophical position since it applies to things which have no philosophy at all. I would resist making that term useless.

I don't see how that makes the word useless. Since I Am a weak atheist, I find it quite a useful word. If it didn't exist I would have to invent another one to describe myself, and I'd rather not.

At the risk of spiralling this off into the same sort of discussion that bogs down any discussion of abortion, just exactly what is a human?

Is a human embryo at 8 months an atheist? Is a fertilized human egg an atheist? Do we have atheist human sperm?

Yes to all of the above.

You see, at some point, you must bring into the definition of atheist, the ability to recognize the question of God. You choose to do so at birth (I am guessing). I think that is far too early.

I don't see why I must do that at all. Just because you say so?

 

[CFLarsen]

This question is more revealing than you ever knew.

What "you say" is not the way how the meaning of words is defined, is it?

I will have no problem with the meaning of the word "atheism", as long as it will be commonly known.

If the word means what you are asserting, then it becomes increasingly obscure and useless, and needs to be replaced with expressions that indicate whether the person is mentally capable of understanding the concept of religion, and whether he is very confident that gods or an afterlife do not exist, or whether his position is skeptical and passively undecided.

You can't back up your claim, then.

 

[Tricky]

I don't see how that makes the word useless. Since I Am a weak atheist, I find it quite a useful word. If it didn't exist I would have to invent another one to describe myself, and I'd rather not.

I'm only referring to "weak atheist" the way you (and apparently Claus) use it, which is to say anything without belief in god(s), including things incapable of believing. It means that your position is indistinguishable from that of a rock. No, I don't find that useful. The way most people use it is to describe a person who has considered the question of god(s) and withheld belief.

I don't see why I must do that at all. Just because you say so?

It's rhetorical. There is nothing you "must" do. You are free to use words in a way that will mislead people into thinking that you have a considered philosophical position.

 

[Tricky]

That's precisely what is relevant. You can be gay without knowing what "homosexuality" means.

You can be gay without knowing the word for it, but not without some concept of sexuality.

There are theists who know that their beliefs are not real. Hal Bidlack is one.

That's ludicrous. If Hal Bidlack agrees that something is not real, then you cannot say that he believes in it. I suspect strongly that you are misrepresenting his position. When we say, "we believe" in something, we generally mean to say, we believe it is real or true. Can you give me any evidence of examples where this is not the case?

Thus, not believing in gods. Thus, an atheist.

Thus an a-atheist. Thus an a-a-atheist. You can put as many plus or minus marks in front of a zero as you like. It doesn't change the value from zero.

Zygotes then? Sperm? Rocks? Dead humans?

No.

Okay. A zygote is not an atheist but a baby is. Tell me, Claus. At what point in it's development does the embryo become an atheist? I would appreciate an answer to this question. And, oh yes. Evidence.

Yes, it would.
And?

Just trying to figure out what possible reason you could have for wanting to call babies "atheists". Certainly it is not for the sake of accuracy.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can be gay without knowing the word for it, but not without some concept of sexuality.

Why not? People turn gay?

That's ludicrous. If Hal Bidlack agrees that something is not real, then you cannot say that he believes in it. I suspect strongly that you are misrepresenting his position. When we say, "we believe" in something, we generally mean to say, we believe it is real or true. Can you give me any evidence of examples where this is not the case?

I have spoken with Hal about this, and I have also heard him explain this extensively at TAM and on this forum. He does not claim any evidence of his god, he just believes in it, because it - like Martin Gardner thinks - comforts him.

Hey, we all have our teddy bears. Mine's latex and in the shape of Jessica Alba.




I deny ever saying that.

Thus an a-atheist. Thus an a-a-atheist. You can put as many plus or minus marks in front of a zero as you like. It doesn't change the value from zero.

It doesn't change the fact that someone standing at zero does not believe in god.

Do you really contest this?

Okay. A zygote is not an atheist but a baby is. Tell me, Claus. At what point in it's development does the embryo become an atheist? I would appreciate an answer to this question. And, oh yes. Evidence.

That doesn't follow from my answer to what you asked me.

Just trying to figure out what possible reason you could have for wanting to call babies "atheists". Certainly it is not for the sake of accuracy.

Rest assured that, whatever I do, it is always for the sake of accuracy.

 

[Seismosaurus]

You are free to use words in a way that will mislead people into thinking that you have a considered philosophical position.

So far as I can see, it's far from proven that this is what people are assuming.

 

[Tricky]

I have spoken with Hal about this, and I have also heard him explain this extensively at TAM and on this forum. He does not claim any evidence of his god, he just believes in it, because it - like Martin Gardner thinks - comforts him.

Admitting that he has no evidence is far different than him saying his god is not real. Your said that "(Bidlack) know(s) that (his) beliefs are not real." That is a gross misrepresentation of his position. You are the one saying that what he believes in is not real. He isn't.

It doesn't change the fact that someone standing at zero does not believe in god.

Do you really contest this?

I contest that the word "atheist" is an accurate description of their position. They also do not belive there is no god. They also do not believe there is no evidence for god.

Okay. A zygote is not an atheist but a baby is. Tell me, Claus. At what point in it's development does the embryo become an atheist? I would appreciate an answer to this question. And, oh yes. Evidence.

That doesn't follow from my answer to what you asked me.

It follows directly. You said "no" when I asked if you thought zygotes are atheist. You say babies are athiests. You can't get more direct than that. Again I ask, where does it change? Again, I would appreciate a real answer to this question.

Rest assured that, whatever I do, it is always for the sake of accuracy.

LOL. Now that doesn't follow.

 

[Tricky]

So far as I can see, it's far from proven that this is what people are assuming.

So far as I can see, I did not claim proof of this. As always, anything I say is strictly my opinion. I assume this is also the case with you, though I don't have proof that assumption is correct.

 

[Upchurch]

In the Clausian Book of Bad Reasoning, not providing evidence for a claim means that the claimant doesn't have evidence for their claim. Does this count for Claus himself, or is that another definition with unspoken cheviots?

 

[Upchurch]

It's not a false dilemma.

Oh. Well, if you say so, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.




Anytime you want to support your claims with ...well, anything, you feel free to go right ahead. The double standard you hold for your own claims vs other people's is truly astounding.