Are babies atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question is why do we need to have a word that encompasses distinctly different definitions. I believe no god exists, that is very, very different than a baby not believing in something because of ignorance. Ignorance is related to knowledge, atheism is related to belief. My atheism is a position. Not some state of ignorance or a lack of ability to believe.

I believe there is no intelligent, immortal being with more control over the universe than all other entities. It is a logical position. To say that this position is the same as someone incapable of belief due to an inability to posess any belief is not the same.

Many other people suggest they do not believe or disbelieve in god- that os they believe a god existing and a god not existing are equally likely. I would prefer not even having this group in the camp of atheism, but, either way, this is also completely distinct in that it is a belief regarding gods existence. No person capable of believing in a god can have a belief other than: believes a god exists, believes a god does not exist, and believes a god existing is equally likely as a god not existing. Those are the only three options. They are all positions, they are all claims. That anyone would then try to state that they are not making a claim because babies and people that have never heard of any god or conceived of any god are not making claims is an equivocation. It is dishonest; it is semantics, and the reason it happens is because the definition of atheism has been distorted.

I doubt very strongly that you've put any more thought into rejecting most gods than a baby has.

Without googling it, please explain how you evaluated the Sumerian god Lahar and concluded that he doesn't exist.

Before I mentioned Lahar, did you have any knowledge of him at all?

 

[Curious George]

So you know a rock is not a theist? You're smart! How many other things in the universe do you know is not a theist?

Lots.

 

[Curious George]

I doubt very strongly that you've put any more thought into rejecting most gods than a baby has.

Without googling it, please explain how you evaluated the Sumerian god Lahar and concluded that he doesn't exist.

Before I mentioned Lahar, did you have any knowledge of him at all?

I do not care if Lahar exists. If Lahar is a god I do not believe he exists. If Lahar exists, he is not a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not care if Lahar exists. If Lahar is a god I do not believe he exists. If Lahar exists, he is not a god.

What do you mean by "god"?

 

[Curious George]

We don't.That makes you a STRONG ATHEIST.That would be a WEAK IMPLICIT ATHEIST.People who say they do not believe god(s) exists and do not believe god(s) don't exist don't believe anything either way. Don't try to make it sound as if they believe anything.

Yes. If someone does not believe a god exists, and does not believe a god does not exist, and they are capable of a god belief then they believe that a god existing is just as likely as a god not existing. They have a belief, they make a claim.

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by "god"?

An intelligent, immortal being with more control over the universe than all other beings.

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by "god"?

We have been over this. You too have a "god" concept, (despite your protests), otherwise a potato could be a god. And you do believe in potatoes...but you are not a theist.

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by "god"?

There are plenty of classifications of fairies in mythology of which I am not aware. I still do not believe in fairies...

 

[Willamena]

... but rejecting all gods is impossible in a practical sense, so I can be sure that this isn't the test you actually use to decide whether someone is an atheist.

Why is it impossible, though? A humanist, for instance, in acknowledging that the human mind is its own salvation, has rejected God or gods. It seems quite possible, to me, for someone to embrace humanism.

We can make some more inferences from who you consider an atheist or not.

Do you think that theists can be atheists?

Whom I consider to be an atheist is the person practicing atheism as an ideology. The theist entirely fails to practice atheism.

How about specific people: how about the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism": do you think that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are (or were, for Hitchens) atheists?

I don't know them very well. But individuals are not relevant, here. One need only reject the concept of god (a general notion, composed of images of gods) to have embraced atheism.

If you're asking whether I can point a finger at someone and name them an atheist based on their words, yes, I can, specifically where their words are an honest representation of their beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

Nope.

BTW: what exactly do you think is the "declaration" of atheism?

"There are no god or gods," is the declaration or statement that atheism makes.

The atheist does not believe in gods. The atheist is the person who believes, genuinely (not in theory or speculatively, but in practice), that there are no gods. In believing such, there is no place for such in their worldview.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure I follow that since I haven't heard 'not theism' as its own category.

That's what I was trying to explain, I am one of those and not the other, being pantheist. In other words, I'm not theist, but then I guess it depends how you use the word "not". Oh dear, I might need some coffee.

 

[Thief]

The latter can be both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

that's weird.....

the quote you quoted.....appears to be done by me
BUT!
the arrow takes me to a different spot in the discussion
AND!
the quote there IS mine
HOWEVER!
the quote you quoted is NOT

yep.....confusion on top of a useless thread

 

[ArtieE]

Yes. If someone does not believe a god exists, and does not believe a god does not exist, and they are capable of a god belief then they believe that a god existing is just as likely as a god not existing. They have a belief, they make a claim.

LOL no there are just two beliefs. Either that at least one god exists or that all gods don't exist. There is no third belief somewhere in the middle. There is just the presence or absence of these two beliefs.

Theism: Presence of belief
(Weak) atheism: Absence of any belief
(Strong) atheism: Presence of belief

 

[Thief]

LOL no there are just two beliefs. Either that at least one god exists or that all gods don't exist. There is no third belief somewhere in the middle. There is just the presence or absence of these two beliefs.

Theism: Presence of belief
(Weak) atheism: Absence of any belief
(Strong) atheism: Presence of belief

what happened to....don't know
( a favored cop out)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it impossible, though? A humanist, for instance, in acknowledging that the human mind is its own salvation, has rejected God or gods. It seems quite possible, to me, for someone to embrace humanism.

That's a rather warped definition of humanism. I don't think that rejection of the literal existence of all gods is necessary to be a humanist. Do you? If so, why?

Whom I consider to be an atheist is the person practicing atheism as an ideology. The theist entirely fails to practice atheism.

Since I don't think that atheism is an ideology, I have no idea what you mean by "practicing atheism as an ideology."

I don't know them very well. But individuals are not relevant, here. One need only reject the concept of god (a general notion, composed of images of gods) to have embraced atheism.

They're relevant because they're useful tests of how you the word is used. For instance, it seems to me that your "rejection" definition of atheism would imply that Richard Dawkins (who describes himself as a "6" or "6.9" on his scale where outright rejection of gods is a "7") would not be an atheist. Do you think that Richard Dawkins - described by some as the "Pope of New Atheism" - is an atheist? If yes, then you don't actually use the definition you say you do. If no, then you're using your own unique definition of atheism that doesn't match with how the word is used generally.

If you're asking whether I can point a finger at someone and name them an atheist based on their words, yes, I can, specifically where their words are an honest representation of their beliefs.

Okay - then do that. Please list off a few atheists whose beliefs are known well enough that we can explore them.

 

[ArtieE]

"There are no god or gods," is the declaration or statement that atheism makes.

The atheist does not believe in gods. The atheist is the person who believes, genuinely (not in theory or speculatively, but in practice), that there are no gods. In believing such, there is no place for such in their worldview.

For the record: Willa is describing a strong atheist.

"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. " ... "strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. ... This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself."
What's the Difference Between Strong and Weak Atheism?

 

[Thief]

For the record: Willa is describing a strong atheist.

"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. " ... "strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. ... This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself."
What's the Difference Between Strong and Weak Atheism?

so one type says so......because he feels like it
and the other type thinks he has a reason to say so

that would count babies .....out

 

[ArtieE]

what happened to....don't know
( a favored cop out)

Nothing happened to "don't know." What a person knows or doesn't know is just irrelevant when discussing beliefs.

Theism: Presence of belief
(Weak) atheism: Absence of any belief
(Strong) atheism: Presence of belief

Gnosticism: Presence of knowledge god(s) exist
Agnosticism: Absence of knowledge
Gnosticism: Presence of knowledge god(s) don't exist

 

[Thief]

Nothing happened to "don't know." What a person knows or doesn't know is just irrelevant when discussing beliefs.

oooops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the record: Willa is describing a strong atheist.

She says she's describing an atheist. It's just that her definition of "atheist" matches up with your definition of "strong atheist."

Personally, I think the terms "strong atheist"/"weak atheist" are misleading and useless in any situation where more than one god is up for consideration (e.g. the real world).

Any person - theist or atheist - who has put some thought into the issue is probably a "strong atheist" with regard to some gods and a "weak atheist" with regard to others. Nobody is a strong atheist across the board with regard to every god.

In a practical sense, any time someone says "I'm a strong atheist," they've limited the scope of what they're talking about to a manageably small set of gods... or a single god.