Atheist by birth?

[Willamena]

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.

*waves hand* This is not the corn you're looking for. There is no corn.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm sure there are other things we agree on, Acim.

 

[blackout]

Do newborns believe anything?

Maybe just call them non'believers.
That should cover just about everything.

 

[Orias]

Right, is it any more sensical to talk about what a newborn infant believes or doesn't believe? If so, why?

Just because we have the ability to label things, doesn't mean we should, because it turns out inconsistently.

According to some, babies are split 50/50, either being an atheist or a theist when they evolve.

But the point of them not being able to believe anything is that the label is ultimately meaningless, since they don't just lack belief in it, they simply don't have any.

People can lack social skills, yet still be social. And by other means, babies don't deny Gods, or believe in their non-existence. Lacking belief in and of things are separate in meaning.

By this, babies are not atheists.

 

[outhouse]

We understand the dichotomy you offer up. We're just not buying it.

I can bring a horse to water, doesnt mean it will drink.

 

[outhouse]

Do newborns believe anything?

Maybe just call them non'believers.
That should cover just about everything.

your 100% exactly right.



guess what the definition of a atheist is = non believer

 

[Orias]

I can bring a horse to water, doesnt mean it will drink.

Horses aren't atheists either, heh.

 

[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

i see none of those against what I have pointed out can answer this.

is a baby not somebody??? or is a child now a nobody??






one more time, How does a child not fit into the definition.???

 

[outhouse]

Horses aren't atheists either, heh.

is a horse a somebody??? unkess your talking about Mr Ed your barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Valjean]

Just because we have the ability to label things, doesn't mean we should, because it turns out inconsistently.

According to some, babies are split 50/50, either being an atheist or a theist when they evolve.

But the point of them not being able to believe anything is that the label is ultimately meaningless, since they don't just lack belief in it, they simply don't have any.

People can lack social skills, yet still be social. And by other means, babies don't deny Gods, or believe in their non-existence. Lacking belief in and of things are separate in meaning.

By this, babies are not atheists.

Lacking belief in something is exactly the definition of atheist!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

i see none of those against what I have pointed out can answer this.

is a baby not somebody??? or is a child now a nobody??

one more time, How does a child not fit into the definition.???

One more time, how is it any more meaningful to describe a newborn as an atheist than a rock or dog as an atheist? That's all I've been asking all along, and still haven't seen even an attempt to answer this.

 

[blackout]

your 100% exactly right.



guess what the definition of a atheist is = non believer

No, an atheist is a non believer in a god.
Specifically.

A newborn doesn't believe anything at all.
about anything.
A newborn is as much a non believer in god concepts
as it is a non believer in scientific theory.
Do we have a specific label for that?

 

[blackout]

No, an atheist is a non believer in a god (concept).
Specifically.

A newborn doesn't believe anything at all.
about anything.
A newborn is as much a non believer in god concepts
as it is a non believer in scientific theory.
Do we have a specific label for that?

We could always just call the little lump of flesh
an ignoramus,
or a newborn,
and call it a day.

 

[Tristesse]

One more time, how is it any more meaningful to describe a newborn as an atheist than a rock or dog as an atheist? That's all I've been asking all along, and still haven't seen even an attempt to answer this.

I'm not saying it's more meaningful and I don't think anyone else is either. But can a dog or a rock ever believe or disbelieve in a god? Once again it's in the context.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Substitute the word "smartyblartfast" for "chess" and ask again --did you give yourself the same answer?

I was thinking about this at lunch, and the problem is simply that age-old one of the author being written out of the story. The only way that "chess" or "cans of corn" or "belief in God" exist in these pictures we're painting is in that hidden person behind the curtain whose hollow voice cries, "Yes... look at the cans of corn... see them..."

I now glom the philosophical side of hypnotism.

To answer your question, if "no" it's because they have some idea of what "chess" is. If they never heard of the game, it's "wft".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

This is why reading comprehension is so important. My question all along has been whether it is a meaningful description. You don't find it meaningful, neither do I. It seems rather pointless and silly to me to argue for something that doesn't convey any meaning - which is the core of my position.

 

[outhouse]

One more time, how is it any more meaningful to describe a newborn as an atheist than a rock or dog as an atheist? That's all I've been asking all along, and still haven't seen even an attempt to answer this.

I child is a human being. the others are not and do not qualify as "somebody"

The child qualifies. The rest do not.



this isnt about meaningful at all. this is about definition only.

If it was I would agree with you. OP asked about definition, not meaning though.

 

[Orias]

is a horse a somebody??? unkess your talking about Mr Ed your barking up the wrong tree.

I was thinking more along the lines of Ser Pound A Lot.

Lacking belief in something is exactly the definition of atheist!

Babies simply don't lack, they are completely absent of it.

Like UV said.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not saying it's more meaningful and I don't think anyone else is either. But can a dog or a rock ever believe or disbelieve in a god? Once again it's in the context.

Exactly, can a newborn baby ever believe or disbelieve in god? No. At some point in human development when we are no longer infants we develop this capability, but but we do not start out with this ability, so to say we start out atheists is a meaningless statement - at least as meaningless as describing a rock as an atheist.

 

[Tristesse]

This is why reading comprehension is so important. My question all along has been whether it is a meaningful description. You don't find it meaningful, neither do I. It seems rather pointless and silly to me to argue for something that doesn't convey any meaning - which is the core of my position.

Not really, we're talking about definitions not meaning. I find it meaningless to refer to a newborn child as an atheist, does that mean it's not true? I'll say it again, I don't care about the meaning, this has to do with definitions.