• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists: A Question About Newborn Kittens.

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It is arbitrary anyway you turn it. The belief in and worship of a supreme being (or multiple) would in my opinion be a good criterion to distinguish religion from philosophy but with accepting Buddhism as a religion that's no longer possible.

No loss whatsoever in that; "god" is both unhelpful and undefined at the best of circunstances. It is one of those words that are misused and abused far, far more often than not. I don't think that it was ever possible to tell a religion by its god-content, nor would it ever be advisable even if possible.


Judges who have to decide if an organisation has the rights that come with the label are struggling and come to different decision. Pastafarianism is a religion in New Zealand but not in Germany. In the US, religions that have the use of hallucinogenic substances as a ritual are treated arbitrarily. Native American use of peyote is OK, Rastafarianism is OK but trying to form a religion around LSD didn't the approval of the authorities.
There simply is no consistent definition of religion.

Indeed. And there is no good reason for any government to want to meddle in that difficult, inherently arbitrary art.

Such an attempt unavoidably would involve deciding to inhibit new religions to be while favoring whichever groups received recognition. Fertile grounds for restriction of religious freedom as well as abuse of political power.

Instead, groups should have the freedom to present their requests and have them granted or not on their own merits; being a "true" religion is immaterial for that purpose - and should be immaterial.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
I generally think of a religion as "a community of shared belief that gets tax breaks or favours from government (edit: but isn't a political party)."

I haven't found a definition that works better.
Then you're not looking very hard. I've read three definitions so far (M-W, Collins, and Cambridge) and not one of them mention "community."

A religion is a personal or institutionalized system of beliefs, attitudes, and practices related to the nature of one's being, an ultimate reality, or deity. No community required.
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
I don't know if cats do have religion, i don't know why would u assume adult cats do, or any animal but us for that matter.
But, "IF" then: No, since nobody told them about "Theism" yet.
Cheers!
I consider it a preposterous notion, but I took the inspiration from elsewhere (including the claim that rocks are atheistic).
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
Sorry could u expand on that? im not following :D
Neither was I.
The claim is that a newborn baby is an atheist. It kind of went from there. My undertsanding is that an atheist has concluded based on a lack of evidence that there is/are no god/s. It is a position in regard to an idea. Others have said anything which does not believe in gods is by default atheistic eg a kitten, a rock, a cat litter tray, your lunch...
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Neither was I.
The claim is that a newborn baby is an atheist. It kind of went from there. My undertsanding is that an atheist has concluded based on a lack of evidence that there is/are no god/s. It is a position in regard to an idea. Others have said anything which does not believe in gods is by default atheistic eg a kitten, a rock, a cat litter tray, your lunch...

Atheism says nothing about how someone took that path, all atheism defines is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
 

Alekdar

Member
Neither was I.
The claim is that a newborn baby is an atheist. It kind of went from there. My undertsanding is that an atheist has concluded based on a lack of evidence that there is/are no god/s. It is a position in regard to an idea. Others have said anything which does not believe in gods is by default atheistic eg a kitten, a rock, a cat litter tray, your lunch...
So as my understanding of it, Theism, would the the belief of deities, and A-Theism is the lack of it.
i think this kind of structure is from greeks, as in Normal or A-bnormal (b is because english :D)
By this reasoning, everyone who still doesnt believe a god exists, is by definition Atheist, of course if u ask the christian parents of a 1 minute old baby, they would tell you the baby is christian, because in essence it's gonna be, i think it's a matter of practicallity.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I never understood why it is that so many people are so completely unable to comprehend the "lack belief in" part of atheism.

One would need sentience to lack belief so a rock would be out of the question but kittens, surely they lack belief in gods
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
So as my understanding of it, Theism, would the the belief of deities, and A-Theism is the lack of it.
i think this kind of structure is from greeks, as in Normal or A-bnormal (b is because english :D)
By this reasoning, everyone who still doesnt believe a god exists, is by definition Atheist, of course if u ask the christian parents of a 1 minute old baby, they would tell you the baby is christian, because in essence it's gonna be, i think it's a matter of practicallity.
But the baby itself has not decided it is a Christian, an atheist or whatever. It currently lacks the cognitive capacity to make that call. Anyhoo, it was not me claiming the baby was anything of the kind. :)
 

McBell

Unbound
One would need sentience to lack belief so a rock would be out of the question but kittens, surely they lack belief in gods
I do have to admit I find it rather comical when people who fancy themselves some sort of philosophical mastermind can not grasp the concept of "lack belief in".
 

Alekdar

Member
But the baby itself has not decided it is a Christian, an atheist or whatever. It currently lacks the cognitive capacity to make that call. Anyhoo, it was not me claiming the baby was anything of the kind. :)
It is as you say, if it doesnt know, or doesnt decide, it has no religion until it does. Would this settle the matter? Would u like to discuss another thing?
Cheers! :D
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
One would need sentience to lack belief so a rock would be out of the question but kittens, surely they lack belief in gods
I'm staying off this roundabout, just having a word with a newbie. It wasn't me claiming rocks were atheists. In the real world would you seriously say to someone "This hamster is an atheist" ? And if you did would the other person not give you a quizzical look?
I consider atheism to be an adult human concept.

Anyhoo, kittens are baby gods and godesses aren't they?
 

Alekdar

Member
I'm staying off this roundabout, just having a word with a newbie. It wasn't me claiming rocks were atheists. In the real world would you seriously say to someone "This hamster is an atheist" ? And if you did would the other person not give you a quizzical look?
I consider atheism to be an adult human concept.

Anyhoo, kittens are baby gods and godesses aren't they?
Well, as far as we know, religion is a human thing, and as an Atheist myself, i see religion as a tool, (we humans love tools :D) So it certainly would feel wierd to say Atheist hamsters, but if i'd say "this hamster has no religious affiliation" it would sound rather obvious, and in my mind feels kinda the same.
Certainly a newbie, would u recommend me any interesting post in here where my naturalistic view can serve a purpose?
Cheers!
 
Top