Atheists: A Question About Newborn Kittens.

[Stevicus]

Fair question. Please read on.




I don't think so. If anything, presenting non-sentients as atheists may well encourage further disregard and further unfair criticism of atheism. Even all-out insults.

But it is also intellectually honest and may help clarify and correct certain misconceptions.




I can't speak for others, but in my case I want to point out the nature of atheism as I understand it and, hopefully, also point out that there is an inherent assymetry between it and theism.

Theism, despite some odd cultural and doctrinary expectations with surprisingly good support, can't happen in a vacuum. It can only exist (or at least be claimed) once some form of god-conception arises or is proposed and there are people around with the ability to express belief in the existence of a literal form of that conception, at least to themselves.

Atheism has no such requirements and requires no effort nor justification whatsoever.

That is a fact that many apologists of theism fail to acknowledge somehow.

One of the most frustrating traits of much of the discussion between theists and atheists is that both sides often end up discussing logic and evidences with various degrees of honesty and awareness of facts, but ultimately neither theism nor atheism has much to do with logic nor with evidence.

They are both aesthetical stances, opposed and mutually exclusive but very assymetric in ambition and consequences. Theism is simply inherently more daring, all the more so when it takes the form of proselitist monotheism. To presume to decide what other people should believe in is no minor audacity.

But social reinforcement is a powerful force, and leads many Abrahamists (and to a lesser degree others) to misunderstandings on the nature and consequences of both theism and atheism. And because not all atheists are well informed, many of us end up repeating those mistakes as well.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, although in this context, it seems more of a semantic discussion than anything else. The word "atheist" would never have existed without the concept of "theism" being formulated in the first place. I agree that it doesn't originate in a vacuum; it's a product of human thought and imagination, but at a level presumed to be not possible with babies or cats.

(Of course, parents often take babies with them to church and continue attending as their children grow up, so the ideas of belief in the supernatural and theism are inculcated and conditioned into them almost literally from birth. It might not be until later in life that one develops a certain degree of understanding and independent thought to consider the possibility of non-belief.)

So, in a state of nature where such concepts don't even exist, they would lack any theistic beliefs, so they may be atheists by default, but they wouldn't call themselves that. It probably wouldn't even occur to them to call themselves something based on what they don't believe in. The term "atheist" only really has significance within a society and culture where theism is prevalent. As you point out above (and I agree with), "To presume to decide what other people should believe in is no minor audacity." If we didn't have people actively doing that all throughout history (and even to this day), then I doubt the matter would even come up. At the very least, it wouldn't be so controversial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with most of what you're saying here, although in this context, it seems more of a semantic discussion than anything else. The word "atheist" would never have existed without the concept of "theism" being formulated in the first place.

Likewise, the word "civilian" would never have existed without the concept of "military," yet when we talk about civilian casualties in a war, we include the babies, despite the fact that they're ineligible for military service and incapable of conscientious objection.

 

[Stevicus]

Likewise, the word "civilian" would never have existed without the concept of "military," yet when we talk about civilian casualties in a war, we include the babies, despite the fact that they're ineligible for military service and incapable of conscientious objection.

Not sure if that's analogous, but I can see your point.

Perhaps another analogy might be "moral" and "amoral." One could say a rock is amoral, which would be true, but who would care? Why would the matter even come up?

 

[SalixIncendium]

My money's on apatheist.

Well, I asked her today and just got home to log on to share her insights.

I first asked her if she was an atheist. She just looked at me quizzically, so I'm ascertained she's definitely not an atheist.

I then asked her what her theistic position is. She said, "I don't know."

I'll leave it to you, the denizens of RF, to determine what her theistic position is. I'm not sure exactly how to label it. Usually ignorance is associate with lack of knowledge, but ignosticism and igtheism appears to already have a different definition. Virginosticism? Virgitheism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My money's on apatheist.

Apatheist is a subset of atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure if that's analogous, but I can see your point.

Perhaps another analogy might be "moral" and "amoral." One could say a rock is amoral, which would be true, but who would care? Why would the matter even come up?

That's kinda my point: babies are technically atheists, but this fact doesn't come up that much. I know I've never been asked about the beliefs of babies outside of internet discussions about religion.

... though I think it's useful as a case that illustrates some issues related to adult theists. I mean, any human is as oblivious as a baby to most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. If a baby doesn't have what it takes to be an atheist, how can anybody be an atheist?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If a baby doesn't have what it takes to be an atheist, how can anybody be an atheist?

Through understanding the concept of a god, understanding what a theistic position is, and not having any reason for belief in any god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It still means a lack of knowledge.

No, it's a position about the state of our knowledge.

We're talking about newborn kittens or newborn babies, which wouldn't have any actual beliefs or even enough knowledge to be able to say one or the other. This is a discussion of semantics over terms which kittens and babies can not understand. They really don't know.

... which makes them atheists (i.e. they believe in zero gods), not agnostics (i.e. they consider the evidence and arguments to be insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of gods).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Through understanding the concept of a god, understanding what a theistic position is, and not having a belief in any god.

What's "the concept of a god"?

Personally, I've never found a concept that includes everything that's definitively a god and excludes everything that's definitively not a god.

If you've figured this out, please share.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What's "the concept of a god"?

Personally, I've never found a concept that includes everything that's definitively a god and excludes everything that's definitively not a god.

If you've figured this out, please share.

How one might conceptualize a god. You can feign ignorance in what a god concept is, but if you truly never found one, the term "atheist" would be meaningless to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here are two ideas I take as axiomatic when considering any approach to what "atheism" is or who is or isn't an atheist:

1. Atheists exist. If a definition or approach implies that it would be humanly impossible to be an atheist, I know it's wrong.
2. Theists aren't atheists. If a definition or approach ends up implying that any theists are atheists, I know it's wrong.

I've never met anyone who's come out and argued against either of these points, but I've found lots of people argue for definitions of "atheist" that violate one or both of them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How one might conceptualize a god.

On a case-by-case basis.

You can feign ignorance in what a god concept is, but if you truly never found one, the term "atheist" would be meaningless to you.

I can point to uncountably many individual god-concepts; I've yet to find an overarching concept of "god" in general that links them all together.

Again: if you've done it, please share. Have you?

 

[SalixIncendium]

On a case-by-case basis.



I can point to uncountably many individual god-concepts; I've yet to find an overarching concept of "god" in general that links them all together.

Again: if you've done it, please share. Have you?

Any god concept works for what I was saying. Shifting the argument to the need for an "overarching concept of 'god'" for the purpose of this discussion is simply building a straw man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any god concept works for what I was saying.

Okay. Let's try the Roman god Mercury. Can you walk me through your process?

Shifting the argument to the need for an "overarching concept of 'god'" for the purpose of this discussion is simply building a straw man.

Just because you're missing my point doesn't make my argument a straw man.

 

[Stevicus]

No, it's a position about the state of our knowledge.



... which makes them atheists (i.e. they believe in zero gods), not agnostics (i.e. they consider the evidence and arguments to be insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of gods).

I would think one could be both, one can believe in zero gods, as well as consider the evidence and arguments to prove or disprove the existence of gods to be insufficient.

 

[crossfire]

Kitty is trying to figure out how to knock Buddha off the shelf

"If you see Buddha on the road, kill him."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Long ago, cats were worshipped as Gods.

Cats have never forgotten this......

You're absolutely right. Come to think of it , I actually do worship my God cats.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Apparently this is a dispute for you to have with other atheists:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods."

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

My refrigerator has never rejected any assertion. It's not an atheist fridge. It's just a fridge.

It would actually be kind of weird if a person, before God was invented , suddenly said "There is no God" and the other guy goes. "What's a God"?

And now we know the rest of the story.

 

[Augustus]

I'm asking if one considers atheism to be the default position one is born with

I find the following beliefs to be incompatible:

A) I merely lack belief in gods, I make no positive claim gods don’t exist.
B) Babies are atheists as they lack belief in gods.

Yet in my experience the kind of person who is most likely to insist babies are atheists and it is a default position, are also the most likely to insist they merely lack belief.

The philosophical doubt should be the same for each.

If I allow a chance that gods exist, then I should allow the chance that they could miraculously make all babies theists

(Assuming common definitions of the term gods are used).

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)

(Of course, parents often take babies with them to church and continue attending as their children grow up, so the ideas of belief in the supernatural and theism are inculcated and conditioned into them almost literally from birth. It might not be until later in life that one develops a certain degree of understanding and independent thought to consider the possibility of non-belief.)

In my case at least it goes beyond that; I was never a believer. I don't think I could ever become one to save my life (or my soul, or whatever). I am just not wired that way.

And yet, because I exist in a social environment that is willing and eager to project god-beliefs into me, summarily disregard my protestations to the contrary, and inconvenience me in a myriad of passive-aggressive ways while I do not conform, I grew up learning that god-belief serves mainly for people to act in unethical ways, avoid personal responsibility and difficult subjects, and lie to themselves and to each other while avoiding what would otherwise be the expected social repercussion.

That was, after all, what I saw and experienced firsthand. Belief was, first and most of all, the soil where people bred irresponsibility out of - far as could and can understand - fear of acting responsibly.

For many of my tender years I saw belief as strongly correlated with weakness of character and assumed that so did everyone else. Despite having been put into Eucharisty classes (without being consulted) I rarely ever had any reason to question that perception. When I finally learned better I was very shocked by the realization. It was just so incoherent with what I had seen in person all that time.

So, in a state of nature where such concepts don't even exist, they would lack any theistic beliefs, so they may be atheists by default, but they wouldn't call themselves that.

The only reason why we even have a word for atheism is because we have the need to express its existence - express the absence of theistic beliefs. Atheism requires no justification nor explanation whatsoever, but it had to be named all the same, because it must be contrasted with theism. Atheism has no cause, and its name is caused by the existence of theism.

It probably wouldn't even occur to them to call themselves something based on what they don't believe in. The term "atheist" only really has significance within a society and culture where theism is prevalent. As you point out above (and I agree with), "To presume to decide what other people should believe in is no minor audacity." If we didn't have people actively doing that all throughout history (and even to this day), then I doubt the matter would even come up. At the very least, it wouldn't be so controversial.

Indeed. It is funny in a way.