Are newborn babies atheist?

[Seismosaurus]

But you would not use "non-luminous" to describe something unless there is some reason you might expect it to be luminous. You wouldn't say "he ate some non-luminous turkey necks". It would add nothing to the point you were trying to make. Sure, turkey necks are non-luminous, but so what? Similarly, speaking of "atheist rocks" adds nothing useful to the depiction of the rocks.

Oh come on, there are all sorts of properties that we don't habitually list. Nobody says "pass the carbon-based turkey necks" or "pass the non-radioactive turkey necks" - but these are not useless terms. The fact remains that if somebody asked me to list every property of turkey necks I could think of, non-luminous would certainly feature along with shape, texture, colour, etc - because it is a descriptive term.

Weak Atheism is similar. It

I still disagree. I think atheism, weak or strong, is a philosophical position and it is incorrect (and useless) to assign a philosophical position to an entity incapable of holding one.

In a sense it's NOT a philosophical position, though. It's a lack of one. That's a large part of the point of the distinction - that weak atheism is the default. It's not something you have to prove or justify.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Indeed. In fact, since so much of the population of the world is theistic, and since the notion of theism had to come from somewhere -- it's not a notion that one without an inclination towards it would have just come up with, therefore whoever came up with it probably had an inclination, a "hard-wiring", if you will, toward it -- then it's actually more evidence-based to take theism as the default position.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that some evidence suggests that magical thinking is the norm; that critical thinking must be learned; and that an outgrowth of this combination is a proclivity for theism.

 

[Seismosaurus]

But you would not use "non-luminous" to describe something unless there is some reason you might expect it to be luminous. You wouldn't say "he ate some non-luminous turkey necks". It would add nothing to the point you were trying to make. Sure, turkey necks are non-luminous, but so what? Similarly, speaking of "atheist rocks" adds nothing useful to the depiction of the rocks.

Oh come on, there are all sorts of properties that we don't habitually list. Nobody says "pass the carbon-based turkey necks" or "pass the non-radioactive turkey necks" - but these are not useless terms. The fact remains that if somebody asked me to list every property of turkey necks I could think of, non-luminous would certainly feature along with shape, texture, colour, etc - because it is a descriptive term.

Weak Atheism is similar. It describes people. True it describes them by what they lack, but so what? It's still descriptive.

I still disagree. I think atheism, weak or strong, is a philosophical position and it is incorrect (and useless) to assign a philosophical position to an entity incapable of holding one.

In a sense it's NOT a philosophical position, though. It's a lack of one. That's a large part of the point of the distinction - that weak atheism is the default. It's not something you have to prove or justify.

 

[Upchurch]

I have repeatedly said that this is argument vs. argument. Thus, no double standard.

"Thus"? Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You can, and do, apply a double standard to an "argument vs. argument", as I have pointed out numerous times now.

You need to either support this claim or retract it.

Again, there is nothing in the mainstream consensus definition that exclude undeclared atheists as atheists.

You can repeat the non sequitur logical fallacy all you like, it does not make it a valid argument. Nor does it support your claim that infants are atheists.

Only in the case where the baby has to make a conscious, informed choice.

If not, why not? Support your claim.

What logical fallacies?

I just outlined three of them in my last post. You repeated one of them as well as an additional one in the post I'm responding to now. Are you really unable to identify logical fallacies, or are you only unable to identify them when you commit them?

Either way, you need to better familiarize yourself with them. I recommend starting here and/or here. It would not hurt to read a little about how logic and reason work, too. I had a book I recommended to lifegazer when he was having similar problems that you are having now. I'll see if I can remember which book.

 

[Beleth]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that some evidence suggests that magical thinking is the norm; that critical thinking must be learned; and that an outgrowth of this combination is a proclivity for theism.

I'll accept that. It still sounds like it makes the null hypothesis something besides atheism, which was my point.

 

[Tricky]

Oh come on, there are all sorts of properties that we don't habitually list. Nobody says "pass the carbon-based turkey necks" or "pass the non-radioactive turkey necks" - but these are not useless terms.

While I agree they are not technically incorrect, they would be useless for describing turkey necks under any but the most bizarre of circumstances, therefore, it would be silly to use them.

The fact remains that if somebody asked me to list every property of turkey necks I could think of, non-luminous would certainly feature along with shape, texture, colour, etc - because it is a descriptive term.

Listing everything it is not? You consider that a useful way to describe something? You cannot be serious. Now I can think of a few things that you might want to list as "not" like non-bony turkey necks or non-fat turkey necks, because fatty and bony is something that turkey necks generally are, so using this negative to describe them actually supplies useful information. It supplies no useful information to describe a turkey neck as "non-luminous" or a baby as "non-god-believing".

Weak Atheism is similar. It describes people. True it describes them by what they lack, but so what? It's still descriptive.

Actually, Weak Atheism is useful as a descriptor if you are describing a person who believes there is no evidence for god, but it is not useful as a descriptor for a person (or rock or zygote) who is incapable of conceiving of god. In the former case it is describing one common variation of the philosophical position of a sentient being. In the latter case, it is not describing a philosophical position or a sentient being. That would be silly.

In a sense it's NOT a philosophical position, though. It's a lack of one. That's a large part of the point of the distinction - that weak atheism is the default. It's not something you have to prove or justify.

I think you would have a hard time defending the contention that atheism, in any form, is anything other than a philosophical position.

 

[Paulhoff]

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

The bottom line is, they can't, magic is not just the man on the stage for them.

Paul

 

[newlyfound]

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

They list that because they expect it to earn them extra points in the recruiting process as they are conditioned to. I am curious as to how you react to those particular ones.

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

For the sake of political correctness, you won't. A cv is one's politically correct profile.

 

[The Atheist]

They list that because they expect it to earn them extra points in the recruiting process as they are conditioned to. I am curious as to how you react to those particular ones.

The funny thing is, here in New Zealand, showing a religion is more likely to turn people off than on.

For the sake of political correctness, you won't. A cv is one's politically correct profile.

Ditto the above, plus we are the only country with an openly atheist/agnostic Prime Minister, so it isn't as though lots of Kiwis think atheists are the spawn of Satan. (unfortunately)

 

[CFLarsen]

I have said before that it wasn't precluded (see post #10). I have said it is pointless or silly to call atheism "the default position". It adds nothing to our understanding of athiesm.

That's exactly what it does: It tells us that atheism isn't merely a reaction to religious beliefs.

Sure, you are not precluded from calling babies acynical, astoic, ahegelian, or adarwinian, but it is ludicrous to do so because it doesn't mean that they have ever considered those philosophies.

Again, you assume that atheism must be a conscious decision. It doesn't have to be.

Claus, you agree that it is silly to call zygotes atheist, but you disagree that it is silly to call babies atheists. What I want you to explain is your criteria for determining when it is silly. I have told you mine. It is a whole sentence long.

Not when someone has asked me a direct and simple question, sort of like the one I am now answering for you. I think it is the quite rude to respond to a question by indicating you will not answer the question, especially when the question requires only a short answer. All I have asked is what you think. You do know what you think, don't you? Are your thoughts so complex that you cannot possibly explain them to us?

We are discussing babies, and whether they can be atheists or not.

Indeed. In fact, since so much of the population of the world is theistic, and since the notion of theism had to come from somewhere -- it's not a notion that one without an inclination towards it would have just come up with, therefore whoever came up with it probably had an inclination, a "hard-wiring", if you will, toward it -- then it's actually more evidence-based to take theism as the default position.

Not with our knowledge of how people become religious. We are not hardwired for religion, but for trying to make sense of what our senses tell us: Sometimes, it is beneficial, evolution-wise, to believe that magic prevented us from being eaten by lions. Sometimes, it isn't: E.g., when we are exploited by magicians, who control us for their own benefit.

If you want to go with the "hardwired" solution, you have to use the right one.

Unfortunately, the definition you are attempting to use is countered by Christian Fundamentalists who routinely state how every event, positive or negative, is the "will of God". Additionally, the above is post hoc rationalization on your part and it does not substantiate your claim that someone must be able to discern between magical thinking and reality in order to be a theist.

Fortunately, theists are not all Christian Fundamentalists.

"Thus"? Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You can, and do, apply a double standard to an "argument vs. argument", as I have pointed out numerous times now.

You need to either support this claim or retract it.

Yes, it follows. I am not the one who claims this can be determined by evidence. You are.

You can repeat the non sequitur logical fallacy all you like, it does not make it a valid argument. Nor does it support your claim that infants are atheists.

What, exactly, in the mainstream consensus definition excludes undeclared atheists as atheists?

If not, why not? Support your claim.

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying?

I just outlined three of them in my last post. You repeated one of them as well as an additional one in the post I'm responding to now. Are you really unable to identify logical fallacies, or are you only unable to identify them when you commit them?


Either way, you need to better familiarize yourself with them. I recommend starting here and/or here. It would not hurt to read a little about how logic and reason work, too. I had a book I recommended to lifegazer when he was having similar problems that you are having now. I'll see if I can remember which book.

If you want to claim confusion of logical fallacies, I really think you've picked the wrong guy.

While I agree they are not technically incorrect, they would be useless for describing turkey necks under any but the most bizarre of circumstances, therefore, it would be silly to use them.

If it is a question of the neck being carbon-based or not, the description is very much on the mark.

It supplies no useful information to describe a turkey neck as "non-luminous" or a baby as "non-god-believing".

If the question is, are babies atheists, it is very useful to describe a baby as such.

I think you would have a hard time defending the contention that atheism, in any form, is anything other than a philosophical position.

Only if you don't want to bring in the lack of evidence of a god.

 

[newlyfound]

The funny thing is, here in New Zealand, showing a religion is more likely to turn people off than on.

WoW! First, I didn't know that's where you are, I have a bad habit of tending to think that the "US covers the globe" when I am on the internet. Second, that is just too coool. You folks seem to be ahead of everyone else in that area! CHEERZ!

Ditto the above, plus we are the only country with an openly atheist/agnostic Prime Minister, so it isn't as though lots of Kiwis think atheists are the spawn of Satan. (unfortunately)

...what do you mean "unfortunately"? NZ seems to have a gift, as far as I am concerned.

And the question remains: why do applicants seem to "take pride" in bragging about their religious accomplishements if it's more likely to turn off their prospective recruiters?

 

[The Atheist]

WoW! First, I didn't know that's where you are, I have a bad habit of tending to think that the "US covers the globe" when I am on the internet. Second, that is just too coool. You folks seem to be ahead of everyone else in that area! CHEERZ!

We are actually the 155th state! Parts of Europe are further down the track as well, in terms of spurning christianity.

...what do you mean "unfortunately"? NZ seems to have a gift, as far as I am concerned.

No worries, that was a [weak] joke.

And the question remains: why do applicants seem to "take pride" in bragging about their religious accomplishements if it's more likely to turn off their prospective recruiters?

Frankly, because they're idiots.They are so full of pride in their accomplishment at being one of Jesus' personal friends that they just have to shout it out and be damned. Personally, I think it's great because it's easier to weed out the zealots and I do have a number of customers who genuinely do not employ "devout" christians. Highly illegal of course, which is why they pay me to hide it for them.

 

[Tricky]

Claus, you agree that it is silly to call zygotes atheist, but you disagree that it is silly to call babies atheists. What I want you to explain is your criteria for determining when it is silly. I have told you mine. It is a whole sentence long.

Not when someone has asked me a direct and simple question, sort of like the one I am now answering for you. I think it is the quite rude to respond to a question by indicating you will not answer the question, especially when the question requires only a short answer. All I have asked is what you think. You do know what you think, don't you? Are your thoughts so complex that you cannot possibly explain them to us?

We are discussing babies, and whether they can be atheists or not.

The question is directly relevant to the question of whether babies can be atheists or not, but you refuse to answer the question, regardlessly of how politely asked. I see. I think we all do.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it follows.

Prove it.

I am not the one who claims this can be determined by evidence. You are.

Claus, all debates are argument vs. argument. When a dowser claims they can find water underground and you say they can't, that is one argument vs. another. It is the support and evidence that each side provides that determines the truth of the matter.

Likewise, in philosophical debates, arguments can be supported or disproven based on supporting material and arguments. One of the simplest ways to disprove an argument is to show it has an internal inconsistency, as yours is having with this zygote to infant transition.

What, exactly, in the mainstream consensus definition excludes undeclared atheists as atheists?

I'm not playing your straw man game. We aren't talking about "undeclared atheists". We're talking about infants.

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying?

That is the most honest thing you've said in this thread.

You need to support the notion that a baby does not need to make a conscious decision.

If you want to claim confusion of logical fallacies, I really think you've picked the wrong guy.

That's the thing, Claus. You don't understand logical fallacies as well as you like to think. You commit them ...a lot. That's what I and others have been trying to tell you.

You do understand physical evidence, but that is about the limit of your scope. As the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When a situation arises that can not be determined by physical evidence, you assume that there is no definitive way to conclude which is true. This simply is simply not correct.

The ancient Greeks created a system of logic and reason to determine truth long before anyone embraced verification by physical evidence. That lack of verification led them to a number of incorrect conclusions, but despite that it also led them to a number of correct conclusions, especially in the field of mathematics.

You, however, have so embraced physical evidence, that you've dismissed the art of logical and reason as simply "argument vs. argument" where truth is determined by assertion and preference only. You make broad, logically unsupported claims and declared them to be true without presenting any sound reasoning behind them. You've rejected logically supported claim for no reason that I can see simply because they don't suit you.

I did not "pick the wrong guy" to point out your logical fallacies. I'm pointing them out because you are committing logical fallacies.

 

[CFLarsen]

Prove it.

If you can't see it, you can't see it. Maybe you won't?

Claus, all debates are argument vs. argument. When a dowser claims they can find water underground and you say they can't, that is one argument vs. another. It is the support and evidence that each side provides that determines the truth of the matter.

Likewise, in philosophical debates, arguments can be supported or disproven based on supporting material and arguments. One of the simplest ways to disprove an argument is to show it has an internal inconsistency, as yours is having with this zygote to infant transition.

Nonsense. We are talking about babies, not zygotes.

I'm not playing your straw man game. We aren't talking about "undeclared atheists". We're talking about infants.

And you lecture me on logical fallacies?

It is not a strawman. It is very much about the issue of this thread: Can babies be atheists? While there seems to be a general consensus of what a baby is, the discussion is about what an atheist is.

If you don't think that babies can be undeclared atheists, then you have to explain why. I have argued why they can.

You can't just say "wrong" and "strawman" all the time. You have to explain.

That is the most honest thing you've said in this thread.

You need to support the notion that a baby does not need to make a conscious decision.

For crying out loud, man: I have been doing that, in several posts: #176, for starters.

Take your time and read what I have said. Take your time and at least try to understand my point.

That's the thing, Claus. You don't understand logical fallacies as well as you like to think. You commit them ...a lot. That's what I and others have been trying to tell you.

And yet, others agree with me.

You do understand physical evidence, but that is about the limit of your scope. As the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When a situation arises that can not be determined by physical evidence, you assume that there is no definitive way to conclude which is true. This simply is simply not correct.

The ancient Greeks created a system of logic and reason to determine truth long before anyone embraced verification by physical evidence. That lack of verification led them to a number of incorrect conclusions, but despite that it also led them to a number of correct conclusions, especially in the field of mathematics.

You, however, have so embraced physical evidence, that you've dismissed the art of logical and reason as simply "argument vs. argument" where truth is determined by assertion and preference only. You make broad, logically unsupported claims and declared them to be true without presenting any sound reasoning behind them. You've rejected logically supported claim for no reason that I can see simply because they don't suit you.

I did not "pick the wrong guy" to point out your logical fallacies. I'm pointing them out because you are committing logical fallacies.

This, from someone who uses "strawman" wrongly.

 

[Tricky]

That's exactly what it does: It tells us that atheism isn't merely a reaction to religious beliefs.

So let me get this straight, Claus. You're telling us that atheism is, at the same time,

A) A specific, considered philosophical position

AND

B) The total absence of a considered philosophical position

Is it like the "boned" and "deboned" thing?

 

[CFLarsen]

So let me get this straight, Claus. You're telling us that atheism is, at the same time,

A) A specific, considered philosophical position

AND

B) The total absence of a considered philosophical position

No. B assumes that the position has to be considered.

See post #176. Again.

 

[Tricky]

No. B assumes that the position has to be considered.

See post #176. Again.

Well Claus, I've reread post #176 and it indicates indicates quite clearly that you do in fact consider both of those definitions correct.

Now you go back and read post #276. It clearly says that No. B is the ABSENCE of a considered position.

 

[Beleth]

Not with our knowledge of how people become religious.

We have knowledge of this? Excellent! Please provide the evidence that this knowledge springs from.

If you want to go with the "hardwired" solution, you have to use the right one.

I therefore await your evidence as to which one is the right one.

 

[Beleth]

And you lecture me on logical fallacies?

Only because it is necessary and warranted. Here are two more examples:

And yet, others agree with me.

This is an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

This, from someone who uses "strawman" wrongly.

This is a tu quoque logical fallacy.


Glad I could help.