Are people born inherently atheist?

[outhouse]

I see he is trying to say that in order to be atheist one has to falsify a concept of theism.

Understood, that and he wants to use the defiition of theism to make a determination.

Of course it is not required and ignores implicit atheism completely.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nonsesne

Meaning is your personal unsubstantiated opinion.

YOu have already been shown examples of how it can be used with meaning.

It is the person using the definition that gets to determine meaning, not you!

Indeed, and if someone thinks that "atheist" is a meaningful logical distinction which applies to newborn humans, then, if they are being logically consistent, they should also label rocks and squirrels as "atheist. If someone finds such categorizations meaningful, that's certainly their prerogative.

 

[outhouse]

But one has to have the ability to hold beliefs in order for a belief or absence of belief to hold any useful meaning.

False.

THIS ONLY APPLIES IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE IT.

I can use it in a term and it is not meaningless to me.

 

[outhouse]

Indeed, and if someone thinks that "atheist" is a meaningful logical distinction which applies to newborn humans, then, if they are being logically consistent, they should also label rocks and squirrels as "atheist. If someone finds such categorizations meaningful, that's certainly their prerogative.

You dont get to determine the value of someone elses conversation or dictate what they should do.

:slap:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

False.

THIS ONLY APPLIES IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE IT.

I can use it in a term and it is not meaningless to me.

If you find meaning in calling rocks, squirrels, newborn humans, and other things which aren't capable of holding beliefs "atheists," that's certainly your prerogative.

 

[outhouse]

You do not get to control the context or meaning or VALUE of anyone elses conversation but your own.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You dont get to determine the value of someone elses conversation or dictate what they should do.

Of course not. I merely point out discrepancies in peoples' logic and reasoning, and indicate the logical ramifications of their positions. It's up to other people whether they care about being logical, consistent, or thorough in their reasoning.

 

[idav]

Well, that's certainly an interesting discussion in and of itself, and one that I'd be interested in exploring and researching. However, this has little bearing on the general distinction I'm applying in this discussion - which is pointing out the fact that newborn humans are not capable of holding beliefs, whereas adult humans are capable of holding beliefs. Whether adults accept or reject specific beliefs (out of conscious choice or not), they can still form and hold meaningful beliefs about things - an attribute that doesn't apply to newborns.

To apply consistently we have to get out of the false dichotomy. It isnt accept or reject there are still other options. A person can be introduced to truth claims just as they can be introduced to fictional claims. In neither case does the person have to accept or reject the claim. Atheists dont necessarily have to make a truth claim about deities, thats what theists do. If atheists dont have to make a truth claim then they dont have to be able to hold beliefs and babies fall in that category of not having to make a truth claim for or against.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To apply consistently we have to get out of the false dichotomy. It isnt accept or reject there are still other options. A person can be introduced to truth claims just as they can be introduced to fictional claims. In neither case does the person have to accept or reject the claim. Atheists dont necessarily have to make a truth claim about deities, thats what theists do. If atheists dont have to make a truth claim then they dont have to be able to hold beliefs and babies fall in that category of not having to make a truth claim for or against.

And such reasoning applies equally to rocks and squirrels. If you find it meaningful to call rocks, squirrels, and newborn humans "atheists," that is certainly your prerogative.

 

[outhouse]

Of course not. I merely point out discrepancies in peoples' logic and reasoning, and indicate the logical ramifications of their positions. It's up to other people whether they care about being logical, consistent, or thorough in their reasoning.

You do not get to control the context or meaning or VALUE of anyone elses conversation but your own.

Which includes you personal view of logic and reason that does not apply to anyone's conversation but your own.

You are no one to judge anyones coversation, who do you think you are :biglaugh:

 

[idav]

If you find meaning in calling rocks, squirrels, newborn humans, and other things which aren't capable of holding beliefs "atheists," that's certainly your prerogative.

In what way are babies like rocks? Certainly babies have more a handle on reality than a rock. I would think babies consider reality real, at least they might believe it is real. The baby is more like the guy on a deserted island that never heard or thought of god concepts.

 

[Sees]

If you find meaning in calling rocks, squirrels, newborn humans, and other things which aren't capable of holding beliefs "atheists," that's certainly your prerogative.

Maybe I'm special...but I don't even see the problem with calling them atheists lol

I think it is only when people want to hold it as an intellectual stance that these things even become a problem.

Historically it is dealing with people but what the hell.

 

[idav]

And such reasoning applies equally to rocks and squirrels. If you find it meaningful to call rocks, squirrels, and newborn humans "atheists," that is certainly your prerogative.

It does not apply equally at all. Rocks dont evaluate truth statements, humans do. I find it fascinating that some insist that the baby be able to hold onto faith in order to be considered atheist. Atheists can be apathetic towards concepts of god and I think babies count as being in a state of indifference which does not apply to rocks and squirrels. I used a definition which is consistent by including people indifferent to god concepts.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are no one to judge anyones coversation, who do you think you are

Someone with a more solid sense of reasoning and a better grasp of logic than most others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that's certainly an interesting discussion in and of itself, and one that I'd be interested in exploring and researching. However, this has little bearing on the general distinction I'm applying in this discussion - which is pointing out the fact that newborn humans are not capable of holding beliefs, whereas adult humans are capable of holding beliefs. Whether adults accept or reject specific beliefs (out of conscious choice or not), they can still form and hold meaningful beliefs about things - an attribute that doesn't apply to newborns.

But we're not just talking about belief in general; we're talking about belief in gods specifically. I know how much you dislike broadening the context beyond the immediately relevant (as evidenced by the way you've reacted whenever anyone mentioned people in general instead of just babies), so I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But we're not just talking about belief in general; we're talking about belief in gods specifically. I know how much you dislike broadening the context beyond the immediately relevant (as evidenced by the way you've reacted whenever anyone mentioned people in general instead of just babies), so I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction.

Nope. I just prefer to keep discussions contextually relevant and stay on topic until people actually address my points in a reasoned way. And I have the cognizance and ability to not fall prey to peoples' erratic and flailing attempts to change the conversation when they are unable to adequately address the arguments at hand. I do realize that this frustrates and annoys some people.

 

[Falvlun]

There doesnt need to be a default, there just is. I dont think atheism has to be that word but it works because it entails not having a belief in a specific concept. Just like if an unicornist became a prevalent belief, likewise the baby would be an a-unicornist.

I don't believe there is a default.

And no, "atheism" doesn't work to describe what you would like to be considered the default. That's part of what we are debating right now: How your preferred definition of the word fails.

 

[Falvlun]

You do not get to control the context or meaning or VALUE of anyone elses conversation but your own.

Which includes you personal view of logic and reason that does not apply to anyone's conversation but your own.

You are no one to judge anyones coversation, who do you think you are :biglaugh:

You do realize that this entire thread is a debate about how we should be communicating concepts and utilizing words, right?

 

[Sees]

I don't believe there is a default.

And no, "atheism" doesn't work to describe what you would like to be considered the default. That's part of what we are debating right now: How your preferred definition of the word fails.

Right

Some would rather the default position or lack of belief in existence of one or more gods - be called Implicit/Weak agnosticism or something else other than atheism. They want atheism to be reserved for those who specifically disbelieve in/deny the existence of gods.

As long as the folks in a broad category of views, knowledge, cultures, etc. do not have belief in one or more gods - regardless of specifics - they are a certain category. What would we call the category or should we decide to throw away the category?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It does not apply equally at all. Rocks dont evaluate truth statements, humans do.

Newborn humans do not evaluate truth statements. And this conversation is about newborn humans, not adult humans. It's becoming quite comical how so many people are having a difficult time actually addressing infants in a thread about infants.

Maybe next we can start a thread about grapes, and we can have a bunch of people argue that grapes get you drunk because they get turned into wine.