Atheist by birth?

[outhouse]

Right, so you refuse to read for comprehension. Don't worry, I wasn't really expecting otherwise.

are you looking in a mirror when you type?

I comprehended everything you typed to the smallest detail.


you are trying to argue form a standpoint that atheism requires a lack of a known belief. that is not the case.




first you need to argue this point below, with certainty, if you can show me im wrong ill bow out and apologize and thank you for correcting me.

All homo sapiens are a theist or a atheist or agnostic.

 

[Valjean]

Christ! This is why I hate philosophers! A philosopher will argue points long after scientific evidence is introduced to settle the issue. There is no way you have a case that a baby is even an implicit atheist, when the evidence coming in from developmental psychologists is telling us that children are hardwired with all of the building blocks that are turned into religious dogmas and mythologies later in life. I A built in predisposition towards telelogical thinking, means that children will start putting together concepts of a creator as they get older, and do not need to be indoctrinated with religion to make it happen. To me, that makes it pointless to be arguing that anyone can be born an atheist.

But atheism has nothing to do with potentials. You're making a simple concept much too complicated.
Babies are born with a potential for language as well, but they're not born linguists. They're born without language; without even a concept of language. They're a-lingual, if you will.

No, but neither did my dog. I wouldn't describe him as an atheist.

I am certainly of the position that atheism is an absence of a particular belief. However, unlike some other people, I think that you have to have an understanding of what that belief is for an absence of that belief to be meaningful. In other words, things that cannot hold beliefs cannot be atheists - this includes dogs, rocks, and human infants.

Work in progress is trying to include potentiality into the concept and you're trying to include meaningfulness. I think you guys are investing a simple concept with all sorts of extraneous baggage.
If the belief is absent it doesn't matter weather the object is capable of belief or not. Anything without a god-concept conforms to the definition of atheist; is, therefore atheist, regardless of any other qualities.

 

[Willamena]

What I'm saying is that in the world of spreading the gospel there are two types of of non-believers. Those who haven't yet heard the gospel and those who have heard it and reject it. The bible does distinguish between the two and some denominations believe a person cannot be "officially" condemned unless they heard the truth and rejected it.

I'm struggling to make the analogy. Maybe someone can help. Those who "haven't yet heard the bible" have no proposition, so they're not atheists. Of those who "have heard it," they'll either understand it or they won't, and if they do, if they're atheists they'll have rejected it. (That's not to say they understand what the theist understands --that's a whole different story.) For the atheist, the capacity to be condemnable is just a bonus, or at least it should be.

Edit: Okay, reading what I wrote I think do I make the analogy. I hope. )(

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My view is that the question of belief, or absence of belief, is moot when you're talking about something which cannot hold beliefs. It's meaningless to describe something as an atheist, when it is not able to hold any beliefs.

Sometimes I think "non believer" is a good term to describe it. I'm not really sure it all makes any difference.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe someone can help. Those who "haven't yet heard the bible" have no proposition, so they're not atheists.

this statement fails under your a theist or a atheist




there is no qualifier for atheism that one must first understand theism and then reject it.

 

[Valjean]

and yet so many people keep coming up with them

 

[Kilgore Trout]

are you looking in a mirror when you type?

I comprehended everything you typed to the smallest detail.

you are trying to argue form a standpoint that atheism requires a lack of a known belief. that is not the case.

first you need to argue this point below, with certainty, if you can show me im wrong ill bow out and apologize and thank you for correcting me.

All homo sapiens are a theist or a atheist or agnostic.

Wrong. I'm saying it's meaningless to describe something as not having a belief, when it is not capable of holding beliefs. Would you describe a rock as an atheist? Would you describe a dog as an atheist? Would you describe a newborn human infant as an atheist? If there's some reason why your answers differ on any of these questions, then please describe why.

 

[outhouse]

Sometimes I think "non believer" is a good term to describe it. I'm not really sure it all makes any difference.

no but you keyed me into a good allegorical story to explain this.


Your a buyer of a can of corn or your not.

One does not have to walk in the store to be labeled as someone who did not buy the corn.

One does not have to know about corn to not buy it.

One doesnt even have to know how to spell corn to not buy it.

At birth you dont buy corn

 

[outhouse]

Would you describe a newborn human infant as an atheist?

yes, the child is a atheist.

it does not believe in theism, and it doesnt believe in a deity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sometimes I think "non believer" is a good term to describe it. I'm not really sure it all makes any difference.

Well, it's sort of like calling a tree uneducated, or a koala bear apolitical. Some terms simply are not meaningfully applicable to some things.

 

[laffy_taffy]

I believe that if we are born with a default position, it would be agnosticism.

Of course babies are agnostic. But we're not discussing whether or not they have "knowledge" of god, but rather "belief." Two different things.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

yes, the child is a atheist.

it does not believe in theism, and it doesnt believe in a deity.

So why wouldn't you describe the rock or the dog as an atheist? They don't believe in deities either.

 

[outhouse]

Definitions of atheist (n)


a·the·ist [ áythee ist ]

1. unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, agnostic, freethinker, humanist




TELL ME how does a newborn child NOT fit this description

 

[outhouse]

So why wouldn't you describe the rock or the dog as an atheist? They don't believe in deities either.

read the definition

the qualifier is "somebody"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

read the definition

the qualifier is "somebody"

Right, but I'm trying to get you to think about the criteria of why atheism applies to people and not rocks or dogs. What is it that separates people from inanimate objects or dogs which would make the definition of atheism be applicable to people and not to them?

 

[outhouse]

Of course babies are agnostic. But we're not discussing whether or not they have "knowledge" of god, but rather "belief." Two different things.

I dont buy it.

if a child knows nothing of, or has no concepts of deitys, how can the child be unsure if they exist or not?

 

[outhouse]

Right, but I'm trying to get you to think about the criteria of why atheism applies to people and not rocks or dogs. What is it that separates people from inanimate objects or dogs which would make the definition of atheism be applicable to people and not to them?

thanks and I understand, but that is not part of the definition at all.


one could if one wanted to, label a dog or rock as atheist. One could never label them as a theist

 

[Kilgore Trout]

thanks and I understand, but that is not part of the definition at all.

one could if one wanted to, label a dog or rock as atheist. One could never label them as a theist

Do you think it's meaningful to label a dog or rock as an atheist? If no, why not?

 

[Willamena]

no but you keyed me into a good allegorical story to explain this.


Your a buyer of a can of corn or your not.

One does not have to walk in the store to be labeled as someone who did not buy the corn.

One does not have to know about corn to not buy it.

One doesnt even have to know how to spell corn to not buy it.

At birth you dont buy corn

They must have loved you in Logics classes.

If you don't know about a can of corn, why would you be a buyer of a can of corn?

 

[Tristesse]

There is implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism, are those who have never heard of the concept of a deity, therefor cannot believe in the deities existence. And explicit atheists are those who have heard of a concept of a diety and reject the concept as irrational.

A new born baby could be categorized as an implicit atheist.