Are newborn babies atheist?

[ehcks]

,- Yes, but That doesn't make me automatically an "Anti-badger" or an "ABadger" if you prefer.

Yes. Yes it does. I am an a-badger, because I am not a badger.

I am an a-fairy-ist because I do not believe in fairies.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in a god.

A human baby is also all three of the above.

 

[Irony]

This discussion is silly, one of the silliest I've seen in R&P. Of course newborn babies are "atheist"; they're completely unaware of the existence of the "God question", let alone able to believe one exists.

I'm a bit more interested in the point behind the question. What difference does it make if newborn babies are or are not atheists?

The point behind the question lies in bigotry. The notion some people have of atheists as angry people who "hate god" and other such bigoted notions is difficult to maintain under the knowledge that the word applies to those whom they find it difficult to dehumanize.

Obviously, such people are far more inclined to resort to reality denial than to reevaluate their prejudice.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Nobody claimed to be doing Atheism a great service. It's simply the way it is. What service do you think you are doing Atheism by denying reality for political end?



.- The way it is? Political ends?

You are taking a perfectly GOOD definition which is a perfect fit for the stance or views of most (if not all) Atheists in the world, which is:

WE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GODS (regardless of the reasons why)

and, using semantic juggling, etymological and grammatical "Ad Libitum" interpretations, distortions and mistakes, (among other dubious resources) you are transforming it into a meaningless state of inertia.

No, we are taking an existing definition of a word and using it to answer a question.

'Are newborns atheists?' - Well, yes, they are technically. So what?

The simple fact of the matter is that the term 'atheist' covers a broad spectrum of possibilities from newborn baby to Christopher Hitchens.

This is basically what the word "LACK' means (from dictionary.com and please don't distort it):

LACK:

noun
1.
deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
2.
something missing or needed: After he left, they really felt the lack.
verb (used with object)
3.
to be without or deficient in: to lack ability; to lack the necessities of life.
4.
to fall short in respect of: "He lacks three votes to win."
verb (used without object)
5.
to be absent or missing, as something needed or desirable: "Three votes are lacking to make a majority."

My question:

You CAN'T believe in gods due to a deficiency (lack of belief) OR, simply, you DON'T believe in gods

That's not a question.

According to this meaningless and irrelevant redefinition, Atheism is no longer a view, an opinion, a position or a stance BUT a mere a psychological state which is shared by people who can hold various views or can't hold no views at all due to intellectual incapacity., like a baby, a dog a plant, or even a ROCK.

And I don't find the "Atheist stance" of a ROCK precisely meaningful.

Well, no. That's one of many possible situations which can can be labelled as atheist. I don't care if you find it meaningful. Rocks and babies don't have any stance...that doesn't mean they aren't atheist.

You are also using poor resources to sustain this folly, like UNTESTABLE evidence (A baby's opinion) and unreliable, UNFALSIFIABLE data (an hypothetical, imaginary Human with zero knowledge about gods, deities, who has never been in contact with any kind of Supernatural belief) and, What's worse, you are assuming that this imaginary person will answer "I don't believe in gods ", instead of the most logical expected answer, which is:

WHAT IS A GOD?

In other words, you are suggesting a person with zero knowledge about something will automatically answer NO when asked if he believes in that something, instead of asking what that something IS in the first place.
You are not describing an Atheist, you are describing a perfect idiot.

Did you read my response when I explicitly agreed with you that one possible atheist response to the questions would be WTF is a God?

You are arguing with strawmen and simply repeating your tired assertions which have been proven over and over again to simply lack validity.

And all this for what?

Exactly my question to you. Why do you need the term atheist to be a political weapon? Its merely a descriptor. It's no more important a question than 'are bananas a fruit?'

This re-definition is absolutely irrelevant to Atheism and has ZERO value as an argument. in a debate with a theist.

[

Well yes we agree on that line at least. However, words are not defined with the purpose of having value in a debate with a theist. The re-definition seems to be happening on your part.

Actually it can easily backfires on you.

Reality is reality regardless of whether it helps or hinders my position.

Statements like “Babies are atheist” might sound funny or clever upon cursory inspection, but when you actually get down to it, they’re rather childish and DETRIMENTAL for those who use them and to the cause they support. Such phrases are easily deconstructed and therefore are bad arguments. Using them most likely will make you look pretty dumb when you are debating against any half-competent religious apologist.

And, NO, it doesn't "shift" the fact that the theist's claim of a supernatural god with magical powers is an extraordinary claim and requires substantial evidence if it is to be logically believed. The burden of proof is on the theist regardless of the definition of the word "atheist". We simply don't believe in their claims and they still don't have evidence for it.

So don't use the argument that babies are atheist in a debate with a theist then. I haven't seen anyone here try to do that in this thread.

Anyway, with this dubious (at best) irrelevant, meaningless and detrimental "redefinition" or the redefinition of this redefinition, An atheist, when asked if he believes in god, is gonna give this answer invariably:

NO

And babies won't say squat, as usual.

.

Well yes if you assume your conclusion then you are right.

But you contradict yourself - atheists won't invariably say No if babies don't say no and are atheists (which they are by definition)

,- Yes, but That doesn't make me automatically an "Anti-badger" or an "ABadger" if you prefer.

It makes you not a badger. Just like atheists are 'not a theist'

Just because there are only 2 positions doesn't make it a false dilemma You are either a badger or you are not. You are either Chinese or you are not. You are either over 6' tall or you are not. You either believe in a god or you don't.

.- WOW!! You are using TERRIBLE analogies:

First and foremost, "not being an badger" is not a SINGLE position, let alone LIMITED: You can be a Rat, a desk, a book, a planet, a pile of pooh, a palm, a fox, a Microbe, etc AD INFINITUM.

Can rats, books and desks also be badgers? if not then they constitute the single group 'not a badger'

This is idiocy. Presumably in your book Toyotas are not 'cars' they are Toyotas. You can't refer to 'animals' because they are tigers, lions, camels, etc not animals?

Second: A false dilemma (also called false Dichotomy) involves a situation in which only TWO ALTERNATIVES are considered (usually contradictory positions), when in fact there is at least one additional option:

The correct Analogy of your bad example:


"You are either over 6' tall or you are not"


Would be something like this, in order to be a false dilemma:


"You are either over 6' tall or you are a dwarf" (You can be a mid sized person o simply, not so tall but not necessarily a dwarf)

or

You are either Left wing or right wing (You can be center, neutral, indifferent)

or

"You either believe in god or you don't" (you can be agnostic, neutral, ignorant or simply indifferent)

Definition of DILEMMA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma

Well yes if you create false dilemmas then they are false. However notice that my example was noticeably different to the crap you gave as examples. You seem to object to the idea that you can group things that aren't something together as 'not that thing'. I think thats your entire problem with the word atheist and why you want to redefine it.

 

[Minarvia]

*turns off lurker mode*
Charlie Brown, I appreciate your efforts in this thread, I really do. But all of your questions have been answered, especially the main one - are newborn babies atheists.

Maybe it's time for you to say, "Good grief" if you like and just go home. Almost nothing you say makes any real or practical sense and continuing on in the same vein over and over is accomplishing nothing if you aren't prepared to actually think on the responses that have been so kindly and repeatedly given to you out of endless patience.

 

[Charlie Brown]

No, we are taking an existing definition of a word and using it to answer a question.

.- That's the main problem of your ludicrous claim:
"Lack of belief" is not a "existing" definition.
This is the existing definition, accepted by every single reputable Dictionary, Academy, Encyclopedia, Philosopher and most Atheists:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

And so on.

Actually "lack of belief" is not even a definition, it's just an idea proposed long time ago by some Atheists and philosophers (Flew, among others) and it has a name: IMPLICIT ATHEISM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

And, from the start, has been contradicted and refuted by most atheists, discarded by almost every single Philosophers worldwide (because is of no epistemological relevance), and remains unaccepted by most language academy because is ridiculously broad, irrelevant and has no grammatical neither etymological justification.

To say "ATHEISM" means "lack of belief in gods" is as incorrect and etymologically arbitrary as saying "AMORAL" means "lack of belief in morals"


And this won't change.

Therefore, until the unlikely event of this redefinition could ever be accepted, you are using an incorrect and unaccepted definition.


Also, if you want to promote this idea, at least use the correct term:

IMPLICIT ATHEISM




Did you read my response when I explicitly agreed with you that one possible atheist response to the questions would be WTF is a God?


.- Does this answer (WTF is a God?) means a position or a stance?


And what if this "imaginary guy with zero knowledge of the supernatural" answered "Yes"?

Read this:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/110513.html

And before you or somebody say something dumb, Like a " this a theist and biased conspiracy made up by the Vatican" have in mind this study " does "not set out to prove god or gods exist."

It only proves humans have a tendency to believe and embrace Supernatural crap. That's it. And, by simple observation and as much as I hate the idea, I "tend" to agree with it

OH, Please!! Just take a look around and see how persistent and extended supernatural and superstitious crap is (and has been throughout human history.

Even in the most secular and advanced countries in the world we still are a minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I hope this change, but it won't happen with ludicrous re-definitions.



Why do you need the term atheist to be a political weapon?

OH, Yes!! Because, like most atheist, I'd like this world to be free of religion and superstitions, and YES, I do care about Atheism public image and general perception.

Example: "The majority of the National Academy of Sciences is atheist" is a fact I like a lot.

But it's 100% irrelevant to atheism and has zero value as epistemological argument.

But, at least, it makes for Atheism's public perception.

In other words, you are TRYING (fruitlessly) to destroy a perfect definition, using bad grammar and worse logic, a term which accurately describes my stance and YOURS, just to make Atheism meaningless and silly.





[Reality is reality regardless of whether it helps or hinders my position.

.- Well, part of this reality is that you are using an incorrect and widely unaccepted definition.





So don't use the argument that babies are atheist in a debate with a theist then. I haven't seen anyone here try to do that in this thread.

.- What argument? "babies are atheist" is not an argument.

And Please, don't push the idea to have babies (or dogs) included as Atheists in serious demographic POLLS or STUDIES. That would make Atheists serious contenders to the "IDIOT OF THE CENTURY AWARD".




"Presumably in your book Toyotas are not 'cars' they are Toyotas.

.- Wow...




Well yes if you create false dilemmas then they are false. However notice that my example was noticeably different to the crap you gave as examples. You seem to object to the idea that you can group things that aren't something together as 'not that thing'. I think thats your entire problem with the word atheist and why you want to redefine it.



.- I can't believe this.

"You can group things that aren't something together as 'not that thing"

.- That's PRECISELY why your claim is a fallacy. You are assuming that a "GROUP of things that aren't something" (Theists) are a "SINGLE something" (Atheists) and there is no other choice (Agnostics, indifferent, unaware, neither believe nor disbelieve, mentally incapacitated, etc)

This is other way to look at your "logic":

"All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog."

You are assuming that ANYTHING that is not a THEIST it's an ATHEIST.
ANYTHING that is not a Communist it's an Capitalist
ANYTHING that is not a Democrat it's an Republican.
ANYTHING that is not your friend it's your enemy.
ANYTHING that is not a SMART it's an IDIOT
ANYTHING that is not a THEIST it's an ATHEIST


You are ignoring there are other choices. Your premise is a genuine, pure breed False dilemma fallacy.

And what makes your false dilemma even worse is that is based on a FALSE PREMISE:

Atheism is "lack of believe"

 

[tsig]

,- Yes, but That doesn't make me automatically an "Anti-badger" or an "ABadger" if you prefer.

Here's a badger:


http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...5&p=badger+badger+badger+song&rs=0&fr2=rs-top

 

[Charlie Brown]

*turns off lurker mode*
Charlie Brown, I appreciate your efforts in this thread, I really do. But all of your questions have been answered, especially the main one - are newborn babies atheists.

.- Actually this thread was precisely and correctly answered in its second reply, several years ago.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Almost nothing you say makes any real or practical sense


.-. Yeah, right.

What makes sense is this incredibly smart, practical and meaningful assertion:

a ROCK is an ATHEIST.

But

The FACT that no reputable Dictionary, Academy, University, Encyclopedia, Philosophy Encyclopedias etc. NOT A SINGLE ONE has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist” is just false and ridiculous.

Yet another proof that Atheism and Reason are not necessarily together.

Yes, you're right, it's time for me to go home.

Carry on with your futile and useless crusade to make Atheism look stupid.

It's your unalienable right.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Here's a badger:


http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...5&p=badger+badger+badger+song&rs=0&fr2=rs-top

.- I perfectly know what a badger is. That's why I put "" to make the analogy.

 

[The Norseman]

To say "ATHEISM" means "lack of belief in gods" is as incorrect and etymologically arbitrary as saying "AMORAL" means "lack of belief in morals"

Atheism means exactly what I and others have said it means: without theism. Just as amoral means without morality.

I would address many of your other faults with your past few posts, but I'm afraid you'll hyperventilate* when creating another colorful, ranting screed in response.


















*Root word "vent" is derived from the Latin "ventus", meaning air or wind and "hyper" from the Greek meaning "over".

 

[Charlie Brown]

Atheism means exactly what I and others have said it means: without theism. Just as amoral means without morality.

I would address many of your other faults with your past few posts, but I'm afraid you'll hyperventilate* when creating another colorful, ranting screed in response.

.- Well Nope, this is the definition of Atheism:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

And the Etymology

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

Others:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

Atheism, defined.

"a + theos, denying god"
- Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

"Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being"
- Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion

I could give you more but life's short

And, NO, is not the definition I like, is the definition of Atheism, the one you'll find in any reputable Dictionary Encyclopedia, Academy, etc

I have yet to find a definition of atheism that doesn't describe it as active quality, yet you continue to assert your claim despite any evidence.


Now, you have three choices:

1) You gonna ignore completely this fact, like others.
2) You are gonna say something dumb like dictionaries encyclopedias, Academies, etc.are biased theist's controlled corporations paid by churches, etc (much like as the gigantic government conspiracy to cover-up UFO landings.)
3) You simply want to give Atheism a definition you like, because this one doesn't fit your "revision" of Atheism (Albeit, the "current official" definition fits your atheist stance perfectly).

Tell me, what will it be?


This is getting really boring


And, I would address more of your other faults with your past few posts, but I'm really tired of repeating myself. And you won't understand anyway.

SO, PEOPLE

Just read this whole thread from the start and look how this "re-definition" was refuted and, also, look how many Atheists disagrees with this ludicrous concept.

Because, HOT NEWS! Many atheists don't agree with this

You will never, ever hear ridiculous crap like this "babies are atheists" from someone like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitch or the likes.

And for me, that's more than enough. Atheism is still safe

 

[Mick Houlahan]

You aren't a theist until you believe in gods. If you have no belief in gods, you are an atheist. A baby doesn't pop out as a theist any more than it pops out as a Republican.

 

[Irony]

Almost nothing you say makes any real or practical sense


.-. Yeah, right.

What makes sense is this incredibly smart, practical and meaningful assertion:

a ROCK is an ATHEIST.

But

The FACT that no reputable Dictionary, Academy, University, Encyclopedia, Philosophy Encyclopedias etc. NOT A SINGLE ONE has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist” is just false and ridiculous.

Yet another proof that Atheism and Reason are not necessarily together.

Yes, you're right, it's time for me to go home.

Carry on with your futile and useless crusade to make Atheism look stupid.

It's your unalienable right.

Charlie, you have been shown dictionaries that use that definition. Saying that there are none now is therefore a deliberate lie on your part.

Don't try to bring others into your argument either when they haven't made their position clear. Of course Dawkins etc. probably wouldn't say babies are atheists out of nowhere, because it's not a meaningful statement. Similarly people don't go around saying that babies are unemployed, but it is nonetheless technically true.

Now for another question, why do you care?

My assumption is that you care because you have prejudices towards atheists (not necessarily negative) that are violated by the realization that "atheist" is not a meaningful label under all circumstances. Going against prejudice is not, however, a valid objection to much of anything.

If this is not the case, then please explain your hostile behavior towards how we define the term.

 

[Minarvia]

Charlie Brown - That's the main problem of your ludicrous claim:
"Lack of belief" is not a "existing" definition.

- Nor is exactly how one feels after a bowel movement. So?

Charlie Brown - Actually this thread was precisely and correctly answered in its second reply, several years ago.

- Yes, so why keep on with this thread?

 

[The Norseman]

<snip>

By the way, I don't identify as an athiest, I'm an igtheist, so the "proper" definition of atheist doesn't really matter to me in most respects.

I'm just here to correct your argument by dictionary and perhaps give you something to ponder: what if the dictionaries got it wrong a few hundred years ago and continue to print mis-definitions to this very day? I mean, how hard can it possibly be? 'Atheist' means 'without theism' and 'theism' means 'a belief in a god or gods'.

You've really not said anything that's any different than we have; your captiousness is a tad grating so... moving right along...

 

[The Norseman]

If this is not the case, then please explain your hostile behavior towards how we define the term.

I've asked three times already for a succinct* one sentence statement of what exactly he is saying and he hasn't yet deigned to post anything, so -- good luck with that.






























*early 15th century., "having one's belt fastened tightly," from Middle French succincte, from Latin succinctus "prepared, ready, contracted, short," past participle of succingere "tuck up (clothes for action), gird from below," from sub "up from under" (see sub-) + cingere "to gird". Sense of "brief, concise" first recorded early 15th century.

 

[Aridas]

I'm a bit tired, so I'll limit my comments significantly.

.- What argument? "babies are atheist" is not an argument.

And Please, don't push the idea to have babies (or dogs) included as Atheists in serious demographic POLLS or STUDIES. That would make Atheists serious contenders to the "IDIOT OF THE CENTURY AWARD".

That only screams poisoning the well, there. I'm fairly sure that no one here would support that idea, regardless, for a number of reasons. Perhaps you should seek to remove your emotions from your judgement?

.- I can't believe this.

Incredulity serves neither you nor others.

"You can group things that aren't something together as 'not that thing"

.- That's PRECISELY why your claim is a fallacy. You are assuming that a "GROUP of things that aren't something" (Theists) are a "SINGLE something" (Atheists) and there is no other choice (Agnostics, indifferent, unaware, neither believe nor disbelieve, mentally incapacitated, etc)

Not a fallacy in the least, so long as the concepts in question are not being conflated. You've yet to demonstrate that they are actually being conflated, for that matter.

This is other way to look at your "logic":

"All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog."

Mildly amusing, but completely incorrect comparison. Try rechecking your logic, again, without letting your emotions and desires overcome your judgement?

 

[Minarvia]

Not all dogs have fur -

http://www.petside.com/article/5-unique-hairless-dog-breeds

 

[Wildling]

I would like to suggest that the whole of existence is like a quantum computer and God both exists and not exists, and babies are both theists and atheists at the same time.

 

[dafydd]

I would like to suggest that the whole of existence is like a quantum computer and God both exists and not exists, and babies are both theists and atheists at the same time.

I would like to suggest that as the plot for an SF novel. How could quantum processes affect a macroscopic object such as a baby? I suspect that you are using the word quantum in its new age woo sense. Please correct if I am wrong and you are just being flippant.