Are newborn babies atheist?

[Charlie Brown]

Yeah, right, that's surely an unbiased webpage

The guy also disagrees (and gives good arguments)

So what?

That does not mean the guy is making things up nor it disqualifies what he says.
You can easily verify the authenticity of ALL of his Dictionary links.
And I have the screenshots of the paid ones.

Just because of the guy is not saying what you want to hear is disqualified?


And I've replied most of your messages and the few questions you've asked. Everyu single one.

And what abut your answers "I don't care about dictionaries" You are either theist or atheist, there is no other choice"

 

[Charlie Brown]

I have no trouble whatsoever with the definition as broadly accepted, but do object to some random on the Internet seeking to constrain the definition to support a position they want to take.
Atheism is what it is. Move on.

.- Here you will find the links to the most reputable English dictionaries links:

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

Disregard his opinions/arguments if you like, just use the links to the dictionaries. He have a lot.

This is another I'd like to add, not precisely a language dictionary but also from a reputed University (STANFORD):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

 

[Paulhoff]

Again, a dictionary used to show the current usage of a word, that is why they are updated, it isn’t just for new words, also it does not set the limits of a word. Words change all the time, and English is great at doing that.

Get over it.

Paul

 

[Charlie Brown]

.- This "baby are atheists" pseudo-argument not only have the False Dilemma Fallacy as one of his foundations. (there is only one possible position to Theism)

There is more logical fallacies on it:

Unfalsifiability


http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable

In easy, You are assuming a position using UNFALSIABLE evidence, evidence that can't be verified or tested;

A Newborn Baby's opinion/answer, A theoretical, imaginary Human who does not have absolutely any knowledge about deities or anything supernatural and has never been in contact nor heard absolutely nothing about any Religion or Belief in the supernatural of any kind.

 

[Kid Eager]

.- Here you will find the links to the most reputable English dictionaries links:

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

Disregard his opinions/arguments if you like, just use the links to the dictionaries. He have a lot.

This is another I'd like to add, not precisely a language dictionary but also from a reputed University (STANFORD):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The "absence of belief" definition of atheism is nothing new - it's been around since at least 1876. Internet randoms might rail against the definition, as it hurts a basis for arguing against atheism, but that's life.

The selective quoting of definitions is, however, interesting: what is your motive?

 

[Paulhoff]

May I say, and I will anyway. When someone new comes to a forum known to be full of atheist and says that they are an atheist, flashing lights go off in my head. It becomes easy to know what a people is by what they write, there is no need to tell anyone.



Paul

 

[The Norseman]

.- Wow, no more positions!! Not only you are changing definitions at your convenience, now you are using Logical fallacies as "arguments."

This is the one you are using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So there is no other choice.

ANY ANSWER, with the exception of "YES", means you are Atheist.

"I don't know" " It's not possible to know" "I don't care" "Maybe" asking "What's a god", etc any other possible answer means you are atheist.

It reminds me of a very famous False dilemma Fallacy:

"You are either with me or against me"

Are you alive or dead? Oh, maybe you're not sure. You don't care, maybe?

 

[Charlie Brown]

May I say, and I will anyway. When someone new comes to a forum known to be full of atheist and says that they are an atheist, flashing lights go off in my head. It becomes easy to know what a people is by what they write, there is no need to tell anyone.



Paul

-. Wow! You don't have a clue, do you?

Do you really think you are doing "Atheism" a great service defending this ludicrous pseudo argument?

By suggesting that Atheism/disbelief is linked IN ANY WAY to an Absolute state of ignorance and diminishing its position to a mere passive state of total unawareness, you are actually giving theists tools of indoctrination and arguments to discredit Atheism.

HOLY CR@p!! I just can hear them, Muslims, Theists, Televangelists all over the world:

"Of course, Son, babies are atheists because they don't have any conscience or knowledge of anything" "You know, son, Atheism is not only bad, it comes from a state of absolute ignorance, Atheists say so themselves, just take a look at their own sites"

AAAAAAGH!!

You are actually making Atheist work even harder.




ME? I am a 100% pure breed Atheist, absolutely irreversible. I'm Also Anti-theist, Anti-religion, irreverent, skeptic, Anti new age and, basically, anti-anything that smells like supernatural bulls**t.

I've been an Atheist probably longer than the time you've been in this planet.


I just don't need stupid pseudo-arguments or ridiculous claims to justify my Atheism.

Ridiculous Pseudo-Arguments that can be (and probably will be) used AGAINST US.


As a Rational, critical thinker, who hard-earned this position using his brain a lot, I find this (fortunately) unaccepted concept of Atheism not only incorrect but demeaning and pejorative.

Let me introduce you to my kind of Atheist, Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher of science and one of the major figures of the logical positivist movement, one of MANY who contradicts this 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."

 

[The Norseman]

<snip rant>

What I think is relevant is that you still have not yet pointed out what logical fallacies the woman made in the video that was linked to for which I've already asked you.

Also, I'm wondering if you'll get around to giving a one-sentence summary of what point you are trying to make in this thread, for which I've already asked as well.

 

[Paulhoff]

-. Wow! You don't have a clue, do you?

Do you really think you are doing "Atheism" a great service defending this ludicrous pseudo argument?"

I think I hit the mark.


As for clue, seems you aren't seeing all the ones here that seem to be agreeing with me more than. you.


I've been an atheist for well over 57 years, and I don't have the time to play games.

The subject here is about if newborns are atheist, and seeing that they don't believe in anything including gods, they as newborns are atheist. What they may become later is not in the title of this thread. That should be simple to understand.

Also, the subject is subjective, and is not objective, so there is no real true answer to the question, it is just opinions we have on the whole concept. If you think you idea about it true, fine, but no matter how you want to word it, it is still only your opinion.


Paul

 

[Checkmite]

Still waiting to learn why the answer to this question is worth this intensive effort. Newborn babies are basically stupid; they know nothing, believe in nothing. Who cares whether they believe in God or not?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

HE.HE.HE!! I knew it!!!. I KNEW this was gonna happen!!

You've just been fooled by a fake, P.O.S. site, which is using ILLEGALLY the "OXFORD" name, reputation, even the site is a copy, but has no affiliation nor any link to the REAL ONE. (Don't feel bad, I also fell for that.)

This is your site:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/


AND


THIS is the official, GENUINE, REAL OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:

http://www.oed.com/

Unfortunately It's a paid, subscription-only Dictionary (215 English pounds per year)

But don't worry, I have a screenshot of their Atheist definition I got from the University of Miami.


Can someone explain me how can I upload it? I'd really like to show it.

Anyway, here is a site with a very large compilation from several Dictionaries (including the genuine OXFORD Dictionary):

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

It also have several arguments about this matter.

Oh right, so it's a no-true-dictionary argument you are going for then?

OK let's try the dictionary I always used when I was in school...Collins:

noun

1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

2/2 then.

.- Wow, no more positions!! Not only you are changing definitions at your convenience, now you are using Logical fallacies as "arguments."

This is the one you are using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So there is no other choice.

ANY ANSWER, with the exception of "YES", means you are Atheist.

"I don't know" " It's not possible to know" "I don't care" "Maybe" asking "What's a god", etc any other possible answer means you are atheist.

It reminds me of a very famous False dilemma Fallacy:

"You are either with me or against me"

Just because there are only 2 positions doesn't make it a false dilemma. You are either a badger or you are not. You are either Chinese or you are not. You are either over 6' tall or you are not. You either believe in a god or you don't.

You cannot maybe believe in something. You cannot I don't care believe in something. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you are theist. No, then you are atheist.

.- This "baby are atheists" pseudo-argument not only have the False Dilemma Fallacy as one of his foundations. (there is only one possible position to Theism)

There is more logical fallacies on it:

Unfalsifiability


http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable

In easy, You are assuming a position using UNFALSIABLE evidence, evidence that can't be verified or tested;

A Newborn Baby's opinion/answer, A theoretical, imaginary Human who does not have absolutely any knowledge about deities or anything supernatural and has never been in contact nor heard absolutely nothing about any Religion or Belief in the supernatural of any kind.

No, we don't care about the babies opinion or answer. It doesn't have one. That mere fact means it's an atheist.

-. Wow! You don't have a clue, do you?

Do you really think you are doing "Atheism" a great service defending this ludicrous pseudo argument?

By suggesting that Atheism/disbelief is linked IN ANY WAY to an Absolute state of ignorance and diminishing its position to a mere passive state of total unawareness, you are actually giving theists tools of indoctrination and arguments to discredit Atheism.

Nobody claimed to be doing Atheism a great service. It's simply the way it is. What service do you think you are doing Atheism by denying reality for political ends?

HOLY CR@p!! I just can hear them, Muslims, Theists, Televangelists all over the world:

"Of course, Son, babies are atheists because they don't have any conscience or knowledge of anything" "You know, son, Atheism is not only bad, it comes from a state of absolute ignorance, Atheists say so themselves, just take a look at their own sites"

AAAAAAGH!!

You are actually making Atheist work even harder.

Theists say stupid things all the time, why should I care? What is this 'atheist work' you speak of? Is this why you don't want newborn babies in the team? They are terribly unproductive.

ME? I am a 100% pure breed Atheist, absolutely irreversible. I'm Also Anti-theist, Anti-religion, irreverent, skeptic, Anti new age and, basically, anti-anything that smells like supernatural bulls**t.

I've been an Atheist probably longer than the time you've been in this planet.

I just don't need stupid pseudo-arguments or ridiculous claims to justify my Atheism.

Ridiculous Pseudo-Arguments that can be (and probably will be) used AGAINST US.

Again why do you think this is a justification for Atheism? It's simply a statement of fact. Are you so unsure of yourself that you see everything that is stated about atheism as a justification of it? Some things just are.

As a Rational, critical thinker, who hard-earned this position using his brain a lot, I find this (fortunately) unaccepted concept of Atheism not only incorrect but demeaning and pejorative.

Let me introduce you to my kind of Atheist, Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher of science and one of the major figures of the logical positivist movement, one of MANY who contradicts this 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."

Oh well if he's an American Philosopher of Science then he must be right I guess? No fallacy there. He will be the final arbiter of the usage of the English language after all.

The irrational need for Atheism to mean something beyond the definition of the word is interesting. Perhaps its an American thing?

Still waiting to learn why the answer to this question is worth this intensive effort. Newborn babies are basically stupid; they know nothing, believe in nothing. Who cares whether they believe in God or not?

I am still waiting for the point of the thread to be honest. The answer to the question is so self-evident.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Incidentally, I wonder if those who desire Atheism to be a positive claim also hold religion to the same standard?

Would they argue that a Christian isn't a real Christian if they haven't understood and rejected all alternative claims? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

May I say, and I will anyway. When someone new comes to a forum known to be full of atheist and says that they are an atheist, flashing lights go off in my head. It becomes easy to know what a people is by what they write, there is no need to tell anyone.



Paul

"You never ask a man if he's a fighter pilot, son! If he's not you'll just embarrass him. If he is, he'll tell you!"

 

[Aridas]

The irrational need for Atheism to mean something beyond the definition of the word is interesting. Perhaps its an American thing?

Not really, in my experience. It seems to be just a rather meaningless thing, either way. Certainly, there are those who happily will conflate different meanings of a word in an attempt to make arguments for all kinds of purposes, though. Understandably, there are a lot of people who have a terrible understanding of what a number of words, like atheist, actually mean for all kinds of reasons, though.


To poke at a post...

.- Wow, no more positions!! Not only you are changing definitions at your convenience, now you are using Logical fallacies as "arguments."

This is the one you are using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So there is no other choice.

ANY ANSWER, with the exception of "YES", means you are Atheist.

"I don't know" " It's not possible to know" "I don't care" "Maybe" asking "What's a god", etc any other possible answer means you are atheist.

It reminds me of a very famous False dilemma Fallacy:

"You are either with me or against me"

Not a false dilemma in the least. Certainly, it is not remotely a useful description, by itself, though, and there are other measures, like gnostic/agnostic that make things much clearer, though. "I don't know" and "Maybe" deal with the gnostic/agnostic angles. "I don't care" is a statement of relevance, not important for whether one is a theist or atheist. "What's a god" is a statement that what concept is in question is unknown, not a statement of theism or atheism. If the concept itself is unknown and never considered, then the person was definitely an atheist, at least until that point. It is rather difficult believing in a concept that one has never thought of, after all.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Just because there are only 2 positions doesn't make it a false dilemma You are either a badger or you are not. You are either Chinese or you are not. You are either over 6' tall or you are not. You either believe in a god or you don't.

.- WOW!! You are using TERRIBLE analogies:

First and foremost, "not being an badger" is not a SINGLE position, let alone LIMITED: You can be a Rat, a desk, a book, a planet, a pile of pooh, a palm, a fox, a Microbe, etc AD INFINITUM.


Second: A false dilemma (also called false Dichotomy) involves a situation in which only TWO ALTERNATIVES are considered (usually contradictory positions), when in fact there is at least one additional option:

The correct Analogy of your bad example:


"You are either over 6' tall or you are not"


Would be something like this, in order to be a false dilemma:


"You are either over 6' tall or you are a dwarf" (You can be a mid sized person o simply, not so tall but not necessarily a dwarf)

or

You are either Left wing or right wing (You can be center, neutral, indifferent)

or

"You either believe in god or you don't" (you can be agnostic, neutral, ignorant or simply indifferent)

Definition of DILEMMA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma

 

[ehcks]

First and foremost, "not being an badger" is not a SINGLE position, let alone LIMITED: You can be a Rat, a desk, a book, a planet, a pile of pooh, a palm, a fox, a Microbe, etc AD INFINITUM.

Ok, but you're still not a badger.

Second: A false dilemma (also called false Dichotomy) involves a situation in which only TWO ALTERNATIVES are considered (usually contradictory positions), when in fact there is at least one additional option:

"You either believe in god or you don't" (you can be agnostic, neutral, ignorant or simply indifferent)

Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either theism or atheism. Nor is indifference, sometimes called apatheism.

Ignorance is the topic of the thread, though. A baby is ignorant of the concept of god, and therefore has no beliefs either way. However, since the definition of atheism is "lacking in a belief in a god" and ignorance means you have no belief because you know nothing about the topic, a person ignorant of gods is atheistic of them. By definition, a baby is atheist. It's not incredibly useful, but it's a simple fact.

 

[ehcks]

To be clear, one can be an apathetic agnostic theist. And I would say that's a relatively common combination.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Nobody claimed to be doing Atheism a great service. It's simply the way it is. What service do you think you are doing Atheism by denying reality for political end?



.- The way it is? Political ends?

You are taking a perfectly GOOD definition which is a perfect fit for the stance or views of most (if not all) Atheists in the world, which is:

WE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GODS (regardless of the reasons why)

and, using semantic juggling, etymological and grammatical "Ad Libitum" interpretations, distortions and mistakes, (among other dubious resources) you are transforming it into a meaningless state of inertia.




This is basically what the word "LACK' means (from dictionary.com and please don't distort it):

LACK:

noun
1.
deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
2.
something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.
verb (used with object)
3.
to be without or deficient in: to lack ability; to lack the necessities of life.
4.
to fall short in respect of: "He lacks three votes to win."
verb (used without object)
5.
to be absent or missing, as something needed or desirable: "Three votes are lacking to make a majority."

My question:

You CAN'T believe in gods due to a deficiency (lack of belief) OR, simply, you DON'T believe in gods




According to this meaningless and irrelevant redefinition, Atheism is no longer a view, an opinion, a position or a stance BUT a mere a psychological state which is shared by people who can hold various views or can't hold no views at all due to intellectual incapacity., like a baby, a dog a plant, or even a ROCK.

And I don't find the "Atheist stance" of a ROCK precisely meaningful.

You are also using poor resources to sustain this folly, like UNTESTABLE evidence (A baby's opinion) and unreliable, UNFALSIFIABLE data (an hypothetical, imaginary Human with zero knowledge about gods, deities, who has never been in contact with any kind of Supernatural belief) and, What's worse, you are assuming that this imaginary person will answer "I don't believe in gods ", instead of the most logical expected answer, which is:

WHAT IS A GOD?

In other words, you are suggesting a person with zero knowledge about something will automatically answer NO when asked if he believes in that something, instead of asking what that something IS in the first place.
You are not describing an Atheist, you are describing a perfect idiot.


And all this for what?


This re-definition is absolutely irrelevant to Atheism and has ZERO value as an argument. in a debate with a theist. Actually it can easily backfires on you.

Statements like “Babies are atheist” might sound funny or clever upon cursory inspection, but when you actually get down to it, they’re rather childish and DETRIMENTAL for those who use them and to the cause they support. Such phrases are easily deconstructed and therefore are bad arguments. Using them most likely will make you look pretty dumb when you are debating against any half-competent religious apologist.

And, NO, it doesn't "shift" the fact that the theist's claim of a supernatural god with magical powers is an extraordinary claim and requires substantial evidence if it is to be logically believed. The burden of proof is on the theist regardless of the definition of the word "atheist". We simply don't believe in their claims and they still don't have evidence for it.


Anyway, with this dubious (at best) irrelevant, meaningless and detrimental "redefinition" or the redefinition of this redefinition, An atheist, when asked if he believes in god, is gonna give this answer invariably:

NO

And babies won't say squat, as usual.

.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Ok, but you're still not a badger.

,- Yes, but That doesn't make me automatically an "Anti-badger" or an "ABadger" if you prefer.