Fundamentalist Atheists

[LuisDantas]

Friend LuisDantas,


Firstly a big hello to an old friend.

Hello, Zenzero. It has been a while.

Though am illiterate in scriptures but do accept them as storehouses of knowledge for every seeker/traveller of the path.
However since you have such opinion would not like you to change anything at best maybe discuss some passage from scriptures with those who know it.

Love & rgds

Scriptures are indeed storehouses. I feel that they accomplish very little in and of themselves, though. And they are certainly not inherently safe or wise.

The way I see it, their proper role is and must always be accessory, illustrative.

 

[McBell]

Yes, it's terribly convenient that babies and rocks are atheist.

For some theists, like CynthiaCypher, it does seem to be a major inconvenience...

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it's terribly convenient that babies and rocks are atheist.

In a way it is. If nothing else it emphasizes how little atheism means.

 

[Falvlun]

I accept the fact that the word "atheist" has more than one meaning.

I also accept the fact that being an atheist only requires ONE of the definitions to be true.

I am not the one ignoring the definition "lack of belief in a deity" in order to claim that babies are not atheists.

Now since the only definition of atheist that applies to babies is the lack of belief one, I did not think it necessary to explain why the other definitions are irrelevant.

Some of the definitions are mutually exclusive. A baby would not be considered an atheist under other definitions, hence, proclaiming that a baby is an atheist-- Hey Presto!-- as if there is no argument is a bit misleading.

Additionally, considering the "lack of belief" definition insufficient or incorrect is not the same as ignoring its existence.

 

[McBell]

Some of the definitions are mutually exclusive. A baby would not be considered an atheist under other definitions, hence, proclaiming that a baby is an atheist-- Hey Presto!-- as if there is no argument is a bit misleading.

Except I presented the definition of atheist that supports my argument.

Since the rest of the definitions are irrelevant to the fact that it only takes lack of belief to be an atheist...

Additionally, considering the "lack of belief" definition insufficient or incorrect is not the same as ignoring its existence.

Dismissing inconvenient definitions is just plain dishonest.

 

[LuisDantas]

Problem is, all the definitions of atheist that make a point of not applying to babies are, quite frankly, very loaded.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

In a way it is. If nothing else it emphasizes how little atheism means.

So atheists have a lot in common with rocks? I can definitely use this.

What about amoebas, are they atheist too?

 

[Falvlun]

Except I presented the definition of atheist that supports my argument.

Since the rest of the definitions are irrelevant to the fact that it only takes lack of belief to be an atheist...

This is rather circular, don't you think?

The other definitions cannot be considered irrelevant if the argument is about the definitions.

Dismissing inconvenient definitions is just plain dishonest.

I have multiple reasons for considered the "lack of belief" definition a rather poor one.

But, don't you find this stance a bit hypocritical? Are you not dismissing inconvenient definitions yourself, ones that would exclude babies as possible atheists?

 

[LuisDantas]

So atheists have a lot in common with rocks? I can definitely use this.

Certainly, you can.

People have a huge arsenal of tools for being offensive or just silly.

That is hardly breaking news. But if you want to feel empowered by such a trivial admission, go ahead. Float your boat however you can.

Mind you, it won't help your credibility or your respectability, but your priorities are no business of mine. It is not in my right to decide whether you need to be disrespectful or to let go of your anger and despise, however justified they may be or fail to be.

What about amoebas, are they atheist too?

By all reasonable guesses, sure they are.

They are also immune to most any psychiatric illnesses. Make of that what you will.

The bottom line is that atheism is not a power, not a privilege, not even a conquest. It really does not mean a lot, nor does it take a lot to happen.

It is, quite simply, the absence of belief in the existence of deities for whatever reason, up to and including sheer inability to have a concept of deity.

What makes us so irresistible and charming isn't our atheism proper. It is arguable that we may even lack any typical traits as atheists beyond lack of belief itself.

 

[Willamena]

In a way it is. If nothing else it emphasizes how little atheism means.

It does indeed reduce atheism to relative meaninglessness.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Certainly, you can.

People have a huge arsenal of tools for being offensive or just silly.

That is hardly breaking news. But if you want to feel empowered by such a trivial admission, go ahead. Float your boat however you can.

Mind you, it won't help your credibility or your respectability, but your priorities are no business of mine. It is not in my right to decide whether you need to be disrespectful or to let go of your anger and despise, however justified they may be or fail to be.




By all reasonable guesses, sure they are.

They are also immune to most any psychiatric illnesses. Make of that what you will.

The bottom line is that atheism is not a power, not a privilege, not even a conquest. It really does not mean a lot, nor does it take a lot to happen.

It is, quite simply, the absence of belief in the existence of deities for whatever reason, up to and including sheer inability to have a concept of deity.

What makes us so irresistible and charming isn't our atheism proper. It is arguable that we may even lack any typical traits as atheists beyond lack of belief itself.

So you admit that atheist have a lot in common with things with little or no intelligence?

Actually I find the whole "babies/rocks/trees" are atheists canard tiresome and silly.

When you self-appointed atheist child rearing experts actually have a child then you can come to me and explain why babies are born atheist (even though they aren't really individuals at birth), until then...I don't think your opinion in the matter carries all that much weight.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is rather circular, don't you think?

The other definitions cannot be considered irrelevant if the argument is about the definitions.

All or nearly all concepts that derive from "deity" are circular and arbitrary, because they inherit those properties from that of deity.

And that means that everyone is entitled to simply pick and choose whichever definitions they like best. Some care should be taken to avoid switching concepts mid-argument, but that is all.

The basic dilemma is that you don't accept concepts of atheism that include lack of capability for conceiving a god. But one can just as legitimaly (or IMO considerably more legitimaly) state that since atheism is the negative concept and theism is the positive concept, it is theism that needs justification.

Atheism is the default, and basically meaningless in and of itself.

I have multiple reasons for considered the "lack of belief" definition a rather poor one.

And you are free to keep them, or even to attempt to convince us that we should adopt at least some of them.

I don't expect that we will, but it is your call.

But, don't you find this stance a bit hypocritical? Are you not dismissing inconvenient definitions yourself, ones that would exclude babies as possible atheists?

It is not at all hypocritical to acknowledge that some concepts are arbitrary and therefore a judgment call must be made.

Mestemia and me, among others, simply find it so much more logical to use definitions that include rocks and babies among the ranks of atheists. Unless you think we are being insincere, that is not hypocrisy.

It all would change if one could provide evidence that babies have some conception of god, or that there is some clear advantage in making atheism the positive concept that needs justification or support. But so far that simply did not happen.

 

[LuisDantas]

It does indeed reduce atheism to relative meaninglessness.

As I recall it, you find that unpleasant for reasons that I never fully understood.

 

[McBell]

This is rather circular, don't you think?

The other definitions cannot be considered irrelevant if the argument is about the definitions.

The other definitions do not apply.
Thus their irrelevancy.

Unless you care to argue how they do apply to a baby being an atheist?

I have multiple reasons for considered the "lack of belief" definition a rather poor one.

Yet you have not presented a single one...

But, don't you find this stance a bit hypocritical? Are you not dismissing inconvenient definitions yourself, ones that would exclude babies as possible atheists?

I am dismissing definitions that do not apply and applying the one that does.

Unlike some others who are defending their "position" by ignoring the definition that applies.

Thus the reason I flat out stated the definition that applies when I brought it up.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you admit that atheist have a lot in common with things with little or no intelligence?

Such as material existence? Of course. I'm not quite that insecure.

What did you expect? A claim that we were custom-created under rigorous parameters by a God that made a point of making us disbelieve in his existence?

Not everyone needs to constantly convince themselves that they are the center of the Universe, Cynthia.

Actually I find the whole "babies/rocks/trees" are atheists canard tiresome and silly.

I actually agree. It is indeed tiresome and silly.

It is also accurate and serves an useful purpose.

When you self-appointed atheist child rearing experts actually have a child then you can come to me and explain why babies are born atheist (even though they aren't really individuals at birth), until then...I don't think your opinion in the matter carries all that much weight.

Of course, it is neither your inclination to lend other people's opinions much weight when they disagree with yours, nor any need of ours to convince you, so the whole matter is effectively an exercise of futility.

That said, I wonder why you think babies "aren't individuals at birth". It is a weird statement to include in an attempt at shaming us due to our supposed lack of knowledge of the subject.

Did you include it as a test of some kind?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It does indeed reduce atheism to relative meaninglessness.

Yes, a nearly worthless label. It should be retired from the language.

 

[Willamena]

As I recall it, you find that unpleasant for reasons that I never fully understood.

It's the pragmatist in me. Things aren't pretty unless they're useful.

 

[McBell]

Actually I find the whole "babies/rocks/trees" are atheists canard tiresome and silly.

yet you were the one who started this tangent...:yes:

When you self-appointed atheist child rearing experts actually have a child then you can come to me and explain why babies are born atheist (even though they aren't really individuals at birth), until then...I don't think your opinion in the matter carries all that much weight.

Ah, so how many children have you had that makes you think your opinion on the matter carries so much weight?

Since you started this tangent as though you have tons of children thus giving your opinion on the matter so much weight....

I did notice you have not addressed my question:

What evidence is there that babies believe in a god?​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some of the definitions are mutually exclusive. A baby would not be considered an atheist under other definitions, hence, proclaiming that a baby is an atheist-- Hey Presto!-- as if there is no argument is a bit misleading.

Normally, when we're trying to decide whether a word applies to a thing, it only needs to meet one definition.

For instance, it wouldn't be correct to say that a person who drives a car is "not a driver" just because there's another definition for "driver" that says a driver is a kind of golf club.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's the pragmatist in me. Things aren't pretty unless they're useful.

And why do you think that line applies better to you than it does to us?

In all fairness, it should be us using it.