Are people born inherently atheist?

[Kilgore Trout]

What is the arbitrary age where any ist or isms apply to humans?

Likewise, if we say that newborn humans are atheists, at what point do we start defining them as atheists? A pre-born fetus, one day from birth has the same conceptual abilities regarding beliefs as an infant one day after birth, so it's a logical extension to label the pre-born fetus an "implicit atheist" as well. How far back does one go before "implicit atheism" doesn't apply to the fetus? Are we "implicit atheists" upon conception? Are our sperm and eggs implicitly atheist since they have the potential to become adult humans?

The greater question stays - is lack of belief/weak/implicit atheism valid atheism?

That's certainly an interesting discussion, and a different one, but even if the concept of "implicit atheism" can be argued as somewhat weak or problematic, at the very least it makes sense to only apply it to things which are actually capable of forming, holding, and/or considering beliefs. This provides a simple, clear, and logical way of avoiding meaningless labels, such as calling rocks, squirrels, or newborn humans "atheists."

 

[Magic Man]

What is the arbitrary age where any ist or isms apply to humans?

To me, newborn is just a way of pointing out that people start out this way or that way. Doesn't matter if 2 hours old, 2 days old, 2 years old.

Reasoning, indoctrination, imagination, combination of them or others.... Human goes from atheist to something else at some age or possibly stays atheist or flops back and forth.

Spot on.

The greater question stays - is lack of belief/weak/implicit atheism valid atheism?

Well, it is the way the word is used, and it's acknowledged in several authorities, so I'd say yes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's no wonder we can't have a good conversation when you can't even understand what I'm saying.

You confuse informed and considered disagreement with lack of understanding.

 

[Magic Man]

Likewise, if we say that newborn humans are atheists, at what point do we start defining them as atheists?

When they become human, or to make it easier at birth.

A pre-born fetus, one day from birth has the same conceptual abilities regarding beliefs as an infant one day after birth, so it's a logical extension to label the pre-born fetus an "implicit atheist" as well. How far back does one go before "implicit atheism" doesn't apply to the fetus? Are we "implicit atheists" upon conception? Are our sperm and eggs implicitly atheist since they have the potential to become adult humans?

From the abortion debate we've learned that a 3-week-old fetus isn't a human yet.

 

[Magic Man]

You confuse informed and considered disagreement with lack of understanding.

Not at all. Your comment displayed a lack of understanding of the meaning of my comment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When they become human, or to make it easier at birth.

Ah, so a rather arbitrary line.

From the abortion debate we've learned that a 3-week-old fetus isn't a human yet.

Yet they have the same potential to grow into adults, and develop the ability to hold beliefs, as an infant does. Why the arbitrary line with the label of "atheist" then?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not at all. Your comment displayed a lack of understanding of the meaning of my comment.

I understand that your argument hinges on redefining newborns, which are not capable of holding beliefs, as something else, which is capable of holding beliefs. I also understand that this discussion is about newborns, not older humans. A simple point that many seem unable to grasp.

 

[Magic Man]

Ah, so a rather arbitrary line.

Any line drawn for anything here will be arbitrary. The real question is whether it's reasonable or makes sense or helps with consistency.

Yet they have the same potential to grow into adults, and develop the ability to hold beliefs, as an infant does. Why the arbitrary line with the label of "atheist" then?

Because the definition of "atheist" is a person who doesn't believe in gods. That rules out anything that's not a person, including rocks, squirrels and things that will turn into people but aren't yet.

 

[Magic Man]

I understand that your argument hinges on redefining newborns, which are not capable of holding beliefs, as something else, which is capable of holding beliefs.

There's that lack of understanding again. Come on back when you either finally understand or at least are willing to try to understand.

I also understand that this discussion is about newborns, not older humans. A simple point that many seem unable to grasp.

And I understand you decided to completely ignore the point I just made to you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But it does not change the fact infants are not theist, and that they are atheist with no belief in a deity.

Every set has as a subset the empty set (or null set). No matter how you define the set of "theists" this set necessarily includes a member or element of the set which is not a person who believes in god. That element/member is the empty set. No set can be a set without having the null set as a subset, and thus every set that can be defined as a set contains members for which the defining property or properties of that set do not hold.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because the definition of "atheist" is a person who doesn't believe in gods. That rules out anything that's not a person, including rocks, squirrels and things that will turn into people but aren't yet.

Ah, so more arbitrariness based solely on thoughtless adherence to a dictionary definition which happens to say "people."

I looked up the definition of "apolitical," and none of the definitions specifically point out that it applies to people. So, is it okay to call rocks and squirrels "apolitical" then?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's that lack of understanding again. Come on back when you either finally understand or at least are willing to try to understand.

I fully understand. It's not as though your arbitrary tactics and inconsistencies aren't completely transparent and obvious.

And I understand you decided to completely ignore the point I just made to you.

Not agreeing with inconsistency isn't the same as ignoring it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any line drawn for anything here will be arbitrary. The real question is whether it's reasonable or makes sense or helps with consistency.

And I'd be more than interested if someone could put forward a reasoned argument why someone one day after being born should be called an "atheist," while someone one day before being born shouldn't. Maybe the vaginal wall has magical properties which can instantly transform someone into an atheist.

 

[Magic Man]

Ah, so more arbitrariness based solely on thoughtless adherence to a dictionary definition which happens to say "people."

Nope, but nice try.

 

[Magic Man]

I fully understand. It's not as though your arbitrary tactics and inconsistencies aren't completely transparent and obvious.

I'm glad you believe you understand. As I said, if you want to actually understand, just let me know. I'd be more than happy to explain, as long as you aren't just going to condescendingly ignore it.

Not agreeing with inconsistency isn't the same as ignoring it.

That's true, but refusing to understand or respond to an argument is the same as ignoring it (hint: that's what you've been doing).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nope, but nice try.

Oh, here's the second part of that response. You must have missed it:

I looked up the definition of "apolitical," and none of the definitions specifically point out that it applies to people. So, is it okay to call rocks and squirrels "apolitical" then?

 

[Magic Man]

And I'd be more than interested if someone could put forward a reasoned argument why someone one day after being born should be called an "atheist," while someone one day before being born shouldn't. Maybe the vaginal wall has magical properties which can instantly transform someone into an atheist.

I'd be more than interested in continuing a dialogue with you, if you showed the capability to engage in an actual give-and-take, rather than just a give.

 

[Sees]

Am I the only one who sees this as "a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood." ?

Is this stuff really going to give us a definitive answer concerning the definition of atheism and atheist?

Every set has as a subset the empty set (or null set). No matter how you define the set of "theists" this set necessarily includes a member or element of the set which is not a person who believes in god. That element/member is the empty set. No set can be a set without having the null set as a subset, and thus every set that can be defined as a set contains members for which the defining property or properties of that set do not hold.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, here's the second part of that response. You must have missed it:

I looked up the definition of "apolitical," and none of the definitions specifically point out that it applies to people. So, is it okay to call rocks and squirrels "apolitical" then?

I didn't miss it, but thanks for repeating it.

Anyway, this is getting nowhere. Here's the bottom line:

You and some others prefer not to call babies atheists because you don't feel it's meaningful. I and some others prefer to call them atheists because it can be meaningful in certain contexts and it's technically true. Applying the term to babies, though, isn't the same as applying it to rocks or squirrels, since humans can be theists, while neither of the other things can ever be theists.

That about sums it up, so I'm going to leave it at that, rather than continue a useless back-and-forth that will only serve to engender more bad feelings between two people who see the world so similarly in so many ways.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm glad you believe you understand. As I said, if you want to actually understand, just let me know. I'd be more than happy to explain, as long as you aren't just going to condescendingly ignore it.

Okay, go ahead and explain. Be specific, and try to make it relelvant to any of my arguments. Blow me away with your profound and airtight logic which shows how a one day old human's absence of belief about gods is qualitatively different than a squirrel's absense of belief about gods.