Are people born inherently atheist?

[Monk Of Reason]

I guess you found this post meaningful but I didn't. Try producing a meaningful post next time.

The rock is also a non-golfer. It is also a virgin. Does that have any meaning? To say the rock is a virgin? The rock has never had sex. Regardless of its ability or inability to have sex it is still a virgin by the definition of the word. He means this kind of useless labeling has little to no meaning when prescribed to human beings with sentience and the ability to contemplate such things.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess you found this post meaningful but I didn't. Try producing a meaningful post next time.

Try producing a meaningful counter-argument to anything I've put forward. I've been waiting for one of those for the entire thread.

 

[ArtieE]

Me neither. Because it's not only silly, but meaningless.

What is meaningless is your constant litany of posts calling things meaningless. Give it a rest.

 

[Magic Man]

I suppose some people do find meaningfulness irrelevant, whether dealing with concepts or semantics. I guess if someone feels so compelled to hold a particular perspective that they ultimately rely on nothing but a specific dictionary definition to justify it, then there's no way to get them to try to look at it from a more meaningfully thoughtful perspective.

But none of this really matters. What we're talking about is whether infants fit a certain definition. Unless we change the definition to something other than "people with no belief in gods", infants will fit that definition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What is meaningless is your constant litany of posts calling things meaningless. Give it a rest.

I'll give it a rest when someone puts forth a cogent argument detailing how labeling infants as atheists is any more meaningful than labeling rocks as atheists.

If you don't want a response, then don't respond to my posts. It's not rocket science.

 

[Magic Man]

So are all comatose people atheists?

Depends on whether they believe in a god, but this is a great question. According to the views of some here on the question of infants and atheism, talking about comatose people as atheists would be meaningless, and yet I think we can pretty much all agree that it's not.

 

[idav]

And, as I've stated numerous times, it is accurate in the way that calling rocks atheists is accurate.

Thats not the same because you are anthropomorphizing the rock not the baby.

Labels are coming from the people doing the labeling whether your labeling yourself or someone else. Labeling a baby is not for the baby, it is for the person doing the labeling. The downside is the baby can't defend themselves if some adult misrepresents them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Thats not the same because you are anthropomorphizing the rock not the baby.

Labels are coming from the people doing the labeling whether your labeling yourself or someone else. Labeling a baby is not for the baby, it is for the person doing the labeling. The downside is the baby can't defend themselves if some adult misrepresents them.

I think that was Dawkin's biggest problem with religious people and raising children.

 

[Willamena]

Regardless, if the definition of "atheist" is "person who doesn't believe in gods", then an infant qualifies. Whether that's meaningful in most situations is irrelevant.

It's relevant where "not meaningful" refers to nonsense.

 

[Magic Man]

The rock is also a non-golfer. It is also a virgin. Does that have any meaning? To say the rock is a virgin? The rock has never had sex. Regardless of its ability or inability to have sex it is still a virgin by the definition of the word. He means this kind of useless labeling has little to no meaning when prescribed to human beings with sentience and the ability to contemplate such things.

First, no, a rock would not fit the definition of "virgin" just as it doesn't fit the definition of "atheist". Second, in many contexts calling a baby unemployed or an atheist would be useless. In other cases, discussing the religious beliefs or lack thereof of babies isn't useless. For instance, if we're trying to figure out how religion comes about or whether people truly have an innate "knowledge" of God, it can be meaningful to discuss babies as atheists.

 

[Magic Man]

It's relevant where "not meaningful" refers to nonsense.

So, it's no relevant here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But none of this really matters. What we're talking about is whether infants fit a certain definition.

No, that's what you're talking about. I've been trying to answer the question put forth the OP in a more meaningfully thoughtful way by actually exploring what significance "atheism" and "belief" have, and why and how these terms do or don't provide meaningful information when applied. Some of us are interested in more understanding and more nuance than that provided by particular, hand-picked definitions.

Yes, I understand that many people in this thread are apparently extremely compelled to call infants "atheists," and that they do nothing but repeatedly post whatever specific definition fits that purpose, and are not interested in exploring any type of meaningful understanding or engage in actual discussion. I understand this, and vapidly re-posting a particular definition over-and-over again is not going to somehow make me abandon reason and intellect, and miraculously agree with absurdity.

 

[idav]

I'll give it a rest when someone puts forth a cogent argument detailing how labeling infants as atheists is any more meaningful than labeling rocks as atheists.

Did you miss my Catholic example, they care if babies are heathens or atheists and they care that the baby gets baptized to become Christian. Where as an atheist parent wouldn't be so concerned about such religious questions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First, no, a rock would not fit the definition of "virgin" just as it doesn't fit the definition of "atheist". Second, in many contexts calling a baby unemployed or an atheist would be useless. In other cases, discussing the religious beliefs or lack thereof of babies isn't useless. For instance, if we're trying to figure out how religion comes about or whether people truly have an innate "knowledge" of God, it can be meaningful to discuss babies as atheists.

So the rock has had sexual relations?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thats not the same because you are anthropomorphizing the rock not the baby.

And I'm sure this argument is somehow meaningful inside your head.

 

[ArtieE]

I'll give it a rest when someone puts forth a cogent argument detailing how labeling infants as atheists is any more meaningful than labeling rocks as atheists.

If you don't want a response, then don't respond to my posts. It's not rocket science.

I don't label infants atheists I label them weak atheists which means not (yet) theists/strong atheists and it is more meaningful than labeling rocks atheists because infants can potentially become theists/strong atheists but a rock can't. It's not rocket science, it's something we call common sense. Your posts are just a waste of my time so I'll put you on my ignore list.

 

[Magic Man]

No, that's what you're talking about. I've been trying to answer the question put forth the OP in a more meaningfully thoughtful way by actually exploring what significance "atheism" and "belief" have, and why and how these terms do or don't provide meaningful information when applied. Some of us are interested in more understanding and more nuance than that provided by particular, hand-picked definitions.

Yes, I understand that many people in this thread are apparently extremely compelled to call infants "atheists," and that they do nothing but repeatedly post whatever specific definition fits that purpose, and are not interested in exploring any type of meaningful understanding or engage in actual discussion. I understand this, and vapidly re-posting a particular definition over-and-over again is not going to somehow make me abandon reason and intellect, and miraculously agree with absurdity.

Whatever you say, big guy. The fact remains that an infant is an atheist according to the standard definition of atheist.

 

[Magic Man]

So the rock has had sexual relations?

Nope.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Did you miss my Catholic example, they care if babies are heathens or atheists and they care that the baby gets baptized to become Christian. Where as an atheist parent wouldn't be so concerned about such religious questions.

No, I didn't miss it. It's just irrelevant to the context of what I've been discussing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The fact remains that an infant is an atheist according to the standard definition of atheist.

And the fact remains that you have no thoughtful or reasoned argument, and are left relying on cherry-picked definitions as your only argument.