Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

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

I don't refuse to answer them. See post #95.

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?

Why is it double standard to point out that this is 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.

Opinion is evidence? Fascinating.

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.

There is nothing in the mainstream consensus definition that exclude undeclared atheists as atheists.

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

See post #95.

 

[Tricky]

***
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.

See post #95.

I did. There is no answer there. Why don't you state it clearly now? It is an easy question that only requires a short answer.

 

[Tricky]

BTW, do you now acknowledge that you have no evidence for this statement?

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

 

[CFLarsen]

BTW, do you now acknowledge that you have no evidence for this statement?

See post #211.

 

[Tricky]

See post #211.

Why don't you just answer the question? It would take fewer keystrokes. Plus your references never answer the question asked.

For example, post #95 does not answer this question

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.

Would you be kind enough to answer it with a reply rather than a reference?

 

[Beleth]

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

So, no evidence then?

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

You disagree with this?

Why would I disagree with a statement which proves my point?

A baby cannot distinguish between magic and reality.
A baby has evidence of a powerful being taking care of it.
Therefore a baby believes in a powerful being which it does not recognize as a reality-based being.
Therefore the baby is an undeclared theist.

What part of that do you find incomprehensible?

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).

As I mentioned before, this is irrelevant in this discussion. We are discussing whether babies can be said to believe in God, not whether anyone is claiming to have evidence of God.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why would I disagree with a statement which proves my point?

A baby cannot distinguish between magic and reality.
A baby has evidence of a powerful being taking care of it.
Therefore a baby believes in a powerful being which it does not recognize as a reality-based being.
Therefore the baby is an undeclared theist.

What part of that do you find incomprehensible?

For your contention to be true, it requires that theists cannot distinguish between magic and reality.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For your contention to be true, it requires that theists cannot distinguish between magic and reality.

I don't believe that interpretation is correct. I believe Beleth is saying:
P1: If a being can not differentiate between reality and magic, then the being will view an experience as being, at least in part, magical.
P2: Babies can not differentiate between reality and magic.
C: Therefore, babies can will view an experience as being, at least in part, magical.

Whereas, your restatement is saying:
P1: If a being can not differentiate between reality and magic, then the being will view an experience as being, at least in part, magical.
P2: Only an inability to differentiate between reality and magic will lead to an experience being viewed, at least in part, as magical.
P3: Babies and theists have views that are, at least in part, magical.
C: Babies and theists can not differentiate between reality and magic.

OR your restatement is saying:
P1: If a being can not differentiate between reality and magic, then the being will view an experience as being, at least in part, magical.
P2: Babies and theists have views that are, at least in part, magical.
C: Babies and theists can not differentiate between reality and magic.

Which would be affirming the consequent, so I will assume you are saying the former and not the latter.

 

[Tricky]

For your contention to be true, it requires that theists cannot distinguish between magic and reality.

(Pssst. Claus. God is a magical being. Theists believe he is real. Didn't you read the notes?)

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't believe that interpretation is correct. I believe Beleth is saying:
P1: If a being can not differentiate between reality and magic, then the being will view an experience as being, at least in part, magical.
P2: Babies can not differentiate between reality and magic.
C: Therefore, babies can will view an experience as being, at least in part, magical.

(Pssst. Claus. God is a magical being. Theists believe he is real. Didn't you read the notes?)

Do theists believe that everything is magical?

 

[Tricky]

Do theists believe that everything is magical?

What? Now you want to prove that someone must believe everything is magical in order to have magical beliefs?

BTW, a great many theists do believe this. Just ask them where God is. Some will tell you "God is in everything".

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

It isn't "childish" to recognize your little game, which your self defeating construct is from the OP, and describe it as such. Your semantic game is the one in which you set up a self-defeating argument based on attempting to redefine a term. Pmckean rubbished your OP with his post #137 , and Arkane Wolfshade challenged it in post #130. You have been caught crafting a premise that is built on BS.

It isn't "running away" to observe that most points worth being made, beyond my contribution on agnostic being a more accurate description, had already been made and hardly need repeating by me.

Why are you offended, to the point of tossing out a childish ad hom, when someone notes that the emperor is not wearing any clothes?

Glass houses and stones, EG.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

What? Now you want to prove that someone must believe everything is magical in order to have magical beliefs?

No. If theists (adult) can distinguish between magic and reality, then babies cannot be called undeclared theists.

BTW, a great many theists do believe this. Just ask them where God is. Some will tell you "God is in everything".

Is it the definition of a theist that he cannot distinguish between magic and reality?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do theists believe that everything is magical?

Allow me to highlight a part of my post that you appear to have overlooked:

I don't believe that interpretation is correct. I believe Beleth is saying:
P1: If a being can not differentiate between reality and magic, then the being will view an experience as being, [highlight]at least in part[/highlight], magical.
P2: Babies can not differentiate between reality and magic.
C: Therefore, babies can will view an experience as being, [highlight]at least in part[/highlight], magical.

 

[CFLarsen]

I saw it. Hence, my question.

Babies cannot be undeclared theists.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. If theists (adult) can distinguish between magic and reality, then babies cannot be called undeclared theists.



Is it the definition of a theist that he cannot distinguish between magic and reality?

Are you contending that the definition of theist must include the ability to distinguish between magic and reality?

Consider:
ex 1. An adult Christian has been raised to believe in an afterlife. The adult in question has no evidence to support this belief. This belief is magical thinking.

ex 2. An adult aborginee has no knowledge of gravity. The adult in question attributes things falling down as being the result of an invisible hand pulling them to the ground. This belief is also magical thinking, but is the result of a lack of knowledge concerning the force involved.

Both examples show people with theistic beliefs. Neither relies upon the decernment between magic and reality to derive those beliefs.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I saw it. Hence, my question.

Babies cannot be undeclared theists.

If you saw it, then why did you change the element of "partial" to "all encompassing"?

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you contending that the definition of theist must include the ability to distinguish between magic and reality?

Let's try again:

If theists (adult) can distinguish between magic and reality, then babies cannot be called undeclared theists.

If you saw it, then why did you change the element of "partial" to "all encompassing"?

I didn't.

Do you understand the above point?

 

[Tricky]

No. If theists (adult) can distinguish between magic and reality, then babies cannot be called undeclared theists.

Can you give evidence that babies can never distinguish between magic and reality? C'mon Claus. You should know better than to speak in absolutes.

Is it the definition of a theist that he cannot distinguish between magic and reality?

That is a characteristic of theists. For at least some things, they cannot distinguish between magic and reality.

By the way, are you ever going to answer my question?
When in the sequence between zygote and baby do you think it becomes correct to call the organism an atheist?

No, you haven't answered it, so don't reference me to an earlier post.

 

[Beleth]

Do theists believe that everything is magical?

Everything to which a nonmagical reason is unknown to them, perhaps.

"My cancer's in remission! It's a miracle."
"God has truly blessed me with such happy, healthy children."
"I have a video where the sun is a black spot! Truly the Virgin Mary was visiting us that day."

Babies have no nonmagical reason for a great many things, including their parents.

"That big smiling face is offering me food again!"

Therefore babies are undeclared theists.