Except that what Kilgore said was in the context of him refusing to acknowledge what I said.
Do you agree that a baby has the potential to become a theist in a way that a rock does not?
-
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 people born inherently atheist?
- Thread starter eggyolk
- Start date
Except that what Kilgore said was in the context of him refusing to acknowledge what I said.
Do you agree that a baby has the potential to become a theist in a way that a rock does not?
Yes, absolutely, as did Kilgore in prior posts.
But that doesn't make the baby a theist. In the same way, the rock is not a theist.
Because when we have the word theist for a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods it's only natural that we have a word for a person who lacks this belief. If there were no theists, there would be no special word for those who are not theists.
Why do we have the word amoral?
"b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>"
Amoral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
There's no difference saying "infants are amoral" because they lack moral sensibility and saying they are atheists because they lack a belief in god(s).
Why don't we have the word akillers? Aren't killers more important than any religious folk? Shouldn't we be contrasting ourselves with them?
Sees
Dragonslayer
It is a fail compared to many "isms" when it comes to understanding.
If somebody asks, "what do you believe in?" Another person answers them with, "well, I do not have belief in X." There wasn't much accomplished. That first somebody would be left thinking, "ummm...ok, so what do you believe in???"
Wood has the potential to become ash, but it will never achieve that potential if it doesn't encounter fire. The newborn has the potential to become a theist, but it will never achieve that potential if it doesn't encounter ideas about god.
The only significant distinction to argue here is the definition of theist, as some were trying to do. Theist references, and so is defined in terms of, theism. If it can be shown that the set that excludes theists isn't necessarily the set that excludes theism, a case can be made.
I notice a distinct lack of any comments regarding the validity of what I explained in my post. Merriam-Webster defines amoral as: "being neither moral nor immoral" and "lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>". If you can state this, why can't you state: "being neither a theist nor a strong atheist" and "lacking theism/strong atheism <infants are (weak implicit) atheists>".
Last edited:
Is a rock also amoral in the same way an infant is amoral? "lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>" Amoral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Could it also say <rocks are amoral>?
Sees
Dragonslayer
Or apolitical, i see them all similar....hence my person who doesn't eat burritos and neither likes or dislike them. It only describes a lack and not specifics about positive position.
Why can't you state: "being neither a theist nor an atheist"?
Because atheism is not a type of theism because atheists are not theist. Anyone not belonging to theism is automatically atheist. Only because atheist doesnt really mean anything as for a worldview unless your getting into philosophy like nihilism.
Not just "ideas about god"; they have to be ideas that the person finds convincing. The same is true for an adult atheist.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Actually he didn't.
No one said it did.
So, you do refuse to acknowledge Penguin's point?
Because "theist" corresponds to "moral", "strong atheist" corresponds to "immoral" and "weak implicit atheist" corresponds to "amoral". Same principle. Look at the link I provided.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Who said you can't? Agnostics reject both, and reject the very controversy between atheism and theism as unresolvable.
Yet one more reason why this proposed definition of "atheist" as "anything under the sun that isn't a theist" is pretty much worthless. Curious that none of the proponents of this definition seem much bothered by that.
Atheism is something. My atheism is very much something. It's saying, "I don't believe in God." To the theist it is saying, "I don't believe you."
That's not something the baby can do.
Nilhilism would be better represented by taking atheism to be the elimination of theists, e.g. "take away theists and you are left with only atheists."
Im not bothered by it because atheist is a useless word to begin with. A person telling me they are atheist doesnt tell me what they believe like theism pantheism or monotheism says things about what a person believes. Same thing for fence sitters, saying your agnostic say s little to nothing of what that person actually believes.
The name for that is stutterer.a-a-theist.
Bless you!
No to theists your saying you do not believe what they do. How would that work to tell theists they dont really believe in what they claim to?