Atheist by birth?

[laffy_taffy]

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.

So, isn't it more of a risk to spread the "good news" since a person may not have been condemned if you would not have told them about it? If a person hasn't heard (but hasn't rejected) they are fine, but if they HAVE heard and they reject it, then they are condemned. So either way, the people are better off if you do NOT share the "good news".

 

[Willamena]

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

One could label them President of the United States of America.

 

[snl2240]

If a baby were raised in isolation, without influence. I can say with great certainty, that baby would not know of any god that we know of. Nor would they necessarily believe in any gods

This can be proven through all the thousands of people who don't know about the world's major religions now who live away from it's influence. Does a baby in the heart of the amazon know about Jesus? Of course not unless a missionary comes and shoves a bible down their throat.

 

[outhouse]

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

not really the point is it? I think in most cases, someone else [a parent] buys the corn throws it in the basket and forces the child to eat it. After a while if cooked properly the child may take a liking to it, The child may not.

if the child doesnt buy the corn because it was never introduced, or because it was and didnt like it. The child still is not a buyer of corn.

They must have loved you in Logics classes.

LOL :bow:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

But newborn babies don't not believe in the existence of deities because they haven't heard the concept - they don't believe because they are not capable of forming such beliefs.

 

[Orias]

But newborn babies don't not believe in the existence of deities because they haven't heard the concept - they don't believe because they are not capable of forming such beliefs.

Doesn't stop others from slapping their vague and argumentative definitions onto them.

What makes a baby a baby?

 

[outhouse]

If a baby were raised in isolation, without influence. I can say with great certainty, that baby would not know of any god that we know of. Nor would they necessarily believe in any gods

This can be proven through all the thousands of people who don't know about the world's major religions now who live away from it's influence. Does a baby in the heart of the amazon know about Jesus? Of course not unless a missionary comes and shoves a bible down their throat.

dont confuse mainstream religion with no belief in spirits or deitys.


I have never found a remote tribe yet that has zero belief in the supernatural, spirits and such.

There is only one or two known tribes that dont believe in a deity, but still follow closely to the supernatural and spirits ect ect which could still be labeled as theology

 

[snl2240]

But newborn babies don't not believe in the existence of deities because they haven't heard the concept - they don't believe because they are not capable of forming such beliefs.

Exactly, that's what I was getting at, guess I was being long winded. :sorry1:

 

[outhouse]

One could label them President of the United States of America.

true, but one could never label them as a theist

 

[Willamena]

not really the point is it? I think in most cases, someone else [a parent] buys the corn throws it in the basket and forces the child to eat it. After a while if cooked properly the child may take a liking to it, The child may not.

if the child doesnt buy the corn because it was never introduced, or because it was and didnt like it. The child still is not a buyer of corn.

Well, yes, it's relevant, it speaks to that criteria thing again. Hypothetically, what makes "a buyer of a can of corn" if our only playing pieces on the board are a little plastic soldier who's never heard of "a can of corn" and his baby?

And his rock (just for good measure).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

true, but one could never label them as a theist

I'll assume you missed my question.

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

 

[outhouse]

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.

thank you. either way the child is a atheist


no one here but you caught on

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[laffy_taffy]

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?

Exactly! You wouldn't be a buyer of a can of corn. Just like if you didn't know about god, you would not be a believer.

**hint** (if you are not a believer, you are an atheist)

 

[Tristesse]

But newborn babies don't not believe in the existence of deities because they haven't heard the concept - they don't believe because they are not capable of forming such beliefs.

Yes, but they do not believe. And thats exactly what we're talking about. It doesn't matter what the reason is for their non-belief. They are implicit atheists, much like the adult who may not have heard of the concept of a god, is also an implicit atheist.

 

[outhouse]

I'll assume you missed my question.

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

no i dont

thats why I stated "could"

why? they are not somebody

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, but they do not believe. And thats exactly what we're talking about. It doesn't matter what the reason is for their non-belief. They are implicit atheists, much like the adult who may not have heard of the concept of a god, is also an implicit atheist.

So dogs and rocks are implicit atheists then.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

no i dont

thats why I stated "could"

why? they are not somebody

So you're basing your whole argument on sticking to one strict dictionary definition of atheism, while ignoring the assumptions and other criteria which the people who come up with dictionary definitions consider while defining words. Okay.

Well, based off the definition of "unemployed:"

un·em·ployed

   /ˌʌn

ɛmˈplɔɪd/ Show Spelled[uhn-em-ploid] Show IPA
adjective 1. not employed; without a job; out of work: an unemployed secretary.


Would you describe a rock as unemployed, since the definition does not specify people? Do you think it's meaningful to describe a newborn infant as "unemployed?"

 

[idav]

Well, yes, it's relevant, it speaks to that criteria thing again. Hypothetically, what makes "a buyer of a can of corn" if our only playing pieces on the board are a little plastic soldier who's never heard of "a can of corn" and his baby?

And his rock (just for good measure).

That reminds me of another analogy. If I asked someone if they play chess they would say yes or no or wtf is chess. If no, does it mean we can't say they are not chess players just cause they never heard of the game?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That reminds me of another analogy. If I asked someone if they play chess they would say yes or no or wtf is chess. If no, does it mean we can't say they are not chess players just cause they never heard of the game?

So is a rock not a chess player?

 

[outhouse]

So you're basing your whole argument on sticking to one strict dictionary definition of atheism, while ignoring the assumptions and other criteria which the people who come up with dictionary definitions consider while defining words. Okay.

Well, based off the definition of "unemployed:"

un·em·ployed

   /ˌʌn

ɛmˈplɔɪd/ Show Spelled[uhn-em-ploid] Show IPA
adjective 1. not employed; without a job; out of work: an unemployed secretary.


Would you describe a rock as unemployed, since the definition does not specify people? Do you think it's meaningful to describe a newborn infant as "unemployed?"

is a child employed and bringing home a paycheck?

does the rock in question earn any money for goods or services rendered? Not sure I would call a pet rock employed either.




your trying awfully hard to avoid the real definition.


its all in the link I provided

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia