Are babies atheist?

[ArtieE]

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

"My" definition"? Anybody can look up "strong atheist" in Google and see it's not something I made up.

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).

In the real world the term "strong atheist" describes a person who believes no gods exist and the term "weak atheist" describes any person who is not a theist or a strong atheist. They are not meant to convey any more information than that. That you can't accept that and want to make them mean something more or different is just your personal problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"My" definition"? Anybody can look up "strong atheist" in Google and see it's not something I made up.

I just meant that she really is using a different definition for the term "atheist" than you are; it's not just a matter of choosing the proper label.

In the real world the term "strong atheist" describes a person who believes no gods exist and the term "weak atheist" describes any person who is not a theist or a strong atheist. They are not meant to convey any more information than that. That you can't accept that and want to make them mean something more or different is just your personal problem.

How does someone "believe no gods exist"?

 

[ArtieE]

I just meant that she really is using a different definition for the term "atheist" than you are; it's not just a matter of choosing the proper label.


How does someone "believe no gods exist"?

Ask any strong atheist. They believe there are no gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ask any strong atheist. They believe there are no gods.

Are you a strong atheist? If so, how did you do it?

 

[ArtieE]

Are you a strong atheist? If so, how did you do it?

I used to be a strong atheist, then I became a weak and now I'm just an apatheist. The definition of a god is "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." I used to believe no such thing existed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I used to be a strong atheist, then I became a weak and now I'm just an apatheist.

Okay... so you were a strong atheist. That means you can tell us how you became one, I hope.

The definition of a god is "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." I used to believe no such thing existed.

The last part ("a deity") can be disregarded, since its definition is "a god", so it just ends up being uselessly circular.

The first part, though: you managed to conclude that no "superhuman beings or spirits worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes" exist? How did you do this?

I assume you didn't come up with a list of these beings and check them off one by one, so what method did you use? What common characteristic of these beings did you decide was incompatible with them being real?

 

[ArtieE]

Okay... so you were a strong atheist. That means you can tell us how you became one, I hope.

Not really. I was just young and opinionated and had strong beliefs about everything.

The first part, though: you managed to conclude that no "superhuman beings or spirits worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes" exist? How did you do this?

I really don't remember. My older brother is a Christian and maybe it was just me trying to oppose him or establish my own identity. Never thought much about it.

I assume you didn't come up with a list of these beings and check them off one by one, so what method did you use? What common characteristic of these beings did you decide was incompatible with them being real?

I don't remember using any method or any logical approach. Maybe it was just some reaction to my brother's belief. My brother didn't believe in aliens flying around in UFOs. I did. I guess if I told a psychiatrist all the details he would have a field day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really don't remember. My older brother is a Christian and maybe it was just me trying to oppose him or establish my own identity. Never thought much about it.

Rejection of something involves thinking about it. How did you reject gods without giving them much thought?

I don't remember using any method or any logical approach. Maybe it was just some reaction to my brother's belief. My brother didn't believe in aliens flying around in UFOs. I did. I guess if I told a psychiatrist all the details he would have a field day.

I'm not saying that your reasons for rejecting gods had to be good ones, only that to reject them, you need to actually reject them. You had to have gone through some sort of thought process that ended with you concluding that no gods exist.

Offhand, if your atheism was just a reaction to your brother’s Christianity, then I question whether you actually rejected all gods.

Atheism - including strong atheism - isn't just about the Christian god.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm not saying that your reasons for rejecting gods had to be good ones, only that to reject them, you need to actually reject them. You had to have gone through some sort of thought process that ended with you concluding that no gods exist.

Offhand, if your atheism was just a reaction to your brother’s Christianity, then I question whether you actually rejected all gods.

Atheism - including strong atheism - isn't just about the Christian god.

You are overthinking everything. Maybe it was just me having some psychological need to establish my own identity as separate from my brother by believing the opposite of what he believed. I was much too young to consider all the finer points you are so obsessed with.

 

[Curious George]

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

Don't know why you would think that. Sounds like an equivocation. You are not a baby nor are you incapable of belief on the topic. If you believe one more likely than tge other then that us your belief, not absence of belief. The only way to justify absence of belief of both god existing and god not existing is to claim them as equally likely. Sorry.

 

[ArtieE]

If you believe one more likely than tge other then that us your belief, not absence of belief.

Never said anything about believing one more likely than the other!
Never said anything about believing one more likely than the other!
Never said anything about believing one more likely than the other!

 

[Curious George]

Never said anything about believing one more likely than the other!
Never said anything about believing one more likely than the other!
Never said anything about believing one more likely than the other!

Sure you did. That is all a belief is. That one case is more likely than not.

 

[ArtieE]

Sure you did. That is all a belief is. That one case is more likely than not.

Never said that one case is more likely than not!
Never said that one case is more likely than not!
Never said that one case is more likely than not!

 

[ArtieE]

The only way to justify absence of belief of both god existing and god not existing is to claim them as equally likely. Sorry.

LOL. You can justify that a person has an absence of belief of both god existing and god not existing if the person has never heard of god. That is one justification. Another justification is that the person simply has no interest in having beliefs about gods, like I have no beliefs about who will win a certain American football match.

 

[Curious George]

Never said that one case is more likely than not!
Never said that one case is more likely than not!
Never said that one case is more likely than not!

You didn't have to say that part, it is so.

 

[Curious George]

LOL. You can justify that a person has an absence of belief of both god existing and god not existing if the person has never heard of god. That is one justification. Another justification is that the person simply has no interest in having beliefs about gods, like I have no beliefs about who will win a certain American football match.

We are talking about people capable of believing in god. Not your "implicit weak atheists."

Apathetic is the same. You believe that they are equally likely because you don't care. One being the case, for your apathy, is no greater or lesser than the other.

It is what you believe. That the Seahawks will win doesn't matter, you would never believe so because of your indifference. To you it is just as likely that those filthy Patriots will win.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are overthinking everything. Maybe it was just me having some psychological need to establish my own identity as separate from my brother by believing the opposite of what he believed. I was much too young to consider all the finer points you are so obsessed with.

So you didn't actually reject gods?

I thought you said you were a strong atheist.

 

[leibowde84]

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.



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.

But, according to your logic, you are using the term "agnostic" incorrectly. It was originally used to describe people who thought that knowledge of god was impossible, not those who neither believed nor disbelieved in God or gods.

To me, the most accurate, reasonable way to define the term "atheism" is merely the absence of "theism". Theism is an extremely general term with many subcategories. Atheism is the same. It has many different subcategories. There are theists and atheists. That's it. There isn't a need for anything more at the top ... that is what the subcategories are for.

It seems that the only ones who are against this use of the term atheism as a general term are the frustrated religious who want to use atheism as some kind of derogatory term. One member even went so far as to say that, because I am saying that babies are technically atheist according to the definition of the term, I am somehow sentencing babies to an eternity in hell. Anyone who sees atheism as some kind of negative, damning label is far too biased to have a valid opinion in this conversation.

So, I ask you. Is atheism a negative thing?

 

[ArtieE]

It is what you believe. That the Seahawks will win doesn't matter, you would never believe so because of your indifference. To you it is just as likely that those filthy Patriots will win.

Are those American football teams playing each other? Well then

I don't believe the Seahawks will win
I don't believe the Seahawks will lose
I don't believe the Patriots will win
I don't believe the Patriots will lose
I don't believe in a draw (if that is possible in American football)

No beliefs! No beliefs! No beliefs!
I have no beliefs about what is likely to happen! Get that into your skull!

 

[ArtieE]

So you didn't actually reject gods?

I thought you said you were a strong atheist.

You are trolling. A strong atheist believes gods don't exist. I believed gods don't exist. I was a strong atheist.