Fundamentalist Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Interesting way to twist what he said to fit your prejudices.

The qualification to be an atheist is not that different than the qualification to be a non-smoker: until a person believes in a god or smokes, he's an atheist non-smoker. This fact doesn't prevent atheists or non-smokers from taking principled stands against belief in gods or smoking tobacco.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

At some point it just might. As long as so many people insist in seeing atheism as somehow unexpected or even unnatural, the word is still needed.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Why do you think that I think that?

It applies to everyone. It's being human.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting way to twist what he said to fit your prejudices.

The qualification to be an atheist is not that different than the qualification to be a non-smoker: until a person believes in a god or smokes, he's an atheist non-smoker. This fact doesn't prevent atheists or non-smokers from taking principled stands against belief in gods or smoking tobacco.

It's a rhetorical spin, but her point is well made if being a non-smoker takes no intelligence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you think that I think that?

I was assuming you did not make the statement as an ironic paradox.

It applies to everyone. It's being human.

Not seeing how.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a rhetorical spin, but her point is well made if being a non-smoker takes no intelligence.

Uh, no, it is not.

 

[Willamena]

I was assuming you did not make the statement as an ironic paradox.

It's no kind of paradox.

 

[LuisDantas]

That would make it meaningless, then. I really did not get (and still do not get) the sense that you meant it to be meaningless, though.

 

[yoda89]

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

If you define anything not believing in a deity then yes rocks are in fact atheists. But unless you have a pet rock who you believe talks to you then I don't see how you would make the correlation.

A child (or rock) would not believe in organized belief unless it was presented to them as holding truth. If you told a kid Zeus was the leader of the Gods and there was enough people saying he was.the kid would most likely believe Zeus is the king of the Gods. Or rock if you think they can think.

 

[yoda89]

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

What about amoebas, are they atheist too?

Use it all you like. If you believe in magical talking and thinking rocks then sure. The fact is that if you told a kid who trusted you that Ares is a God he would believe you. If there is enough people supporting these claims.

Do not make such claims the kid thinks about it without interference or these social pressures. They then decide for themselves. They (or rocks if you believe they can think) may become Christain but it will be highly unlikely. Just as it is highly unlikely they will believe Ares is a God.

Give it a try for a couple of generations see how many believers are left.

If there is truly nothing incorrect about you statements of divinity there is no reason to defend it. If these beliefs are in deed fact like the earth revolving around the sun. My questions would hold no merit.

 

[Falvlun]

The other definitions do not apply.
Thus their irrelevancy.

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

Well, if the definition of atheism is: "Someone who doesn't believe that gods exist" then obviously, this applies to the question of whether a baby is an atheist or not.

There is also another subtle variation: Basically, that even with the "lack of belief" definition, the assumption is that this only applies to people who can conceivable have opinions on these matters, and thus, cannot be applied to babies. This seems to me a reasonable position.

Yet you have not presented a single one...

You didn't ask, preferring to assume that not accepting the "lack of belief" definition simply indicated that the person was ignoring an inconvenient definition. I was merely pointing out that that assumption is ungenerous and inaccurate.

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.

If you note, that's what my original post on this topic said: Babies are atheists... "If that's how you are defining atheism".

You took objection to this comment, by claiming that you could make such an absolute statement since you didn't ignore inconvenient definitions.

I still fail to see how you are not doing precisely that: Ignoring inconvenient definitions.

It's not a matter of applying the correct definition. It's a question of whether the definition you applied should even be considered a valid one.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

That is not what I considered hypocritical. It was the claim of "ignoring inconvenient definitions". I am being accused of ignoring the inconvenient definition of atheism that you and he have put forward: that atheism should simply be defined as "lack of belief in the existence of gods".

But the flipside of this is that in order to say absolutely that babies are atheists, you too must be ignoring inconvenient definitions: that atheism should be restricted to those who take the philosophical position that gods do not exist.

(But note: that is not my position: I do not claim that you guys are merely ignoring an inconvenient definition. I believe that you have reasons to prefer the definition you do, and to reject the others. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, which is all that I ask in return.)

 

[Falvlun]

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.

That's not what I'm talking about though:

The definition of atheism is in flux, both on this forum and in RL. Some definitions are incompatible with others.

It is not like having one word with multiple acceptable meanings. It's more like a brawl where one word currently has multiple meanings, and no set consensus on which one(s) is(are) right.

 

[yoda89]

Well, if the definition of atheism is: "Someone who doesn't believe that gods exist" then obviously, this applies to the question of whether a baby is an atheist or not.

Do babies or that matter children believe a set of beliefs without being told about them as being true.

There is also another subtle variation: Basically, that even with the "lack of belief" definition, the assumption is that this only applies to people who can conceivable have opinions on these matters, and thus, cannot be applied to babies. This seems to me a reasonable position.

Are babies born with the knowledge of various religions. If so why must they be taught?

It's not a matter of applying the correct definition. It's a question of whether the definition you applied should even be considered a valid one.

It is so very easy to try redefine wording when trying to achieve a counterpoint. Instead of course of focusing on the matter at hand.

Well they sort of are but sort of not is not a valid argument when trying to prove the validity as large as defining a larger being.

 

[Willamena]

Do babies or that matter children believe a set of beliefs without being told about them as being true.

In a general sense, or specifically about god?

Because in the general sense, no one lacks a set of beliefs.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Are comatose people atheist too?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I really don't understand what the problem is with utilizing a broad definition of atheism. If people are fine with categorizing children as "non-smokers", "non-drinkers" or "apolitical", I see no reason why the term atheism - which carries really no more baggage than any of these other terms - being applied to children is objectionable. Unless you are applying meanings or connotations to the term that aren't necessary, or have some deep-seated insecurities about what atheists represent to you.

On the other hand, I currently work in a hospital where children who are barely a week or so old are being defined on their medical front sheets as belonging to religions. It seems the vast majority of parents have no issue with claiming their newborn infants are Christian, Muslim or Buddhist - and yet I see far more objection to the term "atheist" being used as blanket term. I think the real issue here isn't with the use or meaning of the word, but with the emotional reactions of those who simply cannot separate the word from their prejudices.

 

[yoda89]

In a general sense, or specifically about god?

Because in the general sense, no one lacks a set of beliefs.

If you would first respond to the other post please or unless you are unable to. Because apparently to you that means rocks also possess a set of beliefs.


If you define anything not believing in a deity then yes rocks are in fact atheists. But unless you have a pet rock who you believe talks to you then I don't see how you would make the correlation.

A child (or rock) would not believe in organized belief unless it was presented to them as holding truth. If you told a kid Zeus was the leader of the Gods and there was enough people saying he was.the kid would most likely believe Zeus is the king of the Gods. Or rock if you think they can think.

 

[Falvlun]

I really don't understand what the problem is with utilizing a broad definition of atheism. If people are fine with categorizing children as "non-smokers", "non-drinkers" or "apolitical", I see no reason why the term atheism - which carries really no more baggage than any of these other terms - being applied to children is objectionable. Unless you are applying meanings or connotations to the term that aren't necessary, or have some deep-seated insecurities about what atheists represent to you.

On the other hand, I currently work in a hospital where children who are barely a week or so old are being defined on their medical front sheets as belonging to religions. It seems the vast majority of parents have no issue with claiming their newborn infants are Christian, Muslim or Buddhist - and yet I see far more objection to the term "atheist" being used as blanket term. I think the real issue here isn't with the use or meaning of the word, but with the emotional reactions of those who simply cannot separate the word from their prejudices.

Just to note: My opposition doesn't stem from prejudice, but because I reject the definition that would include babies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just to note: My opposition doesn't stem from prejudice, but because I reject the definition that would include babies.

Why? Do you object to the other terms I used? Non-smoker? Non-drinker? Apolitical?