"Atheist"--the term itself

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting? Yes, I agree with you there. Especially since -- in my view, at least -- there seems to be a "political" agenda that is often enough involved in insisting that atheism means and only means "active disbelief".

Maybe. I think a lot of the time, people get caught in a monotheistic mindset - often a Christian mindset - where there's only one god to be rejected, so atheism as "rejection" could be possible. I even see it in atheists: they may have managed to leave Christianity (it's usually Christianity), but haven't left the paradigm where the Christian god is the only god worth thinking about.

In fact, I don't think this thread, or so many similar threads, would go on for as long as they do if none the participants wanted to score "political" points against atheists. But perhaps I'm wrong about that.

Maybe. I think a lot of it comes down to baggage around the term "atheist"... for example, negative connotations attached to atheism and positive connotations attached to babies, so the idea of an atheist baby creates a cognitive dissonance.

 

[Sunstone]

Now you have to tell, you can't tease us like that.

Things I've learned: Babies are amoral atheist holocaust deniers. Maybe the Medieval Church had it right with limbo after all!

At the risk of disappointing you, my "reasons" for thinking the notion that babies are atheists is a bit silly are actually weak. The notion just strikes me on the face of it to be silly. It's just a hunch of mine that, if I were to take the time to examine it, I would find it wanting. I was assuming that you had better reasons than mine for questioning it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is the term agnostic no longer meaningful?

Of course it is. It just doesn't mean what you (apparently) think it does.

Agnosticism doesn't entail a belief about the existence of gods, but it *does* entail an explicit belief about the evidence for and against gods. It doesn't work as a default position.

 

[Willamena]

Is the term agnostic no longer meaningful?

That makes no sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Things I've learned: Babies are amoral atheist holocaust deniers. Maybe the Medieval Church had it right with limbo after all!

They aren't holocaust deniers, but they are non-smokers and civilians.

 

[Sunstone]

I even see it in atheists: they may have managed to leave Christianity (it's usually Christianity), but haven't left the paradigm where the Christian god is the only god worth thinking about.

Indeed! We see that all the time on this board alone. I think it's a natural outcome of Christianity being the dominant religion for so many of us.

 

[Mister Emu]

The notion just strikes me on the face of it to be silly. It's just a hunch of mine that, if I were to take the time to examine it, I would find it wanting. I was assuming that you had better reasons than mine for questioning it.

I think that is perfectly fine, my first response was to laugh, but then comment on the prima facie absurdity.

On the other hand we have people I feel deserve a full response.

 

[Mister Emu]

Of course it is. It just doesn't mean what you (apparently) think it does.

You are correct. I have been laboring under a slight misunderstanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At the risk of disappointing you, my "reasons" for thinking the notion that babies are atheists is a bit silly are actually weak. The notion just strikes me on the face of it to be silly. It's just a hunch of mine that, if I were to take the time to examine it, I would find it wanting. I was assuming that you had better reasons than mine for questioning it.

Personally, I don't think there's anything silly about the idea that a god-concept must be learned before it can be believed.

That being said, babies certainly aren't born as skeptics or freethinkers. Also, from what I've read on the subject, we do seem to be born with traits that at least hint at religion without being full-blown god-belief (e.g. an overly active tendency to attribute agency to unintelligent things in our environment and to infer purpose behind everything).

 

[Sunstone]

Personally, I don't think there's anything silly about the idea that a god-concept must be learned before it can be believed.

That being said, babies certainly aren't born as skeptics or freethinkers. Also, from what I've read on the subject, we do seem to be born with traits that at least hint at religion without being full-blown god-belief (e.g. an overly active tendency to attribute agency to unintelligent things in our environment and to infer purpose behind everything).

Well, that all seems pretty reasonable and nuanced.

 

[Mister Emu]

I was assuming that you had better reasons than mine for questioning it.

I'd say on the spectrum of strong atheist to strong theist, babies don't fit on it at all.

They aren't holocaust deniers

Of course not, they aren't atheist either. They are perfectly ignorant and incapable of having thoughts on deity.

 

[Mister Emu]

Maybe. I think a lot of it comes down to baggage around the term "atheist"... for example, negative connotations attached to atheism and positive connotations attached to babies, so the idea of an atheist baby creates a cognitive dissonance.

Personally, I'm offended you think I'd disregard the opportunity to tie the idea of atheism with babies.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I'm beginning to wonder if I might not be the only person in this thread who really doesn't care how an atheist defines his or her atheism, so long as they make their views clear when appropriate or necessary for communication.

Yup

 

[Kirran]

Of course not, they aren't atheist either. They are perfectly ignorant and incapable of having thoughts on deity.

To deny the Holocaust is an active stance. Babies have no conception of the Holocaust, and so neither believe in it nor deny it. Making them, by default, non-believers in the Holocaust. Same as their understanding of any God concept, or of giraffes. A baby does not believe in giraffes, being unaware of the idea of them.

 

[prometheus11]

Or they don't have the ability to do either.

I've already addressed the issue of ability.

 

[prometheus11]

Or they don't have the ability to do either.

I already addressed the issue of ability in babies.

 

[prometheus11]

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/insist?s=t

To indulge your pedantry: What theology insists on the framework you espouse and why should anyone other than its adherents be beholden to it?


Is the term agnostic no longer meaningful?


Now you have to tell, you can't tease us like that.

Things I've learned: Babies are amoral atheist holocaust deniers. Maybe the Medieval Church had it right with limbo after all!

Agnosticism and atheism are two different things. A woman may be a wife yet not a mother. Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge.

Babies aren't denying anything. Denial has nothing to do with a lack of belief. I don't deny or accept many gods that I don't know about, yet lack belief in.

 

[prometheus11]

I think that is perfectly fine, my first response was to laugh, but then comment on the prima facie absurdity.

On the other hand we have people I feel deserve a full response.

If laughing at what you consider to be absurd is an honest response, do it. You owe no one a "full response." In fact, why even discuss an idea you find absurd? Why waste your time?

 

[prometheus11]

I'd say on the spectrum of strong atheist to strong theist, babies don't fit on it at all.


Of course not, they aren't atheist either. They are perfectly ignorant and incapable of having thoughts on deity.

They lack a belief in God currently, but as they may yet hold a belief in God in the future, we may justifiable be deemed as "lacking belief currently in any gods."

 

[prometheus11]

To deny the Holocaust is an active stance. Babies have no conception of the Holocaust, and so neither believe in it nor deny it. Making them, by default, non-believers in the Holocaust. Same as their understanding of any God concept, or of giraffes. A baby does not believe in giraffes, being unaware of the idea of them.

If there were a philosophical name for giraffe belief, and 90% of the society considered giraffe belief a big deal and non giraffe believers were at a disadvantage and hated and hardly elected to public office and non giraffe believers were called a specific term, that term for "lacking belief in giraffes" would apply to babies.