Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

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.

Yes, and I am saying, in post #176, that, in the second case, the position isn't considered.

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

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

James Alcock has an excellent article on the Belief Engine here.

Steve Paulson's article can be found here.

Shermer also describes "the Belief Engine" in in detail in his book "How We Believe".

Haven't you heard of this before?

 

[Beleth]

James Alcock has an excellent article on the Belief Engine here.

Steve Paulson's article can be found here.

Shermer also describes "the Belief Engine" in in detail in his book "How We Believe".

Thanks! I'll have to go read them.

Haven't you heard of this before?

Nope! I'm glad we have this opportunity to learn from each other.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, and I am saying, in post #176, that, in the second case, the position isn't considered.

Exactly, so like I say in post #276, you have (at least) two mutually contradictory descriptions of atheists. Those for whom atheism is a considered position and those for whom atheism is the absence of a considered position.

You see, Claus, that is the problem when you discuss something that is purely semantical. Various posters have shown (yes, I know you won't agree) that babies can be considered atheist or theist, or that the words atheism and theism do apply to entities that are incapable of considering the, or that they don't apply to those entities. You can make a semantical case for either. EGarette's position that it is perfectly correct to call zygotes or rocks "atheist" is also one for which a semantical case can be made, but even you agree that is "silly". At least, though, he is consistant.

So the question, I think, comes down to, "which do you choose to use?" When I face a semantical question, I usually choose to go with the one that is the most clear, common usage. To call babies "atheist" is not clear, because it suggests that babies have rejected belief in god, which is obviously not true. I would be willing to bet that if you took a sample of new parents and asked them if their newborn were an atheist, they would overwhelmingly say "no" (probably while looking at you as if you were crazy), so it is not common either.

You have supported your contention that your position can be the only correct one with fallacious arguments (as pointed out by Beleth and others) and you have deliberately ignored repeated simple questions that were asked politely. You are not being "accurate" since a good argument can be made for either case. You are clinging to your own preferred semantics for reasons that I cannot understand. It is almost as if you wish to be misunderstood. Is it a martyr complex? Is it a badge of honor to be on more "ignore" lists than anyone else? Your behavior is perplexing.

 

[CFLarsen]

Exactly, so like I say in post #276, you have (at least) two mutually contradictory descriptions of atheists. Those for whom atheism is a considered position and those for whom atheism is the absence of a considered position.

No, I don't. Because it isn't AND, it is OR. They are two different situations. Not semantical at all.

That's what you are missing.

 

[EGarrett]

EGarette's position that it is perfectly correct to call zygotes or rocks "atheist" is also one for which a semantical case can be made, but even you agree that is "silly". At least, though, he is consistant.

Please explain to me why your main fear in adapting my point of view is getting compared to a "turd," but yet you call MY position silly?

 

[Tricky]

No, I don't. Because it isn't AND, it is OR. They are two different situations. Not semantical at all.

That's what you are missing.

No, I'm not missing that. Whether "AND" or "OR", they are still mutually contradicting definitions. You are essentially saying:

A = B

OR

A = not B

Sure, that's not impossible, but it sure does make it unclear what the value of A is.

 

[Tricky]

Please explain to me why your main fear in adapting my point of view is getting compared to a "turd," but yet you call MY position silly?

LOL. My main fear? No, my friend, my main fear is that your point of view promotes confusion, miscommunication, and could promote rancor (if you called some Christian's baby an atheist). I cannot fathom why you would insist on a point of view that would do that.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I'm not missing that. Whether "AND" or "OR", they are still mutually contradicting definitions. You are essentially saying:

A = B

OR

A = not B

Sure, that's not impossible, but it sure does make it unclear what the value of A is.

If they are not impossible, then they are not mutually contradicting each other.

And, for the last time: It is not the absence of a considered position. It is the absence of belief, period.

Don't change my argument and then claim I am wrong.

 

[EGarrett]

LOL. My main fear? No, my friend,

Did you or did you not attempt to argue that you were worried about getting referred to as having the same religious point of view as a turd?

my main fear is that your point of view promotes confusion, miscommunication, and could promote rancor (if you called some Christian's baby an atheist). I cannot fathom why you would insist on a point of view that would do that.

Actually, the argument you repeated to me was claiming that it was meaningless. We never got to the confusion point because you ignored my reply in favor of bickering with Claus and now apparently trying to cast aspersions on my point of view when you failed to show any problem with it.

As for the above point, if the etymology dictates one thing, then the meaning of atheist as rejecting God (there are multiple current meanings) is a misunderstanding. I'm entitled to pointing that out.

 

[Tricky]

And, for the last time: It is not the absence of a considered position. It is the absence of belief, period.

Are you telling me that beliefs are not considered positions? Can you give me some examples of these beliefs?

 

[The Atheist]

It is almost as if you wish to be misunderstood. Is it a martyr complex? Is it a badge of honor to be on more "ignore" lists than anyone else? Your behavior is perplexing.

Not even close.

It's all about winning, when one's opinions are questioned.

The winner is the last person to post in the argument in question, which at this stage, appears to be down to you, Upchurch and Unter. I was going to join in, but haven't bothered, beyond a few sideline snipes, because it's a futile game. Unter's main only tactic is to BS around the points until the other team gives up through sheer tedium.

I cannot believe you and Upchurch have been around for as long as you have and hadn't seen that. Jesus, when the subject is guns, the evil in/of America, the detruction of casinos in USA, or my personal information, Unter is a clone of one those hideously badly-trained fox terriers old ladies sometimes own. If you're unfortunate enough to make into the house, it will grab the bottom of your trousers and refuse to let go. Of course, you can't just kick it across the room - the old lady will probably drop dead of a heart attack seeing her best buddy smash into a wall at 150 kph. So you spend five minutes getting dog saliva all over crushed fingers to rescue a pair of totally-ruined $200 trousers.

Stay outside.

 

[Tricky]

Did you or did you not attempt to argue that you were worried about getting referred to as having the same religious point of view as a turd?

No, I used that as an example of the kind of rancor that can occur if you attempt to force a confusing meaning of a word onto a person who might resent your implications.

Actually, the argument you repeated to me was claiming that it was meaningless. We never got to the confusion point because you ignored my reply in favor of bickering with clause and now apparently trying to cast aspersions on my point of view when you failed to show any problem with it.

Okay, it is not meaningless. It has meaning, but so very little that it is doesn't justify the potential confusion it causes. I did say your position was more consistant that Claus', since he changes between "silly" and "non-silly" for labeling unthinking things as "atheist".

I still say that calling a rock atheist is silly and would confuse, and possibly insult people.

As for the above point, if the etymology dictates one thing, then the meaning of atheist as rejecting God (there are multiple current meanings) is a misunderstanding. I'm entitled to pointing that out.

Yes, it is one thing to point it out. It is another entirely to start using non-standard definitions.

 

[Tricky]

Of course, you can't just kick it across the room - the old lady will probably drop dead of a heart attack seeing her best buddy smash into a wall at 150 kph.

You can kick a dog at 150 kph??!!


I'm impressed. I can't even throw an atheist a rock that fast.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you telling me that beliefs are not considered positions? Can you give me some examples of these beliefs?

Look at post #176.

Lack of belief.

 

[Upchurch]

It is the absence of belief, period.

Evidence points to the contrary.

And you're right. I did misuse the term "strawman" in my previous post. I mislabeled your "non-sequitur game" as a "straw man game". My mistake.

Now, try considering what I said.



The Atheist: I know. I know.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence points to the contrary.

How so?

 

[The Atheist]

The Atheist: I know. I know.

Yet you keep coming back, You UU guys are that inclusive, eh?

It's kind of like how I feel about fishing for conger eels - horrifically difficult, but sometimes you just get the urge to battle one. More tricks than Randi, slipperier than a hooker at 4 am, fight the gaff harder than a mako and when you've worn yourself out killing the damn thing, you give it away to the local Maori because it's inedible.

 

[Tricky]

...you give it away to the local Maori because it's inedible.

What do the Maori do with it?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm wondering what the causal arrow is.

Do babies believe like atheists, or do atheists have the mind of babies?

What did the original poster intend?

 

[Faithkills]

Do babies believe like atheists, or do atheists have the mind of babies?

Uncorrupted by delusion? Excellent assessment.