Atheist by birth?

[Acim]

This seems tautological, since it is based on the (unstated and undemonstrated) assumption that atheism is a framework, not a property.

Atheism is the framework that gods do not exist.

It is believed to be (or understood as) lack of belief in what theism believes - namely that god(s) exist.

Again, within context of this thread, that 'property' would accurately apply to human babies, and likely stay consistent with them (as long as human remains infant in awareness). In adult atheists, the property would become, I argue observably so, a framework. A basis of rationale, in which it isn't merely 'lack a belief,' but argued as, 'lack a belief, because evidence so far presented doesn't provide conviction or adequate reason to conclude existence of God(s).'

Therefore the framework would start, and be perpetuated by beliefs around 'what is reasonable evidence for existence of God.' For if human asserts that God is equal to all physical items in known universe, then that would contain abundance of evidence for existence of God. Yet, atheist could say, "I lack belief that this is evidence of God."

Which is what I contend atheists are more or less saying. There is a framework that is discernible in discussions, when atheist types engage in debate. Based on sense of strong atheism at work, there can never be anything that is evidence for God, because the (actual position and) belief is god(s) do not exist.

 

[Storm]

I have two questions for you:

Are babies virgin?

Are rocks virgin?

Virginity is a feature of biology, not thought. Which means your point (assuming you have one) is irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just like rocks and amoebas...... Not a very useful label, is it?

Are amoebas non-smokers?

Just because a label by itself isn't useful doesn't mean that we can't put it to use with qualifiers and context.

 

[Me Myself]

Virginity is a feature of biology, not thought. Which means your point (assuming you have one) is irrelevant.

Virginity is as biological as thought.

Either your biological body has had coitos with another one or not.

Either you have used your carbohidrates and other mind nutrients to make the energy of your brain think about God, or not.

thoughts ARE actions as long as they are proccessed on the brain.

 

[Acim]

I have stated earlier in this thread that babies are asexual. But more like 'weak asexuality.'

In case one is not sure of this, rocks are asexual.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have stated earlier in this thread that babies are asexual. But more like 'weak asexuality.'

That gets tricky, because "asexual" has a few different meanings. If you mean something like "not posessing sexual desire", then you're probably right. If you mean "not differentiated by gender", then you're most certainly wrong.

 

[Storm]

Are amoebas non-smokers?

Just because a label by itself isn't useful doesn't mean that we can't put it to use with qualifiers and context.

And what qualifiers and context do you find appropriate, Penguin?

Virginity is as biological as thought.

Either your biological body has had coitos with another one or not.

Either you have used your carbohidrates and other mind nutrients to make the energy of your brain think about God, or not.

thoughts ARE actions as long as they are proccessed on the brain.

That's the most impressively pathetic rationalization I've ever heard. Congratulations?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what qualifiers and context do you find appropriate, Penguin?

That depends what we're talking about. For instance, if we're talking about the effectiveness of an anti-smoking ad campaign, then we probably don't care about amoebas. In that context, we only consider the human non-smokers (and even then we would probably narrow it down by things like age and location); this doesn't mean that amoebas aren't non-smokers (since they're definitely not smokers); it just means that they're not the non-smokers we care about in this particular case.

 

[Storm]

That depends what we're talking about. For instance, if we're talking about the effectiveness of an anti-smoking ad campaign, then we probably don't care about amoebas. In that context, we only consider the human non-smokers (and even then we would probably narrow it down by things like age and location); this doesn't mean that amoebas aren't non-smokers (since they're definitely not smokers); it just means that they're not the non-smokers we care about in this particular case.

I meant in regards to atheism.

 

[Me Myself]

That's the most impressively pathetic rationalization I've ever heard. Congratulations?

1- No need to be offensive

2- If you already know this how can you have said what you said coherently?

3- Seriously tone it down. If you are incapable or arguing rationally, move on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant in regards to atheism.

Well, in this case, the question is "are babies atheists?" The question of whether rocks are atheists is irrelevant, just as the question of whether amoebas are non-smokers is irrelevant to the scenario I described.

 

[idav]

That depends what we're talking about. For instance, if we're talking about the effectiveness of an anti-smoking ad campaign, then we probably don't care about amoebas. In that context, we only consider the human non-smokers (and even then we would probably narrow it down by things like age and location); this doesn't mean that amoebas aren't non-smokers (since they're definitely not smokers); it just means that they're not the non-smokers we care about in this particular case.

When I was a baby I was a non-smoker... I think.:angel2:

 

[Storm]

1- No need to be offensive

2- If you already know this how can you have said what you said coherently?

3- Seriously tone it down. If you are incapable or arguing rationally, move on.

1) That was tame, and no less than you deserved.
2) What in the world did I say that you took for agreement?
3) :biglaugh:

 

[Storm]

Well, in this case, the question is "are babies atheists?" The question of whether rocks are atheists is irrelevant, just as the question of whether amoebas are non-smokers is irrelevant to the scenario I described.

Not if the sole consideration is the lack of an opinion.

 

[idav]

So if a baby is a non-believer does it go to hell?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not if the sole consideration is the lack of an opinion.

I don't get what you mean. If rocks are atheists, so what?

 

[Valjean]

Just like rocks and amoebas...... Not a very useful label, is it?

Only when applied to humans.

I have two questions for you:

Are babies virgin?

Are rocks virgin?

I have a lot of records (yes, I'm dating myself) clearly labeled "virgin vinyl."

 

[Me Myself]

1) That was tame, and no less than you deserved.
2) What in the world did I say that you took for agreement?
3) :biglaugh:

1) tame for what? I am discussing in a forum, I haven´t called anyone unresonable nor being disrespectfull. You called my views pathetic. It´s just... well, pathethic honestly.

2)So you mean you don´t see the act of thought as something biological? Are you not aware that thought is a biological action? Do you not see the conectio? between the fact that both thought and sex are biological actions and the fact that you made prior to me saying that?

3):sarcastic

 

[Storm]

I don't get what you mean. If rocks are atheists, so what?

It highlights the absurdity of the argument. We all know that rocks don't have opinions. Atheism may not be a belief, but it IS an opinion, and therefore cannot be attributed to those who don't even understand the question.

Personally, I find the whole argument unseemly.

 

[Me Myself]

Only when applied to humans.


I have a lot of records (yes, I'm dating myself) clearly labeled "virgin vinyl."

That is just a reassurance that there has never been any porn material in such records