Are people born inherently atheist?

[Kilgore Trout]

So human fetuses are atheists, too?

I expect this also applies to embryos and blastocysts. So, exactly how many cells are required before one is labelled an "atheist?" Or does one become an atheist at conception? Or, are all the sperm and eggs already atheists? Does a theist woman carry around atheist eggs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. No newborn humans are theists, as they are not capable of holding any beliefs. Hence, consistently extending your own logic with the rocks and squirrels, it isn't meaningful to label newborn humans atheists or "not theists." Of course, I also realize that logical consistency isn't a priority for everyone either.

No matter how long you wait, will a squirrel or a rock ever develop into something that can believe in gods? How about a baby?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No matter how long you wait, will a squirrel or a rock ever develop into something that can believe in gods? How about a baby?

Nope. No matter how long you wait, there will never be newborn human who is a theist.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem with claiming for someone thoughts that they don't hold is that you claim for them every thought that anyone else has or has ever had.

I have no idea how that's supposed to follow.

I've no problem with "doesn't hold this belief" to mean "doesn't think this is so." That clearly says that this person has a thought.

It also isn't accurate.

 

[Magic Man]

Indeed. It does appear that all arguments which attempt to define newborn humans as atheists ultimately rely on redefining newborn humans as something other than newborn humans.

Not at all.

 

[Magic Man]

Nope. No matter how long you wait, there will never be newborn human who is a theist.

If you weren't going to answer the question, it was a waste of time to post something.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And yet, we are making positive claims about it. I object.

We aren't making positive claims about it- its a second-order claim. That's pretty much the difference between first and second order claims.

Second-order logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second-order predicate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First order claims are about individuals- if we analyze "the King of France doesn't exist" as a first order claim, we end up with this-

Dx= X doesn't exist
k= King of France
"The King of France doesn't exist" = Dk

This is what you're talking about. And this amounts to the claim that there exists an object or individual, k, that doesn't exist. This is contradictory, as I've noted.

But if "the King of France doesn't exist" is a second-order claim, what we are saying is that the function or predicate "X is the King of France" fails to be instantiated or satisfied, or, formally-

Kx= X is the King of France
"The King of France doesn't exist" =(~∃x)Kx

Colloquially, "there is no X such that X is the King of France".

On the second-order analysis, which is free of contradiction and apparently more faithful to the meaning of the English statement "there is no King of France", none of what you're saying is applicable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you weren't going to answer the question, it was a waste of time to post something.

The question got the answer it deserved. Again, redefining newborns as something other than newborns may be a useful tactic for arguing that newborns can be theists, but this conversation is about newborns.

 

[ArtieE]

I'd find it more meaningful to convey the fact that newborns aren't capable of holding beliefs, so labeling them as theists or atheists is equally as meaningless, and usually equally as agenda-driven. As we've established with the rocks and squirrels, our choices aren't limited to atheist and theist - two labels which are only meaningfully applicable to things which are capable of holding beliefs.

There are no theist rocks and squirrels and no matter how old they are they can't be theists. Humans however can hold beliefs when they are old enough so saying that a human is too young to hold beliefs and therefore are not theists (yet) is perfectly logical.

Sleep time. See you later.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are no theist rocks and squirrels and no matter how old they are they can't be theists. Humans however can hold beliefs when they are old enough so saying that a human is too young to hold beliefs and therefore are not theists (yet) is perfectly logical.

Except that this discussion is about the state of humans at birth - newborn humans. Certainly, humans can hold beliefs once they change from newborns into something else (e.g., adults), but then we're having a different discussion.

 

[Willamena]

We aren't making positive claims about it- its a second-order claim. That's pretty much the difference between first and second order claims.

Second-order logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second-order predicate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First order claims are about individuals- if we analyze "the King of France doesn't exist" as a first order claim, we end up with this-

Dx= X doesn't exist
k= King of France
"The King of France doesn't exist" = Dk

This is what you're talking about.

It really isn't.

And this amounts to the claim that there exists an object or individual, k, that doesn't exist. This is contradictory, as I've noted.

But if "the King of France doesn't exist" is a second-order claim, what we are saying is that the function or predicate "X is the King of France" fails to be instantiated or satisfied, or, formally-

Kx= X is the King of France
"The King of France doesn't exist" =(~∃x)Kx

Colloquially, "there is no X such that X is the King of France".

On the second-order analysis, which is free of contradiction and apparently more faithful to the meaning of the English statement "there is no King of France", none of what you're saying is applicable.

I've no objection to this.

Now I'll go back to my argument.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It really isn't.

I'm afraid this means you're either lying, having trouble saying what you do mean, or are simply getting mixed up-

If the object required for a negative existential claim is not the object in question, then we have created a new, second object with a property of non-existence.

That "there is no King of France" requires a "King of France."... It's just meant as an example of a required object for negation.

This is talking about it as if it were a first-order claim, which you've been doing consistently here.

I've no objection to this.

Then we can dispense with all talk of an "object required for negative existential claims", or negative existential claims "requiring an object", or negative existential claims "requiring the object in question" because this is treating negative existential claims as first order claims, and you've now said you agree that they are to be treated as second-order claims, not about an object having a particular property, but about functions failing to be satisfied.
:clap

 

[Willamena]

I'm afraid this means you're either lying, having trouble saying what you do mean, or are simply getting mixed up-




This is talking about it as if it were a first-order claim, which you've been doing consistently here.


Then we can dispense with all talk of an "object required for negative existential claims", or negative existential claims "requiring an object", or negative existential claims "requiring the object in question" because this is treating negative existential claims as first order claims, and you've now said you agree that they are to be treated as second-order claims, not about an object having a particular property, but about functions failing to be satisfied.
:clap

Let's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. No matter how long you wait, there will never be newborn human who is a theist.

And an acorn will never become a tree, right? :sarcastic:

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

And an acorn will never become a tree, right? :sarcastic:

It certainly wasn't a tree the moment it dropped to the ground either. That analogy doesn't work very well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It certainly wasn't a tree the moment it dropped to the ground either. That analogy doesn't work very well.

It works just fine. A baby may develop into a theist, but it is not yet a theist. A seed may develop into a tree, but it is not yet a tree.

 

[Sonofason]

If I took a ton of shrooms and saw Spongebob would that be evidnece that Bikini Bottoms exist ?

I would say your appetite for shrooms undermines your credibility. But I'm certainly interested in your results.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except that this discussion is about the state of humans at birth - newborn humans. Certainly, humans can hold beliefs once they change from newborns into something else (e.g., adults), but then we're having a different discussion.

Newborns are a subset of people in general. Any discussion about people in general is relevant in a discussion about newborns.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It works just fine. A baby may develop into a theist, but it is not yet a theist. A seed may develop into a tree, but it is not yet a tree.

Well of course. You can have a child grow up to believe anything if you constantly ingrain it into their brain from an early age. The same goes for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Sandman, etc.

 

[Sonofason]

Nope. No matter how long you wait, there will never be newborn human who is a theist.

I disagree. There is no logic whatsoever with this claim of yours. You do not submit any evidence for it. It can be tossed aside as garbage.

Please tell me exactly what is the base limit of having a belief in something.

If you see something that you've never seen before, something you do not recognize, or that is unfamiliar to you. Could that be a formation of a belief?

I suggest, since no one knows for sure, that an infant could hear God's voice, not even knowing what words are, and begin to form a belief about that voice, which is of course, the voice of God. An infant, a fetus, even an embryo I suppose could have a belief about God. And because it would be an experiential stimuli, I could even suggest that the infant could have a belief "in" God.

Now show me your logic.