Are newborn babies atheist?

[Faithkills]

As I'd wager he hasn't been programmed yet, he is by definition, an atheist.

Bless his soul

 

[Jorghnassen]

This is still going on? What's next? Arguing whether asshat means "without sshat"?

/it's well known babies worship Cthulhu...

 

[Upchurch]

Arguing whether asshat means "without sshat"?

"Not sshat".

Moron.

 

[EGarrett]

It's only self-contradictory if you post in this thread because you care, I guess.

But tell me what genius method you came up with to call it self contradictory?

"To everyone in this thread. No one cares." Think about that for a second. You're addressing multiple people who care enough about the discussion to participate in it...to claim that no one cares.

If you put aside your pointless attitude, you should get it.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The problem with home-grown definitions is that language is a matter of consensus. Home-grown definitions are fine as long as everyone in the "home" agrees with them, but as soon as you have someone who doesn't, the definition is not necessarily valid. For example, we can all decide that we will now call an apple an "orange", but we can't expect anyone else to accept our definition of "orange" as valid.

Dictionaries are nice because they represent a generalized consensus of what words mean, even if there is some usually minor discrepancies between them.

I think that every group has the greatest interest in defining how it is defined ( ).

If we want a definition of what a Baptist or an Anglican is, we turn to them. Not that they can agree among themselves.

And dictionaries are written humans and incorporate all the foibles we have.

I have trouble with a definition of atheism that uses the word "belief" because the whole point is we don't believe.

 

[EGarrett]

Lonewulf, EGarrett, Tricky; can't we just all get on?

Lonewulf, Marquis de Carabas - it matters to me, because, as I pointed out in a previous posting, my atheism is an intrinsic and important part of my identity. I take some pride in my ability to make my mind up independently and not go with the rest of the crowd. I've had the assumption made in the past that I am a Christian, and I don't like it when that happens.

Maybe it shouldn't be important to me - and it may not be important to you, but nearly all of us cares how the world sees us, and this is a fairly fundamental part of my skeptical worldview.

So when people on this forum assert that atheism isn't what I believe it to be, I feel the need to discuss that and challenge it. That's my take on why a thread which is primarily about semantics is actually worth pursuing.

Absolutely. It's about identity as much as semantics. That's why people care. Don't mind the people who walk in to say "no one cares," that's just ignorant and childish. Mature people can let others discuss what they choose.

 

[EGarrett]

Since babies don't know yet, agnostic would seem to me a more accurate descriptive, yet EG attempts to play this semantic game again. What a shocker.

Mercutio, I disagree with your (and Claus') "default" response as a fairly useless soundbyte, and an innacurate one.

Agnostic (doesn't know) is more consistent with a baby, as depicted in the OP, in terms of not knowing enough for the lack of knowing in general. By attempting to frame the discussion with the word atheist, you all have set up a self defeating argument, just as I would by trying to discuss cows in terms of frogs.

I'll leave you all to your hair splitting. Cheers.

DR

And you add a childish attitude while running away from the discussion. "What a shocker."

 

[Tricky]

"To everyone in this thread. No one cares." Think about that for a second. You're addressing multiple people who care enough about the discussion to participate in it...to claim that no one cares.

Absolutely. It's about identity as much as semantics. That's why people care. Don't mind the people who walk in to say "no one cares," that's just ignorant and childish. Mature people can let others discuss what they choose.

Well, I could do without the name-calling (unless clever and creative), but that is essentially correct. I don't make fun of philatilists simply because I don't find their pastime entertaining. There are those here who enjoy discussing such things, or simply enjoy the verbal and logical wordplay. I always find it amusing when someone pays enough attention to the thread to comment on how it doesn't deserve their attention.

If you don't want to talk about conspiracy theories or American politics or Teek's boobs, then stay out of those threads. Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Marquis. I don't complain about your goat fancy do I?

 

[Lonewulf]

"To everyone in this thread. No one cares." Think about that for a second. You're addressing multiple people who care enough about the discussion to participate in it...to claim that no one cares.

You're right.

I'll amend it to "No one that matters cares".

If you put aside your pointless attitude, you should get it.

What would you get if you put aside your own pointless attitude?

Don't mind the people who walk in to say "no one cares," that's just ignorant and childish.

Yes, and you've demonstrated yourself to be a bastion of knowledge and maturity, what with the name-calling and all.

Mature people can let others discuss what they choose.

And where are these immature people that aren't letting others discuss anything?

I haven't seen anyone actually try to stop anyone from talking.

I always find it amusing when someone pays enough attention to the thread to comment on how it doesn't deserve their attention.

And I always find it amusing when someone assumes that just because someone reads and responds to a thread, that they must find it exhilerating and interesting to read.

I thought this discussion would be interesting, but it turned into a pointless Larsen debate for three straight pages.

 

[Tricky]

I'll amend it to "No one that matters cares".

Well gosh, in the big scheme of things, who among us really matters? There are some well-respected posters in this thread.

And I always find it amusing when someone assumes that just because someone reads and responds to a thread, that they must find it exhilarating and interesting to read.

I wouldn't say exhilarating, but at least mildly interesting. Enough so that you would click on it more than once.

I thought this discussion would be interesting, but it turned into a pointless Larsen debate for three straight pages.

Well, there is a sameness to Larsen debates, I'll admit, but sometimes interesting things do get said in spite of that. Some of the examples people have given were rather creative I thought.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well gosh, in the big scheme of things, who among us really matters? There are some well-respected posters in this thread.

Anyone that isn't me doesn't matter.

Hint: If you're taking me seriously, then you're falling into the same trap that EGarrett fell into.

Well, there is a sameness to Larsen debates, I'll admit, but sometimes interesting things do get said in spite of that. Some of the examples people have given were rather creative I thought.

Maybe so. But I feel like someone gave me a $50 bill in exchange for $100 in quarters...

 

[Tricky]

Anyone that isn't me doesn't matter.

Hint: If you're taking me seriously, then you're falling into the same trap that EGarrett fell into.

Damn. I should have known better. Anyone who puts one of my quotes in their sig cannot possibly be serious about anything.

Maybe so. But I feel like someone gave me a $50 bill in exchange for $100 in quarters...

What the hell are you doing carrying around $100 in quarters anyway? Going to play the slots at TAM6?

 

[Lonewulf]

Damn. I should have known better. Anyone who puts one of my quotes in their sig cannot possibly be serious about anything.

Oh, I can be serious. But not here.

What the hell are you doing carrying around $100 in quarters anyway? Going to play the slots at TAM6?

Sure, why not?

 

[newlyfound]

Since babies don't know yet, agnostic would seem to me a more accurate descriptive, yet EG attempts to play this semantic game again. What a shocker.

Babies do not know what "knowing" is, and consequently it is wrong to associate that term to them even in the negative form.

 

[CFLarsen]

No. She would have to have some concept of sexual attraction for one sex or the other before she could know she was without it.

No, you misunderstand. It isn't a question of her knowing she was without it, but that she didn't know it existed.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can atheism mean a rejection of the existence of god?

Yes, it can.

Can atheism simply mean a lack of belief in god?

Yes, it can.

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.

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".

 

[Tricky]

No, you misunderstand. It isn't a question of her knowing she was without it, but that she didn't know it existed.

Sexuality is not a considered philosophical position. 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.

 

[Upchurch]

So, unless we want to argue that we are born religious, atheism is the default position.

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

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.

What is the default political position?


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?

 

[Tricky]

Can atheism mean a rejection of the existence of god?

Yes, it can.

Can atheism simply mean a lack of belief in god?

Yes, it can.

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.

So, unless we want to argue that we are born religious, atheism is the default position.

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

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.

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.

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

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

"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.

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.

Is it somehow important for you that babies be called atheists? Are you trying to increase the poll numbers or something?

*insert blood-typing joke here

 

[Upchurch]

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

Dammit, Tricky! That made me snort and that hurts when you aren't expecting it!