Atheism is not a default position

[McBell]

Similarly, the default of favourites cannot exclude favorites.

 

[Willamena]

Ah! By default, then, all atheists believe in god.

 

[McBell]

Ah! By default, then, all atheists believe in god.

wow.
You really are in your own little world.

 

[Shad]

The majority of my conversations on this forum just use simple logic or rationality - when pressed I rely of empiricism, as I think anyone would.

My pushback to people who reject empiricism is...what else do you use!?
What standard can there possibly be without empirical evidence to support it?

You are mistaken that rationalists do not use evidence. However there is a complete lack of evidence from the people claiming evidence is primary. These arguments from logic using a single point of inferences for a conclusion that they themselves can not provide evidence for. This is a legitimate issue to raise.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You are mistaken that rationalists do not use evidence. However there is a complete lack of evidence from the people claiming evidence is primary. These arguments from logic using a single point of inferences for a conclusion that they themselves can not provide evidence for. This is a legitimate issue to raise.

I don't think you're wrong. I'm just asking, what else is there?

 

[Shad]

I don't think you're wrong. I'm just asking, what else is there?

Its those two options for now as those are the only two that have produced results.

 

[Shad]

This doesn't make any sense man, unless you're going to try and make the argument that there is no "lack of stance".

Belief is a stance in something as true or false. In the end you are claiming a lack of a stance is a stance.

The entire argument that I'm making is that "lack of stance" and "stance against" can never be "positive stance". In that way, the 2 former states are equal to each other, despite their differences.

A lack of a stance is not a stance anyways. Sure I accept there are negative positions but not that a lack of a stance is a negative stance.

Again, there is the Philosophy of Atheism, which is a rejection of the Theistic claim - and then there is simple atheism, meaning "without theism" which applies to anyone who is without theism.

Without theism is still set in the parameters of rejecting theism as true. IE with the belief theism is true via negation.

That's a cute dig, but it's incorrect.

No its English grammar as atheism is not a proper noun

When referring to the Philosophy of Atheism you should capitalize the word, as it becomes a proper noun in that context.

No it doesn't as "Philosophy of Atheism" is a made up term. It is not a philosophy such as the Philosophy of Ethics. Atheism is not a branch of philosophy

Referring to the someone as an atheist in general does not require capitalization because it is merely a common noun in that context.

No as it is not a proper noun either. It is not a religion or ideology.

....Atheism... (refers to the external rejection of theistic claims)
...atheism... (refers to the general state of being without theism)

Nope only the first fits. The other is a mental state which has no true or false value regarding the claim of theism and ontology.

I think that's partially fair - but do we not agree that there exists a state of being before...?

Nope as you nor I have any idea what is going on in the mind of a baby. For all we know it could be innate knowledge.

I mean, Theism requires an initial claim, right? And Atheism (big A) is a response to that claim. Taking your stance, would you ever attempt to argue that Theism is the original state? Like, infants are born theists?

I am arguing that the state is unknown. I am also arguing that the vain attempts at pushing babies in either direction is done in order to validate views people already hold as argument ad populum.

We have a pretty good idea, man... The cognitive capacity of infants is not equivalent to that of adults. There are developmental markers in human cognition that are well understood. It's why language develops and emerges at similar stages all over the world. Higher brain development is directly related to, and dependent upon, language. Higher concepts cannot fully develop until after language has given the brain a means to do so.

So if language is innate why can not theism?

Nonsense since babies can understand a lot without knowing a language themselves. Do you think a baby can not identify self without knowing the words self or I?

We can teach sign language to infants and chimps to get them communicating sooner. But note that in every case the capacity for language is still limited.

Which is exactly the communication issues I harp on. You admit we lack the ability to communicate then ignore this factor.

The same holds true for higher thoughts and belief systems.

Nonsense as you just admitted due to communication issues you can not access this information.

Is very different from:

"I believe that there exists a state of existence beyond the physical realm, and in that realm beyond physicality there exists an all-powerful being who created and dictates matters of life and death..."

See what I mean?

I see setting up a strawman. You ignore agency, which primitive animals without a language follow. You ignore pattern find, which primitive animals follow.

Why? That is factually, etymologically, how the word is constructed. I am using the very root foundation of the word, not replacing it. As written, atheism simply means "without theism".
(Please note that I did not capitalize "atheism".)

No it means without god, godless or wicked. You are replacing it. Look up the word in Greek.

If you're referring to the Philosophy of Atheism then you're right - but if you're referring to the greek "a", meaning without and "theos" meaning, god , then you're mistaken.

Nope as Philosophy of Atheism is a made up term. You are creating an ideology out of atheism as if it were like a religion. You are still wrong on it's root meaning.

What about before that moment? Before you could mentally separate yourself from your mother - before your little infant brain even knew that there was such a thing as the concept of different, did you understand the difference?

Babies can identify themselves and other as separate at birth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717541/
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013...s-begin-learning-language-from-their-mothers/

What do you call those people that have a knowledge of the Theistic claim but don't do anything with that knowledge? They obviously aren't theists because they've done nothing with the claim.

No one is obligated to use their knowledge of god/theism or any knowledge for that matter. There is only an issue when one makes claims to other regarding that knowledge. I have knowledge of the Blue Jays in the forest behind my house. However this does not mean I have tell everyone about my knownledge. Except in this case which is just use it as an example.

So what are they?

I do not know, neither do you.

No, man... A baby can't have knowledge synonymous with our terms because they aren't cognitively capable of doing so. They simply aren't.

That is only due to your emphasis on language burdened concepts in which language is used to communicate an idea. They could have ideas that you do not know about, you only assume so.

If you want to make the arugment for innate knowledge, you're going to have to support it, aren't you?

I never made an argument for innate knowledge, I only speculated on it. My purpose about innate knowledge was that empiricism is one of two ideas regarding knowledge and development of knowledge. I was also using it to show that you, as an empiricist ignore the key principle of the idea you follow which is evidence.

You can't harp on me for only making anecdotal notations and then support your argument with anecdotal notations.

Wasn't making an argument for a claim regarding children. I was poking holes in your argument.

Alright - here's a good question: Does the sense or feeling of wonder equate to a theistic claim? I mean, we know (pretty much) that some animals can appreciate certain images or beauty. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine a cat, or a dog, or an ape, or a whale looking at something that they find pleasing and equating it with a sense of awe. But is that the same thing as Theism?

Nope.

 

[Shad]

I am generally a patient guy, but I have my limits. A claim, by definition, is lacking in evidence. This isn't my opinion, it is the dictionary definition. As my 'beliefs' are not lacking in evidence, I make no claim on this subject.

While showing your patience you show also show the ability to read what I posted rather than ignoring it. Darwin observed something of interest. He developed an idea, a claim, about what he observed. He used further observations to support the idea until the evidence made the claim into a well supported position. However it still started out as a claim. Theism has failed to support it's idea so it remains a claim.

The bible sums it up best. "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you.

If you ignore what I type I can not help you nor address you strawman arguments and red herrings.

 

[Thief]

that 3,000 marker is sooooooo close!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Belief is a stance in something as true or false. In the end you are claiming a lack of a stance is a stance.

No I'm not, man. If you read that in what I'm saying then you're not reading me correctly.

The lack of a stance, just as with Willamena's flavors, is a lack of a stance. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Theism is a stance. Atheism is a stance, admittedly.

But if we all agree that these stances exist, what do you call someone who is not a theist, as anything with a lack of stance obviously is not?

A lack of a stance is not a stance anyways. Sure I accept there are negative positions but not that a lack of a stance is a negative stance.

I never said that it was. I'm merely arguing that it is undoubtedly not a positive stance.
The negative stance AND the null stance are obviously not the positive stance.

No its English grammar as atheism is not a proper noun

No it doesn't as "Philosophy of Atheism" is a made up term. It is not a philosophy such as the Philosophy of Ethics. Atheism is not a branch of philosophy

I'll grant you that it's not a formal branch of Philosophy - but to posit that a very obviously developed worldview and mental framework is not a philosophy is a losing argument, don't you think?
A philosophy is just a way of discussing or describing the nature of reality - that's exactly what we're talking about. If Atheism wasn't a philosophy then how are we having this conversation?

Regardless, however, the whole point was to show context of useage. I see no reason to argue about whether or not Atheism is a philosophy - but in the context of usage, for clarity, it becomes a proper noun when referring to the people who hold that particular philosophical worldview; active expressing atheists. This is to distinguish them from the people who are simply without theism.

It is not a religion or ideology.

Well, it's certainly an ideology or there wouldn't be anything for us to discuss here, would there?
You can't say that it's not an ideology while also admitting that it's an ideological stance.

The other is a mental state which has no true or false value regarding the claim of theism and ontology.

Admittedly then, you agree that we are talking about the state of being before the theistic ontological claim... the state that babies assuredly exist in, right?

Nope as you nor I have any idea what is going on in the mind of a baby. For all we know it could be innate knowledge.

For all we know it could me Magical Cosmic Vibrations... But what's more likely?

Babies have innate knowledge of philosophical concepts before be taught them...
Babies exist under the guidance of magical cosmic mental vibrations...
Or babies are pretty much blank slates, learning about their environments from the moment of earliest cognition...

I am arguing that the state is unknown. I am also arguing that the vain attempts at pushing babies in either direction is done in order to validate views people already hold as argument ad populum.

So am I! But that the unknown, or at least untitled, null state is most certainly NOT theism.

It should be very clear that I've never argued that babies aren't active ideological Atheists.

So if language is innate why can not theism?

Nonsense since babies can understand a lot without knowing a language themselves. Do you think a baby can not identify self without knowing the words self or I?

Huh?

Infants have the CAPACITY for language and they have the CAPACITY for faith, assuming a healthy functioning brain - but they don't talk from the moment that they exit the womb, and they won't praise the FSM before their first diaper change, obviously.

The capacity to maintain beliefs have thoughts has nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is going to become a theist or not. Certainly you see that.

Which is exactly the communication issues I harp on. You admit we lack the ability to communicate then ignore this factor.

The inability to communicate higher thoughts is directly related to the inability of the brain to develop higher thought without language...
Higher thoughts DEVELOP because of the networks created in the brain AFTER language is established.
Higher thoughts do not exist without a framework through which to develop them. Babies aren't carrying around loads of philosophical wisdom, just waiting for their language to release it... It's the other way around.

Nonsense as you just admitted due to communication issues you can not access this information.

No - please re-read.
The information simply is not there prior to the brain development after language.

I see setting up a strawman. You ignore agency, which primitive animals without a language follow. You ignore pattern find, which primitive animals follow.

Not at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

No it means without god, godless or wicked. You are replacing it. Look up the word in Greek.

....

Theos = god.
The concept of god cannot exist without a claim of there being god.
god = theistic claim

a = without
atheos = without god (godless)
atheist = person who does not believe in the theistic claim of god

Regardless of the reasoning or lack of reasoning, anyone who does not believe in the theistic claim of god is an atheist.
Babies are not born believing in the theistic claim (because they're completely unaware of it) and are therefore (technically) atheists.

Babies can identify themselves and other as separate at birth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717541/
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013...s-begin-learning-language-from-their-mothers/

Certainly - once they are introduced to the fact that other beings exist.

How many people can the fetus distinguish itself from before it exists the womb?

No one is obligated to use their knowledge of god/theism or any knowledge for that matter. There is only an issue when one makes claims to other regarding that knowledge. I have knowledge of the Blue Jays in the forest behind my house. However this does not mean I have tell everyone about my knownledge. Except in this case which is just use it as an example.

Absolutely - before you moved to that specific location, or into that particular home, how much knowledge did you have of those Blue Jays?

I do not know, neither do you.

We do at least know that they aren't theists, obviously...

That is only due to your emphasis on language burdened concepts in which language is used to communicate an idea. They could have ideas that you do not know about, you only assume so.

There is certainly some gray area, without a doubt. But we do know what those infant minds are capable of and what they are not capable of. So while I cannot say for certain what thoughts happend behind those little tiny eyes, I can make certain claims about what surely doesn't.

I never made an argument for innate knowledge, I only speculated on it. My purpose about innate knowledge was that empiricism is one of two ideas regarding knowledge and development of knowledge. I was also using it to show that you, as an empiricist ignore the key principle of the idea you follow which is evidence.

But there's plenty of evidence to suggest what babies are and are no capable of... what are you talking about?

 

[Underhill]

While showing your patience you show also show the ability to read what I posted rather than ignoring it. Darwin observed something of interest. He developed an idea, a claim, about what he observed. He used further observations to support the idea until the evidence made the claim into a well supported position. However it still started out as a claim. Theism has failed to support it's idea so it remains a claim.

I agree. Darwin made a claim.

If you ignore what I type I can not help you nor address you strawman arguments and red herrings.

I think we're done here.

 

[Shad]

I agree. Darwin made a claim.

Yes, which is was my point. Both were claims at the start. One has support now, they other does not.

I think we're done here.

fine by me, if you can not be bothered to read what I said there is little point in continuing since you are just talking to points you made in your mind and responding to those.

 

[Shad]

No I'm not, man. If you read that in what I'm saying then you're not reading me correctly.

No, I am decontructing your statement down to the simplest points show the error with your position.

The lack of a stance, just as with Willamena's flavors, is a lack of a stance. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Theism is a stance. Atheism is a stance, admittedly.

Thus you admit atheism can not be a lack of stance. Thanks for playing.

But if we all agree that these stances exist, what do you call someone who is not a theist, as anything with a lack of stance obviously is not?

Someone not playing the game. they could be non-theists or agnostic. Atheism is a specific rejection of theism not a lack of it without rejection.

I never said that it was. I'm merely arguing that it is undoubtedly not a positive stance.
The negative stance AND the null stance are obviously not the positive stance.

Sure but a negative stance is still rejection where as positive is rejection of while putting forward a gnostic position of no-god at all.

I'll grant you that it's not a formal branch of Philosophy - but to posit that a very obviously developed worldview and mental framework is not a philosophy is a losing argument, don't you think?

Nope as atheism does not put forward metaphysical naturalism, humanism, etc. You assume it is since theism leads to a worldview thus rejection of it must be it's own worldview. It is not

A philosophy is just a way of discussing or describing the nature of reality - that's exactly what we're talking about. If Atheism wasn't a philosophy then how are we having this conversation?

No, you confuse ontology with philosophy.

Regardless, however, the whole point was to show context of useage. I see no reason to argue about whether or not Atheism is a philosophy - but in the context of usage, for clarity, it becomes a proper noun when referring to the people who hold that particular philosophical worldview; active expressing atheists. This is to distinguish them from the people who are simply without theism.

It is not a proper noun no matter what you do. The only way it can be is if atheism is a religion. Is atheism a religion?

Well, it's certainly an ideology or there wouldn't be anything for us to discuss here, would there?
You can't say that it's not an ideology while also admitting that it's an ideological stance.

It is not an ideological stance, it is a rejection of a claim of ontology.

Admittedly then, you agree that we are talking about the state of being before the theistic ontological claim... the state that babies assuredly exist in, right?

Nope as there is no evidence that either position is default. You are assuming and speculating which I have rejected.

For all we know it could me Magical Cosmic Vibrations... But what's more likely?

The argument with evidence is. You are merely taking one of two position based on your own flawed definition of words then using inference to get to the point you want to arrive at. Nothing more.

Babies have innate knowledge of philosophical concepts before be taught them...

The concept describes a system that already exists. Unless you are saying you had to be told you are a person separate from other people after you were taught language. Did someone need to teach you the laws of identity before you realized you were you and not your mother, brother, father, etc?

Babies exist under the guidance of magical cosmic mental vibrations...
Or babies are pretty much blank slates, learning about their environments from the moment of earliest cognition...

Which is just repeating empiricism then using it at inference. You are merely repeating your method of knowledge, nothing more.

So am I! But that the unknown, or at least untitled, null state is most certainly NOT theism.

Begging the question.

It should be very clear that I've never argued that babies aren't active ideological Atheists.

Yes. However it is not obvious, to you, that you are using a flawed definition as the core of your argument

Huh?

Infants have the CAPACITY for language and they have the CAPACITY for faith, assuming a healthy functioning brain - but they don't talk from the moment that they exit the womb, and they won't praise the FSM before their first diaper change, obviously.

The capacity to maintain beliefs have thoughts has nothing at all to do with whether or not someone is going to become a theist or not. Certainly you see that.

Babies do talk, they cry, yell, make bubble sounds. You dismiss this as even an attempt at language or an internal language instead focusing only on formal languages. However think how the first language developed. It would be based on nonsenical sounds and identification of these sounds with an object. This is due to focusing on formal language while ignoring how these developed in the first place.

The inability to communicate higher thoughts is directly related to the inability of the brain to develop higher thought without language...
Higher thoughts DEVELOP because of the networks created in the brain AFTER language is established.
Higher thoughts do not exist without a framework through which to develop them. Babies aren't carrying around loads of philosophical wisdom, just waiting for their language to release it... It's the other way around.

No. We as adult do not bother to understand babies within their language frame of reference. You make the assumption that since we do not bother that babies can not communicate. More so you are claiming brain development is based on language thus people that are mute and deaf are less developed since they do not follow your formal language. Thus the mute and deaf are less developed. Are the mute and defeat mentally handicapped? Or is that we didn't bother to use a language we both could use and understand.?

No - please re-read.
The information simply is not there prior to the brain development after language.

No the information that cat is a (formal)word describing an animal is not there. However you discount that children make sounds and point to objects as references. So a bubble sound could mean cat to a child.

Not at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

I did and commented on systems you ignore.

a = without
atheos = without god (godless)
atheist = person who does not believe in the theistic claim of god

Thanks for discarding your flawed definition and accepting the rejection of definition, ie does not is not lack of.

Regardless of the reasoning or lack of reasoning, anyone who does not believe in the theistic claim of god is an atheist.
Babies are not born believing in the theistic claim (because they're completely unaware of it) and are therefore (technically) atheists.

People believed in gods before the word existed. Greek is an old but not the oldest language. The form we both are using emerged at specfic dates. However other cultures and it's languages existed for centuries before this word in Greek emerged.. The word came after not before the belief. The word describes the belief not the belief describing the word. So again you have no idea what babies believes, your only argument is that they are unaware of single set of formal languages, that is it.

Certainly - once they are introduced to the fact that other beings exist.

Considering children identified their mother before birth during a stage of development a child was able to identify it was not the same as it's environment, womb. And that external sounds were not produced by this. This required no introduction

How many people can the fetus distinguish itself from before it exists the womb?

As far as we know the mother.

Absolutely - before you moved to that specific location, or into that particular home, how much knowledge did you have of those Blue Jays?

Which was not my point. I hold knowledge that I do not express. The lack of expressing knowledge is not the lack of knowledge which was your point.You conflated and created a strawman from a specific point to address a completely different issue. I never said it was innate knowledge.

We do at least know that they aren't theists, obviously...

Begging the question and assumption based on formal language only.

There is certainly some gray area, without a doubt. But we do know what those infant minds are capable of and what they are not capable of. So while I cannot say for certain what thoughts happend behind those little tiny eyes, I can make certain claims about what surely doesn't.

No we know that language limits communication thus we do not know what children are capable of as you demand strict adherence to formal language and it only.

But there's plenty of evidence to suggest what babies are and are no capable of... what are you talking about?

This knowledge is based on evidence. Your argument has none.

 

[Willamena]

There's the null stance, and there's the negation of stance (which is also not the positive or negative stance). Be certain which your opponent is arguing.

 

[Underhill]

Yes, which is was my point. Both were claims at the start. One has support now, they other does not.

And thus the first is no longer a claim.

fine by me, if you can not be bothered to read what I said there is little point in continuing since you are just talking to points you made in your mind and responding to those.

You are confusing simple disagreement with not listening. I hear what you are saying, I just think it's nonsense.

 

[Thief]

There's the null stance, and there's the negation of stance (which is also not the positive or negative stance). Be certain which your opponent is arguing.

are you posting this so the 'wishy-washy' stance could maybe take this thread to 3,000?

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is getting too drawn out so I'm going to condense this.

Thus you admit atheism can not be a lack of stance. Thanks for playing.

As I've said at least 10 times already - yes.
But I'm not talking about the negative stance, am I?

Someone not playing the game. they could be non-theists or agnostic. Atheism is a specific rejection of theism not a lack of it without rejection.

Agnostics, by the nature of their "indecision", are also not theists...

So what do you call someone who is not a theist?

Sure but a negative stance is still rejection where as positive is rejection of while putting forward a gnostic position of no-god at all.

Again, you're confusing everything I've said and attempting to lump it into the Atheism that we both admit exists.
I have never said that babies were actively rejecting the theistic claim - I've never even hinted at it. I'm merely arguing that they are not theists.

What do you call someone who is not a theist?

Nope as atheism does not put forward metaphysical naturalism, humanism, etc. You assume it is since theism leads to a worldview thus rejection of it must be it's own worldview. It is not

But that's not what we are talking about.

No, you confuse ontology with philosophy.

No, I'm not.

on·tol·o·gy
änˈtäləjē/
noun
noun: ontology; plural noun: ontologies

1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun
noun: philosophy

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
   • a particular system of philosophical thought.
     plural noun: philosophies
     "Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
   • the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
     "the philosophy of science"
     synonyms: thinking, thought, reasoning
     "the philosophy of Aristotle"
   • a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.

Nope as there is no evidence that either position is default.

Sure there is...

"Babies are theists" is a claim that would expect evidence that at least one baby, anywhere in the world, was born with some type of faith in a deity.
"Babies are atheists" is a claim that would expect evidence that no babies are born showing of faith in a deity.

So, quite simply, do you know of any babies that are born with faith in a deity? If there are none, wouldn't that be considered evidence for my argument?

The argument with evidence is.

Right - and which argument has more backing?

The concept describes a system that already exists. Unless you are saying you had to be told you are a person separate from other people after you were taught language. Did someone need to teach you the laws of identity before you realized you were you and not your mother, brother, father, etc?

Recognizing sounds and internally distinguishing the difference between other people and themselves is not anywhere near the same as babies being theists, is it?

Babies do talk, they cry, yell, make bubble sounds. You dismiss this as even an attempt at language or an internal language instead focusing only on formal languages. However think how the first language developed. It would be based on nonsenical sounds and identification of these sounds with an object. This is due to focusing on formal language while ignoring how these developed in the first place.

I've said nothing of the sort - please take more time to read what I'm actually saying...

Recognizing objects and placing internal identifiers on them is, you must admit, not the same as making a theistic claim.
How can someone be a theist before they have created or accepted a theistic claim?

What do you call someone who is not a theist?

No. We as adult do not bother to understand babies within their language frame of reference. You make the assumption that since we do not bother that babies can not communicate. More so you are claiming brain development is based on language thus people that are mute and deaf are less developed since they do not follow your formal language. Thus the mute and deaf are less developed. Are the mute and defeat mentally handicapped? Or is that we didn't bother to use a language we both could use and understand.?

I'm beginning to thing you have no idea what I'm saying... I'd have to be a complete loon to even hint at the things you're accusing me of.

Any parent worth their salt can distinguish one type of their child's cry from another - and those aren't cries that are taught. Babies generate their own communication patterns independent of our teaching. It's a purely organic sound that they make, which they make relatively consistently to distinguish between feelings or to express different needs. We, as parents, identify those sounds and associate them with the corresponding need of the child... This is communication and it is a primitive form of language - but nowhere in there do we see a theistic claim, do we?

Being completely oblivious to the theistic claim, and being without the ability to create it themselves, means that infants are born not theists.

What do you call someone who is not a theist?

No the information that cat is a (formal)word describing an animal is not there. However you discount that children make sounds and point to objects as references. So a bubble sound could mean cat to a child.

Again, I don't do that at all.

But seeing an object for the first time, internally titling that object, and referring back to our personal internal title is not the same as making a theistic claim.

People believed in gods before the word existed. Greek is an old but not the oldest language. The form we both are using emerged at specfic dates. However other cultures and it's languages existed for centuries before this word in Greek emerged.. The word came after not before the belief. The word describes the belief not the belief describing the word. So again you have no idea what babies believes, your only argument is that they are unaware of single set of formal languages, that is it.

Yes, people did believe in gods before our word for god existed. You're absolutely correct. They probably had a word we couldn't even pronounce and that we'd never recognize - and they probably even come up with that word after the idea... But were any of the people who first posited those ideas infants?

Which word do we use for people who do not believe in god?
Even if you throw out the word "atheist" all together, how do you describe someone who has yet to make a theistic claim - or who has yet to consider the prospect of a previously made theistic claim?

Let's avoid the negative connotation of the world entirely and never use the word atheist again....
Do infants believe in god?

Which was not my point. I hold knowledge that I do not express. The lack of expressing knowledge is not the lack of knowledge which was your point.You conflated and created a strawman from a specific point to address a completely different issue. I never said it was innate knowledge.

I realize that was not your point, but you inadvertently made mine in the process.

Even if you had never mentioned your knowledge of the local blue jays, my question. in principle, would still stand.
How much knowledge of those blue jays could you have possibly had prior to moving into that house?
Did you know that blue jays were abundant in the back yard of that property before you moved in? Had you studied blue jay behavior before then?
Why don't you know a lot about Toucan behavior?

You don't know a lot about toucan behavior because your house isn't located near the edge of a jungle where toucan's can be observed, right?

Well, the same is true of infants and gods.

 

[Thief]

oh good.....we are once again tossing babies back and forth.
maybe if we drop enough of them .....we can all realize the foolish effort

 

[Willamena]

are you posting this so the 'wishy-washy' stance could maybe take this thread to 3,000?

I don't know of a 'wishy-washy' stance.

 

[Thief]

I don't know of a 'wishy-washy' stance.

how about?.....no good definition for atheist.
saw someone try that...

How about?...babies are atheists.
I really think that was grossly over played....and foolish.

How about?...denial.....of atheism as a declaration

We might make it to 3,000 postings!....oh yeah!

kinda like that other thread.....last poster wins!