Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Ouroboros]

Oh yes. Presuming a belief in a deity in a child that lacks the means to say it is IMO both awfully speculative and all-out abusive.

Also, presuming that they can't have it is speculative. We don't know how the mind works or even how to define exactly what "belief" is in our brain or mind. So what is it? Can any atheist prove that babies lack belief in God? How would they go about doing it? Without actual evidence, it's only something that's assumed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists are assumed to be theists?

Quite often, yes. And pressured into claiming so. We are often told not to express our disbelief. In Brazil and, far as I can tell, in the USA as well.

It is apparently perceived as disrespectful to say out aloud that we disbelieve.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also, presuming that they can't have it is speculative.

Except that if we take it as part of theism (belief in a deity) that it is supposed to have a meaning, then it is a positive assertion and it must be acknowledged that infants are incapable of it - and therefore implict atheists.

But there is this misguided perception that we should "spare" them from the "saddle" of even implicit atheism, or perhaps that it is only "fair and pious" to instead saddle them with assumed theism.

That is both weird and abusive. It saddens me.

We don't know how the mind works or even how to define exactly what "belief" is in our brain or mind. So what is it? Can any atheist prove that babies lack belief in God? How would they go about doing it? Without actual evidence, it's only something that's assumed.

Then again, I only assume that I am not your cousin....

 

[Ouroboros]

Quite often, yes. And pressured into claiming so. We are often told not to express our disbelief. In Brazil and, far as I can tell, in the USA as well.

It is apparently perceived as disrespectful to say out aloud that we disbelieve.

I can see that in US, yes. It's not the same all over the world however, but it is annoying that people assume things about you without asking.

 

[Ouroboros]

Except that if we take it as part of theism (belief in a deity) that it is supposed to have a meaning, then it is a positive assertion and it must be acknowledged that infants are incapable of it - and therefore implict atheists.

Not if the lack of belief in God(s) of any kind. God(s) is undefined in the way how it's been discussed in the past on this site. With God being undefined, there's no definition of the theism either, and how do we know what an infant believes or not? It's an assumption that they don't believe in a higher power. We can't ask them because they don't speak the language. So, we assume that they don't, but there's no scientific measurement to prove it. Unless you know of some way of actually testing it?

But there is this misguided perception that we should "spare" them from the "saddle" of even implicit atheism, or perhaps that it is only "fair and pious" to instead saddle them with assumed theism.

Since we don't know what they believe or not. And since we don't even know what belief really works, assuming them to be atheist or theist are equally wrong in my view. I'm basically one step more skeptic in this matter than most. I'm skeptical to make a positive claim about the belief states of babies. It is unknown.

That is both weird and abusive. It saddens me.

Then again, I only assume that I am not your cousin....

And by assuming it becomes a positive claim with certainty? It shouldn't. Have anyone done fMRI studies of belief and lack of belief in babies yet?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Alright, so what I am reading here is that it is okay to define someone else's atheism, because if you believe someone has an absence of a god belief, such as we do with any implicit atheist, then that is enough to seem that person an atheist.

Sure. Implicit atheism would be an example. But implicit and explicit atheists have little in common apart from an absence of theism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I didn't know what you meant and is why I asked. I consider humans to be intelligent and divine. Thus, hearing what you said struck me as a way to challenge what you were getting across.



So, you change the goal posts. Going from:
- "no self-aware/intelligent entity or entities responsible for any part of the creation, maintenance or administration of the universe."
to
- on a universal scale we humans administrate nothing

Cause "any part" would include things much smaller than the entire planet. It would even include the human body. And your stating that we are not responsible for maintaining / administrating the earth. If I'm reading your reasoning correctly, whatever I come up with would also not apply to anything we think we might have a right to administrate or maintain.

Given the lack of objectivity for existence of a physical universe, I'm so far going easy on what it is you are trying to convey but so far not doing a very good job at it. Without our intellect and consciousness, I find it not possible to establish existence of this universe. And without beliefs relying on circular reasoning for physical perception of said universe, there is plausibly no physical universe. There is no scale to the universe without us (currently existing intelligent beings).

I'll just stop you right there. You're belaboring your point when you have no leg to stand on. You're simply trying to catch me in the phrasing of my statements by saying "OH! OH! OH! But you used the word ANY! Ha! I have you now!!!! Any includes my boogers which I pick from my nose and then do what I want with! I administrate my boogers and that counts under ANY!!! HAHAHA!!! I'm a genius!!!!"

Again - you did have at least an idea what I meant - and if you didn't then what I meant was any being doing magical or otherwise supernatural things to administrate parts of the universe. Are you happy now? Have you done anything supernatural lately? And if you say you have - you're... well, you're just not cool.

And it honestly DOESN'T EVEN MATTER if the physical universe exists or not. It doesn't If you think it does you're crazy. There is what you perceive and that's about it. What does this really change about my points? Are you saying that, definitively, in what I do not perceive lies all the supernatural and crazy things that everyone has dreamt up? Is that what you believe, or is this some attempt at establishing fact out of things we can't possibly know? Again - I'll ask you to stop right there. You're no genius.

 

[Willamena]

Oh yes. Presuming a belief in a deity in a child that lacks the means to say it is IMO both awfully speculative and all-out abusive.

It wasn't the belief of the child in a deity that was presumptive, but the existence of a deity that communicates itself to the pre-birthed child. If a deity did that, the child would have that belief, that's a given.

 

[Curious George]

Sure. Implicit atheism would be an example. But implicit and explicit atheists have little in common apart from an absence of theism.

But you do see how that is different from:

I don't really see why atheists should be in charge of defining 'atheism', or indeed, which particular atheist would manage this even if atheists WERE in charge.
Atheists can only really describe their own form of atheism. In effect, what is it about them that causes them to self-identify as atheists.
.

Atheists can either identify others as atheist or they can only really describe their own form of atheism. I suppose you could say that when a person is identifying others as atheist they are in effect just describing their own brand of atheism. But if this is so are all brands equal?

 

[LuisDantas]

It wasn't the belief of the child in a deity that was presumptive, but the existence of a deity that communicates itself to the pre-birthed child. If a deity did that, the child would have that belief, that's a given.

Sure. And if they were born with antenae, they would be cute.

Lots of things would happen if they did happen.

 

[Marsh]

It is absurd to say that it chose atheism, but not to say that it (a baby) is implicitly atheistic.

Then would you make the case that a daisy is implicitly atheistic? "Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (Wikipdia: Implicit and Explicit Atheism). That could be a daisy, could be a rock, and some people actually assert these too are conceptual atheists. I've had atheists tell me that chimps are atheists under this definition. With any of these, however, we are back to the absurd. George H. Smith who coined the term, implicit atheism, back in 1979 wrote: "This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues." Note: CONCEPTUAL CAPACITY to grasp the issues. Smith did not intend for people to go off half cocked and make the claim that all manner of objects and creatures were atheists. Nor would he include infants.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then would you make the case that a daisy is implicitly atheistic?

Sure.

"Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (Wikipdia: Implicit and Explicit Atheism). That could be a daisy, could be a rock, and some people actually assert these too are conceptual atheists. I've had atheists tell me that chimps are atheists under this definition. With any of these, however, we are back to the absurd.

Sorry, I just don't see anything absurd in that.

George H. Smith who coined the term, implicit atheism, back in 1979 wrote: "This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues." Note: CONCEPTUAL CAPACITY to grasp the issues. Smith did not intend for people to go off half cocked and make the claim that all manner of objects and creatures were atheists. Nor would he include infants.

I guess I would ask him if he changed his mind since.

 

[Willamena]

Except that if we take it as part of theism (belief in a deity) that it is supposed to have a meaning, then it is a positive assertion and it must be acknowledged that infants are incapable of it - and therefore implict atheists.

But there is this misguided perception that we should "spare" them from the "saddle" of even implicit atheism, or perhaps that it is only "fair and pious" to instead saddle them with assumed theism.

That is both weird and abusive. It saddens me.



Then again, I only assume that I am not your cousin....

What's fair is to saddle them "without belief," rather than theism or atheism.

 

[Willamena]

Then would you make the case that a daisy is implicitly atheistic? "Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (Wikipdia: Implicit and Explicit Atheism). That could be a daisy, could be a rock, and some people actually assert these too are conceptual atheists. I've had atheists tell me that chimps are atheists under this definition. With any of these, however, we are back to the absurd. George H. Smith who coined the term, implicit atheism, back in 1979 wrote: "This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues." Note: CONCEPTUAL CAPACITY to grasp the issues. Smith did not intend for people to go off half cocked and make the claim that all manner of objects and creatures were atheists. Nor would he include infants.

Sadly, the category, the way it's being used here, would also deny that a person is theist simply because they've passed away.

 

[Acim]

Oh yes. Presuming a belief in a deity in a child that lacks the means to say it is IMO both awfully speculative and all-out abusive.

I sure wish we did refrained from such a nasty habit.

To deny the possibility is awfully asinine.

That is just entirely wrong, preposterous even. It is only respectful and fair to take notice that there is no reason whatsoever to assume a god-belief in beings that give no indication of any.

This is just entirely wrong, preposterous even. It is only respectful and fair to take notice that there is no reason to assume a denial of god-belief in beings that have given no indication of any.

 

[Acim]

I'll just stop you right there. You're belaboring your point when you have no leg to stand on. You're simply trying to catch me in the phrasing of my statements by saying "OH! OH! OH! But you used the word ANY! Ha! I have you now!!!! Any includes my boogers which I pick from my nose and then do what I want with! I administrate my boogers and that counts under ANY!!! HAHAHA!!! I'm a genius!!!!"

Again - you did have at least an idea what I meant - and if you didn't then what I meant was any being doing magical or otherwise supernatural things to administrate parts of the universe. Are you happy now? Have you done anything supernatural lately? And if you say you have - you're... well, you're just not cool.

Seriously, you changed the goalposts.

I'd have to understand what you mean by magical and/or supernatural. To me, miracles are natural. When they don't occur, something has gone wrong. I see nothing magical about miracles. I don't subscribe to the idea that they are spectacles meant to induce belief in a deity. I do subscribe to the idea that they are intrinsically related to forgiveness.

And it honestly DOESN'T EVEN MATTER if the physical universe exists or not. It doesn't If you think it does you're crazy. There is what you perceive and that's about it. What does this really change about my points? Are you saying that, definitively, in what I do not perceive lies all the supernatural and crazy things that everyone has dreamt up? Is that what you believe, or is this some attempt at establishing fact out of things we can't possibly know? Again - I'll ask you to stop right there. You're no genius.

Got any more ad homs?

Knowing that the physical universe is not existing (as reality) makes a significant difference in understanding a) self, b) perceived others and c) (nature of) divinity. Puts 'natural' in proper perspective.

 

[Acim]

What's fair is to saddle them "without belief," rather than theism or atheism.

What I don't get is why atheist types can readily observe that babies have their creators (parents) watching over them, influencing their lives but then deny this would plausibly lead to outward observation that they are primary, perhaps only, examples we have of beings in a theistic type relationship.

Would be like saying that all wild animals that we observe in the wild are not wild animals because they don't have the belief that they are in the wild. Nor that they are animals. Therefore, both wild and animals are untrue about them. They would need to self identify as animals for it to be true about them.

 

[Curious George]

Then would you make the case that a daisy is implicitly atheistic? "Implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (Wikipdia: Implicit and Explicit Atheism). That could be a daisy, could be a rock, and some people actually assert these too are conceptual atheists. I've had atheists tell me that chimps are atheists under this definition. With any of these, however, we are back to the absurd. George H. Smith who coined the term, implicit atheism, back in 1979 wrote: "This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues." Note: CONCEPTUAL CAPACITY to grasp the issues. Smith did not intend for people to go off half cocked and make the claim that all manner of objects and creatures were atheists. Nor would he include infants.

Oh never mind that.

 

[LuisDantas]

What's fair is to saddle them "without belief," rather than theism or atheism.

Except that that is not any different from implicit atheism. Nor is it "saddling" them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Time to play failure to grasp an inherent asymetry of the atheistic and theistic stances, Acim?

You are attempting to mirror what are inherently unlike positions, and that really hurt your claims.

To deny the possibility is awfully asinine.

By no means. It is just honest and respectful.

This is just entirely wrong, preposterous even. It is only respectful and fair to take notice that there is no reason to assume a denial of god-belief in beings that have given no indication of any.

Is this supposed not to sound absurd?