"Atheist"--the term itself

[outhouse]

If I were to propose a similar definition of implicit theism would you as vigorously defend the notion that babies are theists by definition?

No.

Implicit theism is a failed argument created solely to defend against the definition of implicit atheism. It is apologetic rhetoric and the studies have been biased at best. [those testing were theist] Every last one uses parental love of a child, and uses that human nature as an attempt to prove theism. That and it fails to address that most of the test subjects a hair older have already been introduced to magical characters not there. Very vague and poor attempt.


Your just proving my point that theist cannot stand calling atheism our default position, and will do anything to avoid such.

 

[Mister Emu]

No.

Indeed.

 

[outhouse]

Indeed.

Does not change the fact babies are not theist.

 

[Curious George]

Just remove all theists from the planet and all those who are left are atheists (not theists) no matter nationality or gender or age. But since as far as we know only humans are capable of being theists it only applies to humans not toasters.

As far as we know, are babies capable of being theists?

 

[Mister Emu]

Your just proving my point that theist cannot stand calling atheism our default position, and will do anything to avoid such.

As opposed to the very not real concern you have for the fact that others don't subscribe to your attempt to define atheism as the default. 20 pages now.

 

[Mister Emu]

Does not change the fact babies are not theist.

Of course not, I never actually proposed such a definition. It would be as specious as the opposite.

I merely wished to consider your consistency.

As far as we know, are babies capable of being theists?

It is the inverse, we know they lack key cognitive features that would allow them to even consider deity.

 

[Curious George]

Let consider this:
Person 1 : Stock A is going to increase 2000% tomorrow
Person 2: I don't believe you.

.

In this situation, person 2 believes the stock will not increase 2k% tomorrow.

If you want to create the semantic space for the classical default position, then you would have put forward two propositions and they would have to evaluate both propositions as false. The reason for this is that without more, "I don't know" Or "maybe" are the common ways to express skepticism or doubt without asserting a contrary position. They must reject both propositions to give rise to this default. Of course, understanding this, we can not that it would be just as possible for a person to accept both positions. This in turn changes the default to acceptance rather than rejection.

 

[Curious George]

It is the inverse, we know they lack key cognitive features that would allow them to even consider deity.

Then I believe a mirror of his logic would conclude: since as far as we know babies are not capable of being theists, the term only applies to non-baby humans.

 

[prometheus11]

Jim: Stock will go up 2000% tomorrow.

Steve: I have no idea if it will or not, I lack belief in this scenario.

 

[ArtieE]

So strong atheism is not atheism.

Yes it is. Do you notice that the word "atheism" is included in the expression "strong atheism"?

Strong atheism is a belief in the absence of gods.

The expression "strong atheism" consists of two words, the word "strong" and the word "atheism". The word atheism means "absence of belief in the existence of gods" and the word "strong" indicates that not only is there an "absence of belief in the existence of gods" but there's in addition a presence of belief that gods don't exist. Do you have any real interest in understanding this or are you just playing?

 

[ArtieE]

So atheism is neither a belief nor not a belief, that it can contain both?

All atheists have an absence of belief in the existence of gods. A subset of atheists, SOME ATHEISTS, have an absence of belief in the existence of gods PLUS a presence of belief that gods don't exist. Those we call "STRONG ATHEISTS". We use the word atheist PLUS another word to describe those.

 

[ArtieE]

As far as we know, are babies capable of being theists?

Babies are humans and baby humans are capable of being theists when they grow up so yes, they are atheists.

 

[Curious George]

Jim: Stock will go up 2000% tomorrow.

Steve: I have no idea if it will or not, I lack belief in this scenario.

Correct, but this is a nuanced position. Also:

Jim: stock x will go up 2k%

Steve: either it will or it won't, So until I have further evidence I accept both.

 

[Curious George]

Babies are humans and baby humans are capable of being theists when they grow up so yes, they are atheists.

When they grow up, they are no longer babies. What you did there is called an equivocation.

 

[ArtieE]

When they grow up, they are no longer babies. What you did there is called an equivocation.

ROTFL Humans are humans no matter how old they are. Humans are capable of being theists babies are just humans who aren't old enough to understand what theism is. Which is why they are NOT theists. A different word for not theists is ATHEISTS.

 

[Curious George]

ROTFL Humans are humans no matter how old they are. Humans are capable of being theists babies are just humans who aren't old enough to understand what theism is. Which is why they are NOT theists. A different word for not theists is ATHEISTS.

Yes, but if you are defining out toasters on the basis of ability why not babies? Let us explore a different route. Toasters are nouns just the same as humans are nouns. Why should we limit atheists to a specific class of nouns? Your reasoning indicates ability? So I ask why should we not limit the definition further to a specific class of humans? Your answer... Because babies are humans. That my friend is question begging.

 

[prometheus11]

When they grow up, they are no longer babies. What you did there is called an equivocation.

Is it more preposterous to call a baby an atheist or to call an unconscious person a theist?

 

[Curious George]

Is it more preposterous to call a baby an atheist or to call an unconscious person a theist?

I find them equally preposterous, actually.

 

[prometheus11]

I find them equally preposterous, actually.

I like that answer. It proves something, doesn't it.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, but if you are defining out toasters on the basis of ability why not babies?

Are you serious? Toasters can't become theists even when they grow up.