Atheist by birth?

[jarofthoughts]

Missed that. Look at the synonyms and tell ME how a newborn is capable of fitting any of them.

I'd say a newborn fits nicely into the 'non-believer' category.

 

[Storm]

I'd say a newborn fits nicely into the 'non-believer' category.

I still disagree, for reasons I won't repeat... for once.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. I'm sorry. Locality is for things. Things exist.

Non-existent is non-existent.

But this is off-topic.

This whole snipe hunt you've led us on has been off-topic.

I'm just trying to figure out whether anybody thinks calling babies atheists provides any useful information about either babies or atheists, regardless of how one paints atheism.

Seems rather silly to call them atheists if it doesn't.

Off the top of my head, acknowledging that babies and rocks are atheists refutes the claim that they're Muslim, which I've heard some Muslims make.

The term "weak atheism" was invented by a fellow named George H. Smith in the 70's. Before that, everyone knew what an atheist was, there was no such disagreement, no such debate. The word had meaning.

Yes: originally, it meant someone who didn't believe in the mainstream god(s) of that particular society: to the Romans, Christians were "atheists" because they didn't believe in the Roman pantheon.

In more modern European history (i.e. the last thousand years or so), "atheist" generally meant "non-Christian", and since baptism was the rite of initiation into the Christian religion, a newborn, unbaptized baby would have been an atheist.

I could run out and buy Smith's books, but my libertarian stance of being "just me" has served me well enough over the years. I'm not saying people shouldn't identify as weak atheist, or identify the baby as such, I'm just saying not all of us do. Not all of us can.

What you are and what you identify as are two separate things. They don't necessarily have to be the same.

 

[outhouse]

I'd say a newborn fits nicely into the 'non-believer' category.

exactly

nonbeliever - definition of nonbeliever by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

non·be·liev·er(n

n

b

-l

v

r)
n. One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.


A baby does not have faith

A baby does not believe

but most important a baby is not a theist, and that makes him what???



This is a crack up that even atheist are divided on teh definition of a atheist.


the key word hinges on "lack of" belief

the problem is everyone is right, just one side doesnt want to accept it.




kilgore has a valid point, does it really matter? No. Nut it is a heated debate and it wont end any time soon.

 

[idav]

How does that make them different than gods?

Excepting popular opinion, (which, as history shows, is a poor requisite for what's real and not) what separates faeries from gods in the respect of being considered real or not?

The only thing is the explanation of origins especially pertaining to creation of the universe and humans. I think there was some stories from chinese or japanese about dragons, unicorns or snakes being the creators of the universe but those are different arguments belonging in the mythology category. Still it is just aggrandized versions of fantasy/fiction.

 

[That one dude...]

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

I don't know if it's already been said (don't want to read through 62 pages), but a newborn cannot be an atheist because that is a belief. Instead, they are agnostic because that takes no effort on their part. All that is required is to be unsure about one's beliefs.

I suppose one could make the argument that they must have knowledge of various beliefs in order for them to be unsure of those beliefs in the first place, but I just think since agnosticism is a good middle ground between belief and non-belief there is nothing else a newborn can be.

If something along these lines has been said already, then I apologize for showing up late to the party!

 

[jarofthoughts]

The only thing is the explanation of origins especially pertaining to creation of the universe and humans. I think there was some stories from chinese or japanese about dragons, unicorns or snakes being the creators of the universe but those are different arguments belonging in the mythology category. Still it is just aggrandized versions of fantasy/fiction.

And the same can be said about gods.
I still see nothing to separate gods from other mythological concepts when it comes to whether they are real or not.
Supposed level of power certainly doesn't cut it.

 

[outhouse]

but a newborn cannot be an atheist because that is a belief

it is a lack of belief or nonbelief.

theism is a belief, to not be a theist, belief is not required.

 

[idav]

And the same can be said about gods.
I still see nothing to separate gods from other mythological concepts when it comes to whether they are real or not.
Supposed level of power certainly doesn't cut it.

Gods are the mythological concepts. Bible or other popular texts don't get any special priveledges in that regard.

 

[outhouse]

I suppose one could make the argument that they must have knowledge of various beliefs in order for them to be unsure of those beliefs in the first place, but I just think since agnosticism is a good middle ground between belief and non-belief there is nothing else a newborn can be.

thats just it

there is no qualifier for a atheist that one must first have knowledge about a god then deny it.

One can never hear about god, be a adult. And said adult would be a atheist. Because he is not a theist.

 

[That one dude...]

it is a lack of belief or nonbelief.

theism is a belief, to not be a theist, belief is not required.

It has been my experience that atheism takes it a step father by providing reasons for their lack of belief and/or evidence to the contrary. As an example, Richard Dawkins doesn't just lack any beliefs, he seems to combat the very thought of it.

 

[outhouse]

It has been my experience that atheism takes it a step father by providing reasons for their lack of belief and/or evidence to the contrary. As an example, Richard Dawkins doesn't just lack any beliefs, he seems to combat the very thought of it.

I understand your point and your right, some atheist are like that.

On the same side of the coin though, there is no qualifier for lack of belief or nonbelief.

I'm a atheist, All I have done in my life is erased the malicious programming forced on me as a child. Now im the same person as I started life. Not a theist.

 

[That one dude...]

I understand your point and your right, some atheist are like that.

On the same side of the coin though, there is no qualifier for lack of belief or nonbelief.

I'm a atheist, All I have done in my life is erased the malicious programming forced on me as a child. Now im the same person as I started life. Not a theist.

Another way to put it:

Either way you don't believe the way you have been programmed to, BUT do you doubt that set of beliefs or do you outright deny it?

 

[outhouse]

Another way to put it:

Either way you don't believe the way you have been programmed to, BUT do you doubt that set of beliefs or do you outright deny it?

I dont have any belief on the matter at all.


im not sure deny is the right word for my feelings on the subject

 

[idav]

One can never hear about god, be a adult. And said adult would be a atheist. Because he is not a theist.

That is the simplest definition which isn't very complicated. Not theist. Whatever definition of theist there is, not that. Atheist would not be theist for any type of god whether they are told about it or not.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Gods are the mythological concepts. Bible or other popular texts don't get any special priveledges in that regard.

So we agree that faeries and gods are equal with regards to how real it is reasonable to consider them?

 

[idav]

So we agree that faeries and gods are equal with regards to how real it is reasonable to consider them?

I tend to be more of a naturalist even in regards to whatever the source for existence might be.

 

[Acim]

One can never hear about god, be a adult. And said adult would be a atheist. Because he is not a theist.

I lack a belief that such an adult exists.

No wait, I am absent of this belief.

 

[KovertKitty]

The more I think about this, the more I question it... It seems to be about semantics now, but that's because of many debates of the past... In all honesty, the term theist came first... Something describing a belief in god(s)... I'm sure whoever came up with the term/concept atheist didn't look at a child, or a rock, or anything else without the ability to believe and say, that is an atheist... It more than likely stemmed from observing someone who rejected the concept/existence of god... Later throughout the years, I'm sure somone sensitive to criticism decided to try and water the term down to fit their liking, hence "strong" and "weak"... I truly believe that Atheism originally was the rejection of god, saying you don't believe in god(s), or equivolently, believe god(s) doesn'y exist...

 

[Falvlun]

They do fall in the fictional category these days as they are in the sci-fi fantasy realm along with monsters and aliens. They were believed because of superstition.

And how is that different from many gods that are no longer believed in?

As far as I know, Pinocchio was never considered to be a real boy. Fairies weren't obviously made up by someone as a fictional character, like the example given, and thus are a more accurate analog to gods.