Are babies atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are trolling.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to give a straight answer.

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

From your description, it sounds like you hadn't even given the vast majority of gods a thought, let alone held beliefs about whether they exist or not.

 

[ArtieE]

From your description, it sounds like you hadn't even given the vast majority of gods a thought, let alone held beliefs about whether they exist or not.

The only thing required to be a strong atheist is to believe gods don't exist. Doesn't matter how much thought one has put into it.

 

[leibowde84]

So you didn't actually reject gods?

I thought you said you were a strong atheist.

How can one reject something that doesn't exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only thing required to be a strong atheist is to believe gods don't exist. Doesn't matter how much thought one has put into it.

And I'm saying that from your description, it sounds like you decided that the Christian God didn't exist and not "gods" in general.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can one reject something that doesn't exist?

By believing that the concept doesn't correspond to reality.

Is there a deeper point you're getting at? Your question seems pretty trivial, so I feel like I'm missing your intended meaning.

 

[Willamena]

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?

I haven't defined humanism in what I said. I hold definition to much more rigour than is found in simple conversations. There is nothing controversial about humanism finding salvation in the mind as opposed to the god. Mankind does it in their civilization of the natural world, in their cultural and social traditions, and in their histories.

I shouldn't answer your second question, as it's a bit of a straw man. But to take it at face value, I don't think that either. Humanism isn't defined in terms of god, but at the expense of god.

As the Oxford dictionary says:
"A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters."

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

Fair enough.

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.


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

I don't define atheism in terms of rejection, or in terms of the theist as some do, only in terms of belief in god. Where one (genuinely) believes in a thing, that thing is present for them, it is real and a part of the world (their worldview). Where one (genuinely) does not believe in a thing, it isn't real (it has been rejected) or is nowhere to be found in the world (this includes ignorance of the thing).

As I said, I don't know Dawkins and the others well. I've not read their literature, only random quotes here and there on the Internet. However, if someone were to address a world sans god, that is atheism.

I wouldn't be comfortable discussing other people's beliefs. The only significant beliefs I could honestly address are mine. But we don't have to address individual's beliefs to address atheism: we are doing just fine talking about it, without talking about them.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe it was just some reaction to my brother's belief. My brother didn't believe in aliens flying around in UFOs.

Darn good thing, or he'd have to make a list of every single one of them and check them off.

 

[Curious George]

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?

Atheism is absolutely not a negative term. It is a position. And if we could remove the people who thought that the existence of god was evidenced enough to rival atheism, then atheism would be the most rational position.

Now a bit on your agnosticism. Firstly, I wouldn't say that I am using it incorrectly. It was originally used to describe the position of a person who does not know and believes they cannot know. I am retaining the does not know and restricting the cannot know to the moment it is claimed, not the infinite future. Moreover, I am not arguing that we should use definitions based on etymology. I am arguing that my definition of atheist, someone who believes god does not exist, is better than yours. I have explained why it is better logically. The only remaining straw that is left for people who wish to define it in the broadest since is by using etymology.

I say fine, if you want to go that route I can't change history, but then babies are not atheists still.

 

[ArtieE]

if someone were to address a world sans god, that is atheism.

No, atheism is the absence of belief in gods! Plural.

 

[Curious George]

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!

Either you know about the game or you don't. If you do not know about the game, then you are incapable of forming a belief. If you do know about the game and have considered it at all, then you believe the seahawks will win, believe the seahawks will lose, or believe that the seahaks winning or losing is equally likely...(I suppose that you could believe there will be a draw).

You cannot escape a claim after consideration. I know it probably feels good to you, but it is not possible. Either a god exists, or a god does not exist. After considering this, any "absence of belief" is due to a belief that gods existence is equally likely as gods non-existence. That is the only reason to withold belief. And, that is a claim.

 

[ArtieE]

I am arguing that my definition of atheist, someone who believes god does not exist, is better than yours.

I am arguing that a person who thinks that the definition of atheist is someone who believes god does not exist should really should keep quiet because

1. We are not talking about "god" but gods! Plural.
2. Even if you said "gods do not exist" that is already the definition of a strong atheist.

 

[Curious George]

I am arguing that a person who thinks that the definition of atheist is someone who believes god does not exist should really should keep quiet because

1. We are not talking about "god" but gods! Plural.
2. Even if you said "gods do not exist" that is already the definition of a strong atheist.

1) a god must exist before you could have more than a god. If there is not a dog in my house, that means there are not any dogs in my house. This is grammar.

2) yes, but "strong" isn't necessary: If atheists were defined as people who believe a god does not exist, that would cover the relevant beliefs.

 

[ArtieE]

Either you know about the game or you don't. If you do not know about the game, then you are incapable of forming a belief. If you do know about the game and have considered it at all, then you believe the seahawks will win, believe the seahawks will lose, or believe that the seahaks winning or losing is equally likely...(I suppose that you could believe there will be a draw).

You cannot escape a claim after consideration. I know it probably feels good to you, but it is not possible. Either a god exists, or a god does not exist. After considering this, any "absence of belief" is due to a belief that gods existence is equally likely as gods non-existence. That is the only reason to withold belief. And, that is a claim.

ROTFL. So I'm supposed to believe that gods existence is equally likely as gods non-existence and at the same time withhold belief?

 

[ArtieE]

2) yes, but "strong" isn't necessary: If atheists were defined as people who believe a god does not exist

You would have to define atheists as people who believe ALL gods do not exist. You can't define atheists as people who believe a god does not exist, because that would allow them to believe another god does exist and still be atheists.

 

[ArtieE]

If there is not a dog in my house, that means there are not any dogs in my house. This is grammar.

I don't have a cat in my house. I have two.

 

[Curious George]

ROTFL. So I'm supposed to believe that gods existence is equally likely as gods non-existence and at the same time withhold belief?

Yep, that is what your statement is saying. Hey maybe now you will come over to the group that is strong enough to acknowledge they believe god doesn't exist.

 

[Curious George]

You would have to define atheists as people who believe ALL gods do not exist. You can't define atheists as people who believe a god does not exist, because that would allow them to believe another god does exist and still be atheists.

Nope, saying a god does not exist means not one god exists. None. Silly little semantic game. It is grammar Artie.

 

[ArtieE]

Hey maybe now you will come over to the group that is strong enough to acknowledge they believe god doesn't exist.

No, I'm not a strong atheist. I won't join the group that believe the Seahawks will win, and I won't join the group who believes the Patriots will win. Believe it or not, but that is quite possible.

 

[Curious George]

I don't have a cat in my house. I have two.

Then yes, you do have a cat in your house.

It is grammar artie.

You can say I do not only have one cat in my house. But any way you slice it you do have a cat in your house.

 

[Curious George]

No, I'm not a strong atheist. Right now I'm an apatheist.

You seem to care a lot.