Atheist by birth?

[Valjean]

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.

Because one of the things we're discussing is the human default position, which is best examined before any software's added.

 

[outhouse]

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?

somebody who does not believe in God or deities

does the child believe in gods or deities???



there is no qualifier that one has to first know deitys and gods and then later choose to not believe


we do have a label its called ignorance. It doesnt work with laws or definitions

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

then you miss the complete point.

atheism is the default position we are born with.


Its as simple as this, your either a theist or a atheist. Were you born a theist????

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

You responded to me first. My post was clearly about it being meaningful from the start. Hence, why I pointed out you should have been reading for comprehension many posts back. I suggest you take my advice in the future to avoid further embarrassment.

 

[Tristesse]

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.

Thats exactly why I said they are implicit atheists. Atheists by virtue of not having a concept of a deity. You keep referring to atheists who reject the notion of a god, thats not what I'm talking about. New borns don't have a belief in anything, which qualifies them as an atheist amoung a myriad of other things.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Then perhaps you should read my posts more thoroughly before responding to them, as I've been very clear all along that I'm talking about whether it's meaningful or not. Reading comprehension for the win.

 

[blackout]

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.

It would take an eternity to cover every such silly statement of it's sort.

"New'borns don't believe in
this, and that, and that, and this, and the other thing, and the other thing,
and the other thing..........."

A tiresome and unnecessary exercise of the obsessive compulsive kind.



What's with all the baby talk?!

 

[Tristesse]

Then perhaps you should read my posts more thoroughly before responding to them, as I've been very clear all along that I'm talking about whether it's meaningful or not. Reading comprehension for the win.

Then I'll agree, it's not meaningful.

 

[outhouse]

Exactly, can a newborn baby ever believe or disbelieve in god?

buddy, its one or the other.

lack of knowledge is still non-belief

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because one of the things we're discussing is the human default position, which is best examined before any software's added.

The human default position is the complete lack of ability to formulate or understand any beliefs, so any discussion about what beliefs they hold or don't hold offers no useful information.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

buddy, its one or the other.

lack of knowledge is still non-belief

I see you continue to answer questions I'm not asking. Good luck with that.

 

[outhouse]

You responded to me first. My post was clearly about it being meaningful from the start. Hence, why I pointed out you should have been reading for comprehension many posts back. I suggest you take my advice in the future to avoid further embarrassment.

your the one arguing a point off topic, I do not feel embarrassed at all.


It is you failing your arguement that children or babies are not atheist.

please try and stay on topic

 

[outhouse]

The human default position is the complete lack of ability to formulate or understand any beliefs, so any discussion about what beliefs they hold or don't hold offers no useful information.

then why do you fight it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I do not feel embarrassed at all.

Yes, some people don't have enough awareness to know when they should.

 

[Willamena]

Because one of the things we're discussing is the human default position, which is best examined before any software's added.

That I can agree with.

"Atheism" is defined by the software.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, some people don't have enough awareness to know when they should.

cant argue that

 

[Kilgore Trout]

cant argue that

Excellent. As well you shouldn't.

 

[outhouse]

That I can agree with.

"Atheism" is defined by the software.

how so?


that would put the qualifier for atheism that one must first know theism and reject it.


thats not the case, the definition and qualifier for atheism is non-belief

 

[Willamena]

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.

Just so. I disagree that the babies are missing (lacking) any beliefs, just as the rocks and trees are not missing any beliefs. Their beliefless worlds are complete and whole, and perfect and fine, just as they are.

Why people won't leave them alone, and instead insist on making them atheists, I don't know.

 

[Acim]

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.

Describe this ability to 'disbelieve' and how that applies to atheism?

Would seem to contradict what atheists on this site have told me, but by all means, I'm open to this understanding.

 

[Willamena]

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

Right.