• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are babies atheist?

A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Curious George said:
Nope. That would only entail defining those who claim to be atheists as atheists. The reverse is a logical error. Claiming that all not-a-theists are therefore atheists is bad logic if your reasoning is that all people who claim to be atheists are also not-a-theists.

Cheers
Click to expand...
All atheists are not theists. All not theists are therefore atheists.
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
All atheists are not theists. All not theists are therefore atheists.
Click to expand...

idav said:
We don't need 20 pages of it, sounds pretty simple.
Click to expand...
That depends on who you're talking to. There are schools of thought, even in academic philosophy, which separates nontheism and atheism, with the latter being under the former's umbrella but not being the same thing. In which case all atheists are not theists but all not theists are not atheists.
Nontheism - Wikipedia
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
ADigitalArtist said:
That depends on who you're talking to. There are schools of thought, even in academic philosophy, which separates nontheism and atheism, with the latter being under the former's umbrella but not being the same thing. In which case all atheists are not theists but all not theists are not atheists.
Nontheism - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I'm a nontheist myself but I am not a "not theist", if that makes any sense. Non-theism, with the umbrella aspect equates to "not your typical type of theism"
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
All atheists are not theists. All not theists are therefore atheists.
Click to expand...
If you state it in English, it makes more sense. Or, its 'no sense' is revealed (tautology), depending on how you look at it.

No atheists are theists; therefore, all atheists are atheists.
 
Last edited:
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
Protagoras was recognized as an atheist during the the second century AD. He was clearly agnostic. He was not recognized as an atheist in his day though. I assume the same word was around therefore atheos clealy included agnostic when it the word was being used. However, the word originally had no such meaning. As it was more frequently used in the godless/odious to the gods context. Either way it was definitely a position. If we want to delve into an analysis we can say that the original meaning did not include the stance of niether believing or disbelieving in gods. As protagoras is the prime example. However, i agree that prior the word atheos did at one point include the definition of agnostic.
Click to expand...
You say that the word originally had no such meaning, yet you also say it was "more frequently used in the godless/odious to the gods context." That is self contradictory. If it was used "more frequently" in the context you describe, it means that it was also (albeit less frequently) used to describe those who are merely without a belief in the existence of God/gods.
Curious George said:
Absolutely, words change. That is not the point. It is necessary to discuss the original meaning because that is the reasoning by which you and others have suggested that atheist defined as a person in the state of atheism, is better than atheist defined as a person who believes no god exists. If you are agreeing that the historical use of the word is not important then we can move to which definition is more efficient and productive.
Click to expand...
An atheist is certainly a person in the state of atheism. All dictionaries agree on this. And, even when the term was first used, it meant a person in the state of atheism. The question is whether the term as it is used today includes those who merely lack a belief in God/gods.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Thief said:
how about ....a Spirit Greater than you
Click to expand...
So you're saying that to be an atheist, a person has to declare that there's no Spirit Greater than you (me?)?

What do you mean by "Spirit"? "Greater" in what sense? And why the weird capitalization? Is "a Spirit Greater" something different from a "spirit greater"?
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
You say that the word originally had no such meaning, yet you also say it was "more frequently used in the godless/odious to the gods context." That is self contradictory. If it was used "more frequently" in the context you describe, it means that it was also (albeit less frequently) used to describe those who are merely without a belief in the existence of God/gods.
Click to expand...
That is bad logic. It means that it could be less frequently used for the meaning you would like. However we have no evidence of that. No written term of atheos meant that prior to the first century bc. And thereafter its use included agnostics. I do not believe it was used prior to 500ad in the manner for which you are pushing. If you have an example cite and show it.

An atheist is certainly a person in the state of atheism. All dictionaries agree on this. And, even when the term was first used, it meant a person in the state of atheism. The question is whether the term as it is used today includes those who merely lack a belief in God/gods.
Click to expand...

I think that the question is whether it should include people who are incapable of belief. I agree that it has come to include this meaning for many, I do not think there is any reason for this. We have two categories of people. The first is people who have never heard or concieved of a god, the second are people who have heard of and concieved a god. The former lack belief in a god, the latter are agnostics.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
9-10ths_Penguin said:
So you're saying that to be an atheist, a person has to declare that there's no Spirit Greater than you (me?)?

What do you mean by "Spirit"? "Greater" in what sense? And why the weird capitalization? Is "a Spirit Greater" something different from a "spirit greater"?
Click to expand...
it means draggin you through this discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top