Atheist by birth?

[Kilgore Trout]

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

The only reason I can glean is that they take the position that atheism is an absence or "lack" of belief, and somehow mistakenly think atheism cannot be defined as an absence of belief unless they go to the ridiculous point of defining infants as atheists.

 

[outhouse]

The only reason I can glean is that they take the position that atheism is an absence or "lack" of belief, and somehow mistakenly think atheism cannot be defined as an absence of belief unless they go to the ridiculous point of defining infants as atheists.

doesnt have anything to do with that.


its just a defnition

is that they take the position that atheism is an absence or "lack" of belief

which is exactly the definition of atheism

 

[Acim]

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.

You disagree that babies are lacking beliefs?

I'm not understanding what you mean by this, and would like to understand it.

 

[Acim]

The only reason I can glean is that they take the position that atheism is an absence or "lack" of belief, and somehow mistakenly think atheism cannot be defined as an absence of belief unless they go to the ridiculous point of defining infants as atheists.

How is this ridiculous?

Strikes me as entirely accurate.

I've addressed this about 4 times already in this thread. Probably more than 4 times.

 

[Orias]

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.

You have no idea how I tried to do the same thing.

Its like trying to tell a Christian that they are a psychologically carnal animal, they just ignore it.

 

[outhouse]

you take those against the definition and ask them to define it

[Wilamena abnd K T]

I bet their definition does not match the one in place at this time. who's fault is that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

doesnt have anything to do with that.

its just a defnition

Apparently, you don't understand the definition of the word "why" either.

which is exactly the definition of atheism

Which offers no meaningful information about things which do not have the ability to hold beliefs.

Go back to sleep.

 

[Acim]

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.

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.

(Whistling while I work)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How is this ridiculous?

Strikes me as entirely accurate.

I've addressed this about 4 times already in this thread. Probably more than 4 times.

Describing the beliefs or non-beliefs of things which cannot hold beliefs is just a silly exercise. Of course, I realize that there are many people who relish engaging in silly and pointless exercises.

 

[blackout]

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

Babies do not/cannot "qualify" themSelves as atheists or theists.

They have not yet been uploaded with the programming
needed to do so.

The Programmers will begin installing WORD
almost immediately,
but the upload takes a long........ long................ time...........

 

[Acim]

You have no idea how I tried to do the same thing.

I will pay more attention. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

(Whistling while I work)

Keep whistling. Maybe snap your fingers too.

 

[outhouse]

Apparently, you don't understand the definition of the word "why" either.



Which offers no meaningful information about things which do not have the ability to hold beliefs.

Go back to sleep.

could you get any more off topic???

 

[Kilgore Trout]

could you get any more off topic???

There, there...off to dreamland.

 

[Acim]

Describing the beliefs or non-beliefs of things which cannot hold beliefs is just a silly exercise.

According to you. That is your 'meaningful explanation' contribution.

Implicit atheism strikes me as 'silly exercise.'

Of course, I realize that there are many people who relish engaging in silly and pointless exercises.

You of all people I would think would 'get this.'

 

[outhouse]

you take those against the definition and ask them to define it

[Wilamena abnd K T]

I bet their definition does not match the one in place at this time. who's fault is that?

opcorn:

 

[blackout]

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.

People often begin the exercise of "making" things(ideas) of their children,
right from day one.

 

[Orias]

Lol, atheists are at each others throats as much as Christians, but as soon as you say something they don't like they don't mind setting aside personal beliefs to team up with their mates.

A funny herd you guys are

 

[Songbird]

Soooo....

Babies aren't able to believe or disbelieve a concept like God, but we still need to assign them a title because at some point they will believe or disbelieve as they learn and grow and because we have a need to assign them a title?

I'd re-read the thread, but I'm going cross-eyed.

 

[Orias]

Soooo....

Babies aren't able to believe or disbelieve a concept like God, but we still need to assign them a title because at some point they will believe or disbelieve as they learn and grow and because we have a need to assign them a title?

I'd re-read the thread, but I'm going cross-eyed.

Its almost like condemning isn't it?

Such a narrow view saddens me.