Let's put it this way: what is the meaningful distinction between an infant's absence of belief in god, and a rock's absence of belief in god?
None, other than that the child might conceivably develop theism in the future.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's put it this way: what is the meaningful distinction between an infant's absence of belief in god, and a rock's absence of belief in god?
No I get the point you're all trying to make.
A lack of belief,
Without belief.
But it's a useless, meaningless distinction to put onto a child/infant.
Because they will eventually be able to stop lacking belief,
It's a temporary term, Completely unhelpful.
So what's the point?
None, other than that the child might conceivably develop theism in the future.
Being accurate. Do you see how the parallel applies with being illiterate or unemployed?
I agree that it is useless to say that a rock has no belief, in anything, should go without saying. A baby has no beliefs for a similar reason but at least the infant has the potential for belief later. Honestly I think that any word for not belief is really a useless term so I can understand it being useless for rocks and infants as well however this doesn't change the accuracy of the term. Rocks don't have beliefs, it is accurate to say such.Let's put it this way: what is the meaningful distinction between an infant's absence of belief in god, and a rock's absence of belief in god?
The term atheism is only useful for theists. Nobody else would care.Illiteracy - That can be useful knowledge to have of someone.
Implicit Atheism - That's completely useless knowledge to have of someone.
See my point?
Right, an infant's atheism could be described as meaningful once it has changed into something other than an infant, and it is capable of holding beliefs. But then, we are no longer talking about an infant.
I accept someone's perspective that an infant is an atheist the same way a rock is an atheist. I simply don't accept that an infant's atheism is any different than a rock's, nor that such a label adds any useful or significant information.
Illiteracy - That can be useful knowledge to have of someone.
Implicit Atheism - That's completely useless knowledge to have of someone.
See my point?
It is not accurate as far as a belief could ever possibly be a property of a thing....however this doesn't change the accuracy of the term. Rocks don't have beliefs, it is accurate to say such.
I hope I don't, because so far it is failing to impress me.
Well you're not very subtle are you...
Don't know why you decided to get all huffy.
It is not accurate as far as a belief could ever possibly be a property of a thing.
"I am an atheist" declares a set of properties for me (skepticism about claims of the existence of god, not having "god" as a "part of my life," not sparing much thought for god in daily life), and the blanket property of being a card-carrying member of a classifciation of people. That's a lot of positive things that being an atheist entails, properties that contribute to describing what it is to be me.
These properties are not a meaningful (essential) part of what it is to be a rock.
Edit: We could just as meaningfully declare having no feelings to be a essential part of being a rock.
But it isn't.
It is a lot easier to say properties that do describe you rather than things that do not.That's a lot of positive things that being an atheist entails, properties that contribute to describing what it is to be me.
So is your lack of ability to explain why anything I've said is a fallacy.
It does not add any useful information, because it is known "a priori".
It is still quite true.
Your straw man and red herring are obvious.
Unless you have conversations with rocks often.
In this statement, "we are all born atheist" it goes without saying yet for some people it can have value. Others will not find value and will argue the definition inanely.
Right, it may be technically true to label a rock as "atheist." However, it is not only meaningless, but also rather silly if one takes a step back and examines the idea. Same with infants.
Part of the separation between myself and others, may be due to my finding truth, itself, to have no value if it is not also meaningful and/or useful. In other words, it has to provide information which adds significance to what we already know. Saying that "Jupiter is unemployed," may technically be true. However, it adds no significant information to our knowledge (class of information) that planets are not capable of engaging in human activities.
Likewise, saying that "infants are atheists," may technically be true (according to some definitions). However, it adds no significant information to our knowledge that infants are incapable of holding beliefs. Both are examples of distinctions which add no significant information to more fundamental knowledge, and, thus, are not useful or meaningful.