Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

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.

Okie doke. Show me where Hal says he has evidence of his god.

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.

If they do not believe there is a god, they are atheists.

Otherwise, how will they ever get to that decision?

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.

You asked:

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

And when I said no, you asked:

Zygotes then? Sperm? Rocks? Dead humans?

All I answered was that I don't think it is important for me that babies, zygotes, sperm,, rocks, or dead humans are called atheists.

Don't look at me. I'm only going for accuracy.

LOL. Now that doesn't follow.

See above.

Oh: Do people turn gay?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

What double standard?

 

[Beleth]

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

I thought Hal was a Deist, not a theist. Do you have evidence that Hal is a theist, and that he knows his beliefs are not real?

 

[Tricky]

Okie doke. Show me where Hal says he has evidence of his god.

That is not what you said. You said that some people said they believed in something they knew wasn't real and that Hal Bidlack was one of them. If you can get Hal Bidlack to come out and say that he knows his god isn't real, I'll grant you the point. But you can't. You just make a mistake in your statement. That's okay, we all do. It doesn't hurt to admit it.

If they do not believe there is a god, they are atheists.

If they do not believe there is no god, or if they do not believe there is no evidence for god, they are theists. Since they do not believe either of those things (never having considered the question) then by your logic, they are theists. This is why your logic doesn't work for this contention.

Otherwise, how will they ever get to that decision?

If it comes to a "decision", then they have considered the question, no?

All I answered was that I don't think it is important for me that babies, zygotes, sperm,, rocks, or dead humans are called atheists.

LOL. Gonna go all pedantic on me, eh? Okay. I'll ask a simple question which requires a yes or no answer. Do you think it is correct to call a zygote an atheist? It is an easy question, since I am only asking what you think. (My answer, as you might suspect, is "no", just so you'll see I'm playing by the same rules.) I strongly suspect you'll dodge the question, but I admit the possibility that you could surprise me.

Oh: Do people turn gay?

I dont' know. There are many factors and they are not well understood. However, one thing is certain. Gayness is not a philosophical position, therefore it is useless to try to use it as an analogy for atheism, which is a philosophical position.

 

[EGarrett]

You're right.

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

I see, so now in addition to making "points" that add nothing to the thread and that are self-contradicting...you've insulted everyone posting in this thread?

I suggest you grab a bucket and start tossing water...your boat is sinking quickly.

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

The point of my tone to you is to get you to perhaps add something to the thread or leave.

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

Why don't you try looking in the mirror? You've basicallly done nothing but come to the thread and announce that anyone discussing here doesn't matter.

Just leave, you're only going to tie yourself into deeper knots. I suggest thinking a bit more in the future.

 

[newlyfound]

Aren't we all?


.....students, I mean.

I know you know this but I said that in respect to how long I've been coming here.

That's where we part ways.

Apparently you disgree that a baby should be perceived of any religion since they are not aware or educated enough to understand the ramifications of that state of being (and I agree with that). Yet you don't mind over-riding the same standards in thinking they should be considered atheist at birth.

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

I know that is not what you are doing, but what you said can be understood and translated this way, because being a responsible mature atheist requires one to do minimum research and reading to understand how the concept of god originated, and if they happen to have come from a scientific background, their perspective on the issue is even much wider, it also requires one to have done minimum reading of one or more of the "holy books" (since those are the crystalization in a written form of what god is about) and and notice the junk, contradictions etc. that make those books so "holy" etc. Being atheist requires a minimum amount of intellectual initiative on the atheist's part. ...I know some do decide they are atheists based on totally frivolous reasons. I personally cannot refer to them as atheists since the base to their choice is in my opinion void because they opted for convenience rather than the sake of truth. There are also those who have never received any religious briefing. I guess they can be referred to as atheists but their position is not nearly as grounded as that of someone who has conscienciously done their homework. A baby doen't even qualify to belong in this one since it's a merely a living "organism".

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

We are looking at this from baby's perspective. A baby does not have any belief nor does it know what belief or lack of is.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Yes, I know. A lot of people pretend to have been joking after you point out how weak their points are.

BTW, by doing so you've basically now admitted to being a troll.

 

[Upchurch]

What double standard?

You know, the one where everyone else has to back up their claims, but you can just keep repeating your claims with little to no evidence or even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. That double standard.

 

[Beleth]

We are born with a lack of belief in god. We are born atheists.

Evidence?

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".

Okay, in the same vein, babies are undeclared theists. They believe in a nearly-omnipotent sustainer and ruler in which they have complete trust (despite not being able to say so) because they have evidence of such a being, and we have evidence, via the baby's behavior, that they do so.

 

[Tricky]

Evidence?

There will be no evidence forthcoming. By way of pronouncement, Claus has simply chosen to define it that way in defiance of convention.

Okay, in the same vein, babies are undeclared theists. They believe in a nearly-omnipotent sustainer and ruler in which they have complete trust (despite not being able to say so) because they have evidence of such a being, and we have evidence, via the baby's behavior, that they do so.

I've argued as much. Babies are much more likely to accept easy, supernatural explanations than complex, rational ones. But this will not affect the Truth™ that Claus has declared.

You know, the one where everyone else has to back up their claims, but you can just keep repeating your claims with little to no evidence or even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. That double standard.

Yes Claus, like the claim you made that Hal Bidlack agrees that the god he believes in is not real. Can you provide some evidence for that?

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought Hal was a Deist, not a theist. Do you have evidence that Hal is a theist, and that he knows his beliefs are not real?

My bad: He believes god exists, but doesn't interfere.

That is not what you said. You said that some people said they believed in something they knew wasn't real and that Hal Bidlack was one of them. If you can get Hal Bidlack to come out and say that he knows his god isn't real, I'll grant you the point. But you can't. You just make a mistake in your statement. That's okay, we all do. It doesn't hurt to admit it.

His god doesn't interfere with the real world.

If they do not believe there is no god, or if they do not believe there is no evidence for god, they are theists. Since they do not believe either of those things (never having considered the question) then by your logic, they are theists. This is why your logic doesn't work for this contention.

For that to be true, you would have to argue that a belief in god is default.

If it comes to a "decision", then they have considered the question, no?

Of course.

LOL. Gonna go all pedantic on me, eh? Okay.

I am accurate.

I'll ask a simple question which requires a yes or no answer. Do you think it is correct to call a zygote an atheist? It is an easy question, since I am only asking what you think. (My answer, as you might suspect, is "no", just so you'll see I'm playing by the same rules.) I strongly suspect you'll dodge the question, but I admit the possibility that you could surprise me.

No. Don't waste my time by asking me questions I have already answered.

I dont' know. There are many factors and they are not well understood. However, one thing is certain. Gayness is not a philosophical position, therefore it is useless to try to use it as an analogy for atheism, which is a philosophical position.

Look, you are the one who says that:

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

You have to explain why people can't be gay without some concept of sexuality.

What, I'm the only one who has to answer for his arguments?

I know you know this but I said that in respect to how long I've been coming here.

Fair enough.

Apparently you disgree that a baby should be perceived of any religion since they are not aware or educated enough to understand the ramifications of that state of being (and I agree with that). Yet you don't mind over-riding the same standards in thinking they should be considered atheist at birth.

Because atheism isn't something you necessarily need to do something in order to be an atheist. You have to do something - believe - in order to be a believer.

I know that is not what you are doing, but what you said can be understood and translated this way, because being a responsible mature atheist requires one to do minimum research and reading to understand how the concept of god originated, and if they happen to have come from a scientific background, their perspective on the issue is even much wider, it also requires one to have done minimum reading of one or more of the "holy books" (since those are the crystalization in a written form of what god is about) and and notice the junk, contradictions etc. that make those books so "holy" etc. Being atheist requires a minimum amount of intellectual initiative on the atheist's part. ...I know some do decide they are atheists based on totally frivolous reasons. I personally cannot refer to them as atheists since the base to their choice is in my opinion void because they opted for convenience rather than the sake of truth. There are also those who have never received any religious briefing. I guess they can be referred to as atheists but their position is not nearly as grounded as that of someone who has conscienciously done their homework. A baby doen't even qualify to belong in this one since it's a merely a living "organism".

Sure, you can argue that a declared atheist is on firmer ground than an undeclared one, but that doesn't make the undeclared atheist less of an atheist.

We are looking at this from baby's perspective. A baby does not have any belief nor does it know what belief or lack of is.

Which is why it can't be a believer.

You know, the one where everyone else has to back up their claims, but you can just keep repeating your claims with little to no evidence or even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. That double standard.

You think this can be determined by evidence? This is not opinion-vs-opinion? Argument-vs-argument?

Evidence?

Already stated: A baby hasn't heard of god. A baby cannot distinguish between magic and reality.

You disagree with this?

Okay, in the same vein, babies are undeclared theists. They believe in a nearly-omnipotent sustainer and ruler in which they have complete trust (despite not being able to say so) because they have evidence of such a being, and we have evidence, via the baby's behavior, that they do so.

Nope. See above.

 

[tmackean]

You know, even though I'm a supporter of this thread, even I'm starting to think that we're meandering.

Remember this post from page 1?

Dictionary.com gives the following definitions for the noun 'atheist' :

1) a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
2) one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
3) someone who denies the existence of god.
4) a person who does not believe in god.

Using definitions 1, 2 and 3 for the word 'atheist', the baby is not an atheist.

Using definition 4, the baby is an atheist.

Claus is technically correct in his definition of the word 'atheist', as are Upchurch, Tricky and the majority of posters.

It means both.

It's just that the CFLarsen definition is not a well-understood one. It's not a majority view, even amongst atheists. Ample evidence that this is the case has been presented in this thread and cannot be disputed; the evidence from dictionary, encyclopedias, philisophical literature and the writing of prominent atheists is massively weighted in favour of 'rejection of theism'. It IS the definition in common currency.

We've even seen that the etymology of the term is subject to some debate; it is incorrect to suggest that 'without belief' is definitely the original meaning.

So where does that leave us?

Perhaps we should move on to discussing whether we should be defining 'atheism' in terms of 'lack of belief' or in terms or 'rejection of belief'.

As I've mentioned before, I'm proud of my atheism - it's an important part of my identity. If we define atheism as 'lack of belief' - some kind of default position, and people come to understand it as such, then atheism as a philisophical position is undermined. It's no longer a philosophy - it's simply a state. A default.

What a shame that would be. I can imagine some theists equating a-theism with 'pre'-theism. It would be that much harder to argue for atheism when it ceases to be a doctrine.

I want the term 'atheist' to mean something. I'm not the only one - that's why 'rejection of theism' is the most popular definition, and will likely continue to be.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps we should move on to discussing whether we should be defining 'atheism' in terms of 'lack of belief' or in terms or 'rejection of belief'.

We shouldn't. As you say, it's both. The more I consider the terms, the more I like "undeclared atheism" and "declared atheism".

As I've mentioned before, I'm proud of my atheism - it's an important part of my identity. If we define atheism as 'lack of belief' - some kind of default position, and people come to understand it as such, then atheism as a philisophical position is undermined, as consideration of theism is no longer required to be one.

What a shame that would be. I can imagine some theists equating a-theism with 'pre'-theism. It would be that much harder to argue for atheism - a default position, by definition, requires no phlisophical thought.

That's the whole point: You shouldn't need to argue for atheism. The onus is not on you, the onus is on those who claim evidence of god(s).

An atheist is not in defensive mode, nor should he be.

 

[The Atheist]

You know, the one where everyone else has to back up their claims, but you can just keep repeating your claims with little to no evidence or even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. That double standard.

How do I miss these threads?

A philosophical battle-noir, featuring all my favourite posters!

You, Upchurch, are a cad and a bounder. What use is there in me coming in to attempt adding gasoline to the fire when you're already doing my job and doing it far more eloquently?

 

[The Atheist]

I want the term 'atheist' to mean something. I'm not the only one - that's why 'rejection of theism' is the most popular definition, and will likely continue to be.

Nice post and nominated.

It's possibly no surprise that I agree with your sentiments - I use the monicker "The Atheist" everywhere and I'm still considering actually changing my name by deed poll to include the words - it would legitimise the capitalisation quite nicely, too. (I'll even start a poll on it)

I'm with you, as was Douglas Adams. Although I accept the reasoning behind atheism = "lack of belief in god", I'd like to see people be more forceful in their lack of belief and get in the face of the fundies especially.

About half the cvs I receive (100+ weekly) list a religion, or note godly works in youth groups etc.

In 15 years of recruiting, I have yet to see one mention atheism.

 

[Upchurch]

No. Don't waste my time by asking me questions I have already answered.

How's about we waste your time trying asking you questions you refuse to answer?

What makes non-cognitive humans applicable to your definition of "lack of belief" but not other non-cognitive forms of life?

What makes some forms of non-cognitive humans (infants) applicable to your definition of "lack of belief" but not other non-cognitive forms of humans (zygotes)?

And, this is a new one, why are you willing to argue that you opinion is valid because it is just "opinion-vs-opinion", but everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, Mr. What-Double-Standard?

You think this can be determined by evidence? This is not opinion-vs-opinion? Argument-vs-argument?

Yes, Claus. This is something that can be determined by evidence. Not the kind provided by a laboratory, but evidence none-the-less.

So far, others and myself have provided a slew of different definitions and etymological resources that show that the definition you are using is both archaic and modern fringe. (The latter being a misguided knee-jerk reaction, imho.) It is not the mainstream consensus definition and, as language must be by consensus in order to function, the definition is wrong until such time that it is made the mainstream consensus.

 

[Upchurch]

You, Upchurch, are a cad and a bounder.

Evidence?




Oh, right. All those posts I've written.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, I know. A lot of people pretend to have been joking after you point out how weak their points are.

Sure they do.

I'm not one of them.

BTW, by doing so you've basically now admitted to being a troll.

That's Mr. Troll to you!

 

[Lonewulf]

So, to summarize:

Babies are not capable of believing in, or disbelieving in anything. They are too simple-minded to grasp a basic concept.

In that sense, zygotes and rocks are also not capable of believing in, or disbelieving in anything.

Atheism is used, in the conventional use of the word, to mean an active thought/philosophy; a willing disbelief in religious matters. To use the term "That baby is an atheist" is to also say that rocks, trees, or houses are atheist, making the term bulky. Is Richard Dawkins an atheist as a baby is? I'd say no. A baby certainly couldn't use the written word as well as Dawkins.

So honestly, if you really WANT to declare your atheism as logical as a baby's, go ahead and do so. Don't mind me if I use my words a bit differently than you would.

 

[Tricky]

All right, I'm going to focus on just this for now to keep things simple.

I'll ask a simple question which requires a yes or no answer. Do you think it is correct to call a zygote an atheist? It is an easy question, since I am only asking what you think. (My answer, as you might suspect, is "no", just so you'll see I'm playing by the same rules.) I strongly suspect you'll dodge the question, but I admit the possibility that you could surprise me.

No. Don't waste my time by asking me questions I have already answered.

Okay. When I claimed you had said "no" to this question earlier, you disputed me.

***
Q to Claus: Do you think it is correct to call a zygote an atheist?
A from Claus: No.
Q to Claus: Do you think it is correct to call a baby an atheist?
A from Claus: Yes.
***
We have established two points where an organism goes from not being an atheist to being an atheist (in your opinion, Claus).

When in the sequence between zygote and baby do you think it becomes correct to call the organism an atheist? I'm just trying to establish that you are aware that such a reclassification must occur. Again, it is an easy question. I am only asking what you think.