Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So you would call a newborn infant unemployed? You think that is a meaningful description?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist by birth?
- Thread starter KovertKitty
- Start date
So you would call a newborn infant unemployed? You think that is a meaningful description?
Atheism is used to refer to humans. You could call a rock an atheist if you like, but as far as I'm aware a rock doesn't have conciousness. So, to talk about what a rock believes or doesn't believe is non-sensical.
It's a true description.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Right, is it any more sensical to talk about what a newborn infant believes or doesn't believe? If so, why?
outhouse
Atheistically
if you really want to tick him off, tell him hes acting like a creationist and moving the goal post
Ah just joking I wouldnt play that on our friend :angel2:
Goes for those who think belief in Jesus is the only way for salvation. If you've never heard of Jesus should that be any excuse? If they never heard of Jesus should you tell them?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
You think true and meaningful are the same thing? If something isn't meaningful, then what value does its truth convey?
It is meaningful when people are trying to account for how much money everyone makes in the household. It is meaningful when determining when someone is a dependent.
laffy_taffy
Member
And? It doesn't matter. It wasn't until I was about 4-5 years old that I even heard of the god concept from a song I learned in preschool. I remember singing what I learned, for my parents at home, and then asking them, what is "got"? I thought the word in the song was "got" not "god", but nevertheless, up until that age I never even heard of god. I probably did not understand the concept until maybe 9 or 10. All along, I was without a belief in any god. I was "capable" of forming a belief all during that time, but still lacked a belief. Even after being exposed to various god-concepts, I was not provided with any kind of information which would make me cross the threshold into belief. I am always open to the possibility of god, but I do not currently believe in any god.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
In what context are newborn infants counted as unemployed?
Truth is truth whenther or not it has meaning. And the meaning of something differs from person to person, but truth is truth irrespective of meaning.
Is the rock one of the chess pieces? JK
No I don't think rocks play chess. Neither is a fish but a chimp maybe.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Its not true if people don't belief in the meaning of it. Which holds value to those who believe in truth.
Truth is meaning, and thats all thats to it.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Right, but I asked whether calling a newborn infant was a meaningful description.
I'm referring to a new born being an atheist the same way I'm referring to it being a non-chest player. Both statements are true. The differrence is the context. We're used to hearing atheist as a person who rejects the concept of a god as irrational. Which is the most common, but what about those without even the concept of a diety? Those are implicit atheists.
I don't care if it's meaningful, I care if it's true. It doesn't have any meaning to me, but we're talking about the definitions of what qualifies as an atheist. I don't find it particularly meaningful to call a new born an atheist, but it's a truth statement.
I agree that in discussions of rocks or dogs the concept of atheism would rarely come up in any meaningful context. But however irrelevant the appellation, if the subject conforms to a definition it is, logically, the thing defined, meaningful, useful or not.
In babies, however, I'd say the designation is apt, inasmuch as this discussion is about man's religious default position, which is, after all, best examined before any post-manufacture programming has been added.
In babies, however, I'd say the designation is apt, inasmuch as this discussion is about man's religious default position, which is, after all, best examined before any post-manufacture programming has been added.
We understand the dichotomy you offer up. We're just not buying it.
This may be only thread (ever) where I agree with Outhouse logic and what Tristesse is consistently getting across.
At same time, I think I diverge from both from what I said earlier and is not really getting addressed (perhaps doesn't need to in this thread).
Killing two items Kilgore that you are bringing up with one post.
It is up to each of us who do have opinions and ability to communicate those, in interactive way, to decide how meaningful it is to describe people / things as atheistic. Me, given the definition of implicit atheism, I understand how argument can be made for babies, rocks, and trees being implicitly atheistic. I think it is more meaningful to reference the baby in this way, since it is developing into 'one of us.' But that doesn't mean I think the rocks and trees atheism is to be completely ignored, just that my bias would put more emphasis on the infant human.
More importantly within this debate, it isn't that babies don't believe. Cause if I go into another thread and challenge fundamental logic of atheism, someone (say like Kilgore) will come in and claim, "it's not that I don't believe, it is that I lack belief, huge difference." Now, I may disagree that there is difference, but I do understand that for self identified atheists, it is a huge difference.
One position (explicit atheism) is the rejection of a known belief. That would be essentially not possible for an infant human to demonstrate. The other position (implicit atheism) is lack of belief. That would be precisely what we are all (or most of us) agreeing that an infant human is demonstrating. As are rocks and trees.
This ends where I am making same argument as Outhouse and Tristesse (perhaps others in this thread).
Where I differ and have slightly added spin is that implicit atheism strikes me now as something that is (more or less) demonstrable. Not 'consciously' so, but is something that others could pick up on, and realize, "this entity here actually does lack a belief." Yet, if that entity consciously acknowledges it, I would argue that it is, ever so slightly, entering into explicit atheism. It would likely be demonstrating awareness of the God / deity concept and then claiming (perhaps mega assertively), I lack belief! When reality would likely show, via debate or discussion that this person is more or less rejecting existence and evidence for god(s).
Such that, as I said earlier, and currently stand by, all infant humans (or those with infant awareness) are implicit atheists, perhaps pure atheists, while the rest are to some degree explicit atheists, or ones who may pose "lack of belief," but with scrutiny and critical analysis, would likely and quickly be shown to be person who rejects belief(s) that amount to existence of god(s).
This is where I think many atheists disagree because as I've observed in debates, some of you all want that 'pure form' of atheism, when in reality, you'll never have it again, unless your consciousness returns to infantile awareness. Sorry. Dem da breaks.
At same time, I think I diverge from both from what I said earlier and is not really getting addressed (perhaps doesn't need to in this thread).
Killing two items Kilgore that you are bringing up with one post.
It is up to each of us who do have opinions and ability to communicate those, in interactive way, to decide how meaningful it is to describe people / things as atheistic. Me, given the definition of implicit atheism, I understand how argument can be made for babies, rocks, and trees being implicitly atheistic. I think it is more meaningful to reference the baby in this way, since it is developing into 'one of us.' But that doesn't mean I think the rocks and trees atheism is to be completely ignored, just that my bias would put more emphasis on the infant human.
More importantly within this debate, it isn't that babies don't believe. Cause if I go into another thread and challenge fundamental logic of atheism, someone (say like Kilgore) will come in and claim, "it's not that I don't believe, it is that I lack belief, huge difference." Now, I may disagree that there is difference, but I do understand that for self identified atheists, it is a huge difference.
One position (explicit atheism) is the rejection of a known belief. That would be essentially not possible for an infant human to demonstrate. The other position (implicit atheism) is lack of belief. That would be precisely what we are all (or most of us) agreeing that an infant human is demonstrating. As are rocks and trees.
This ends where I am making same argument as Outhouse and Tristesse (perhaps others in this thread).
Where I differ and have slightly added spin is that implicit atheism strikes me now as something that is (more or less) demonstrable. Not 'consciously' so, but is something that others could pick up on, and realize, "this entity here actually does lack a belief." Yet, if that entity consciously acknowledges it, I would argue that it is, ever so slightly, entering into explicit atheism. It would likely be demonstrating awareness of the God / deity concept and then claiming (perhaps mega assertively), I lack belief! When reality would likely show, via debate or discussion that this person is more or less rejecting existence and evidence for god(s).
Such that, as I said earlier, and currently stand by, all infant humans (or those with infant awareness) are implicit atheists, perhaps pure atheists, while the rest are to some degree explicit atheists, or ones who may pose "lack of belief," but with scrutiny and critical analysis, would likely and quickly be shown to be person who rejects belief(s) that amount to existence of god(s).
This is where I think many atheists disagree because as I've observed in debates, some of you all want that 'pure form' of atheism, when in reality, you'll never have it again, unless your consciousness returns to infantile awareness. Sorry. Dem da breaks.