Atheist by birth?

[idav]

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.

I agree with this which is why I'm glad we don't have a word to imply lack of belief for everything we can think of. 'Atheism' is just weird like that. Even 'theism' is an interesting word since we don't normally have a specific word to denote belief in a specific concept.

 

[Acim]

We assign "them" title of baby. We assign "them" a whole bunch of titles and understanding of who they are. "They" cannot consent, and "they" are dependents, and "they" are cute, and "they" .... so on and so forth.

When in reality, everyone reading this was (arguably still is) one of "them."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Don't bother. Some people apparently are going to go around telling mothers that their newborn infants are unemployed, non-taxpaying atheists, whereas I just squeeze their little fingers and make funny noises at them. Apparently, people can look like bigger morons than when they're making funny faces at babies.

 

[Orias]

I agree with this which is why I'm glad we don't have a word to imply lack of belief for everything we can think of. 'Atheism' is just weird like that. Even 'theism' is an interesting word since we don't normally have a specific word to denote belief in a specific concept.

A human redundancy, if you will.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

\

Don't group me in with this crap. I argue against anyone who isn't making sense.

 

[Willamena]

You disagree that babies are lacking beliefs?

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

Yes, I disagree that babies are lacking beliefs. I don't think anything in their world is 'missing' except in contrast to the person who has already defined a belief and, from his perspective, finds it 'missing' for the child.

Each of us inhabits the whole world. Not an incomplete world, not limited, and not flawed. Whole, complete, perfect.

 

[Songbird]

Its almost like condemning isn't it?

Such a narrow view saddens me.

I'm actually not sure what's being argued. It looks like there's agreement about a basic premise from my quick perusal. And I'm pretty fond of the folks in this thread, so I'm entertained.

 

[Acim]

KT, you think it is reasonable for a human with mature awareness (i.e. adult) to 'lack a belief' with regards to god(s) existence?

 

[Willamena]

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?

It's not the definition I'm against, just your interpretation and application of it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

KT, you think it is reasonable for a human with mature awareness (i.e. adult) to 'lack a belief' with regards to god(s) existence?

No, I don't think lacking a belief in god's existence is reasonable. I don't see what's lacking.

 

[Orias]

I'm actually not sure what's being argued. It looks like there's agreement about a basic premise from my quick perusal. And I'm pretty fond of the folks in this thread, so I'm entertained.

Thats why I'm sticking around, it is rather amusing.

But really the point from what I picked up on is the justness of labeling babies.

Labeling someone without their input seems like condemning to me.

 

[Acim]

Yes, I disagree that babies are lacking beliefs. I don't think anything in their world is 'missing' except in contrast to the person who has already defined a belief and, from his perspective, finds it 'missing' for the child.

Do you think of beliefs and aspect of awareness? Aspect of thought? Or something else?

Do you see / understand human infants as having beliefs of some sort, and we (adults) just don't detect it, because of way we define beliefs as having to show up, to be sensible?

Each of us inhabits the whole world. Not an incomplete world, not limited, and not flawed. Whole, complete, perfect.

Yes, but doesn't awareness at least appear to vary?

Like, I can take what you're saying, and add in adjective of, "whole, complete, perfect, divine world" and you, or another, may say I'm not aware of divine world, I see no evidence for that description. I could just come back with, "nothing is missing for you, you are part of the divine world. You inhabit this world."

Which I sometimes do come back with, but am wondering if there is anything more to say to those who may show up and still doubt that they in fact do inhabit a divine world?

 

[Valjean]

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.

No-one's making them atheists. They simply are atheists inasmuch as they conform to the definition of "weak atheist."

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.

But why is this ridiculous? Babies conform to the definition, so are atheists.
This is meaningful (not that meaning has any impact on the definition, but you continually insist on bringing it up), because we're discussing the Natural State of Man, AKA: default position, the state that exists before any religious baggage is added.

The Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, in order to determine man's Natural Language -- the default language God originally programmed into Adam & Eve -- used children, raised in silence to see what language would naturally develop.
Children are not meaningless. They're important experimental models. They're the only examples we have of default theology, of naked operating systems.

 

[Acim]

No, I don't think lacking a belief in god's existence is reasonable. I don't see what's lacking.

Thanks for clarifying. I had you pegged differently and shows my prejudice was mistaken. Again, I appreciate you clarifying your thoughts on this.

 

[outhouse]

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

100% independants

 

[Willamena]

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.

Haha

Well, in my opinion the arguments about definition of "atheism" should be kept distinct from the arguments of its application. That is to say that how we define it isn't dependent upon whether a baby can "do" atheism --but it's just another area where the threads (of the thread) get crossed. (Like your eyes.)

 

[idav]

Labeling someone without their input seems like condemning to me.

Like the unemployed baby that hasn't landed that commerical?

I know where your coming from and labels are usually pretty silly like that.

 

[Songbird]

Haha

Well, in my opinion the arguments about definition of "atheism" should be kept distinct from the arguments of its application. That is to say that how we define it isn't dependent upon whether a baby can "do" atheism --but it's just another area where the threads (of the thread) get crossed. (Like your eyes.)

Ah. And the definition of atheism sure is highly-disputed.

 

[Willamena]

Even 'theism' is an interesting word since we don't normally have a specific word to denote belief in a specific concept.

Yes, we do. We have democrats, communists, socialists, capitalists, liberals, conservatives, feminists, mysogynists, post-modernists...

heck, pick any one off the list.
List of philosophies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Songbird]

Don't bother. Some people apparently are going to go around telling mothers that their newborn infants are unemployed, non-taxpaying atheists, whereas I just squeeze their little fingers and make funny noises at them. Apparently, people can look like bigger morons than when they're making funny faces at babies.

Aw, you should get a few babies of your own to squeeze and make funny noises at. :yes: