"Humans are born as atheists"

[Ouroboros]

It's funny how the Bible still dictates the definition of atheism.

Now, it's not the fool, but the ignorant, and it's not the ones who say in their heart there is no God, but those who lacks belief in God who are ignorant.

Bible written today would say, "The ignorant is an implicit atheist." Isn't that swell... :/

 

[McBell]

Bible written today would say, "The ignorant is an implicit atheist." Isn't that swell... :/

You are assuming the author of the new version is unbias...

 

[Willamena]

..

It's funny how the Bible still dictates the definition of atheism.

It's strange that it dictates it at all.

 

[ArtieE]

..

I see it now.

Still, not having the capacity to believe is a meta state to not believing. They are only equated by casual use of language.

To say that the baby is "not believing" in an atheistic sense, when it's only a case of being incapable of believing, is to dilute "atheism" of meaning.

Take the expression married/not married for example. That an infant can technically be not married dilutes "not married" of meaning. We must all work so that not married can only apply to those who have made a conscious decision to be not married. On second thought... maybe it's not worth the bother.

 

[Valjean]

if babies are not aware.....they are not believers?

Obviously. Hard to believe in something you're unaware of.

you gotta understand what is being denied before you can make denial.

But this is relevant only to the atheist-as-denier crowd. Most atheists aren't denying anything.

A theist, or an atheist, or a weak atheist, or a strong atheist, or an agnostic, all know their particular orientations that conform to certain definitions and that involves an understanding, a decision, a declaration.

Sorry, you're wrong. Weak or implicit atheism need not involve any understanding, decision or declaration.
You know this, Atanu. It's been explained dozens of time in this thread. Why do you keep bringing this up?

It is surprising how people debate on notion of absence.

It is. The implications of absence seem pretty clear to me, but some people, somehow, see presence in absence.

There is a strong equivalence. A baby has Not considered truth of a proposition and a student has not taken an exam.

And, having not considered the proposition, he'd have no opinion, wouldn't he?

 

[Valjean]

..

I see it now.

Still, not having the capacity to believe is a meta state to not believing. They are only equated by casual use of language.

But being incapable of belief does not depend on language. It's an independent, existential state. Babies lack both language and capacity to believe, for example.

To say that the baby is "not believing" in an atheistic sense, when it's only a case of being incapable of believing, is to dilute "atheism" of meaning.

"Dilute atheism?" Like atheism is supposed to be some profound concept?
It's not rocket science. There's (literally) nothing to it. A four-year-old could grasp it. How could such a simple concept possibly be diluted?

Take the expression married/not married for example. That an infant can technically be not married dilutes "not married" of meaning. We must all work so that not married can only apply to those who have made a conscious decision to be not married. On second thought... maybe it's not worth the bother.

Yet "unmarried" perfectly describes infants. The application is completely correct.
Not all words need have profound, recondite implications. Unmarried simply means not married. Implicit atheism simply means without belief in God.

I hadn't realized that some people are reading all sorts of profound arcana into the simple term "atheist." It explains a lot.

 

[Curious George]

But being incapable of belief does not depend on language. It's an independent, existential state. Babies lack both language and capacity to believe, for example.

"Dilute atheism?" Like atheism is supposed to be some profound concept?
It's not rocket science. There's (literally) nothing to it. A four-year-old could grasp it. How could such a simple concept possibly be diluted?
Yet "unmarried" perfectly describes infants. The application is completely correct.
Not all words need have profound, recondite implications. Unmarried simply means not married. Implicit atheism simply means without belief in God.

I hadn't realized that some people are reading all sorts of profound arcana into the simple term "atheist." It explains a lot.

Atheists, who prefer to avoid logical messes do not want a definition that includes everything under the sun. Married is a legal status that could in theory be applicable to any human with or without their consent. The only thing that prevents babies from being "married" is our legal definitions and notions of consent. So yes babies are unmarried. But this is distinguished from incapable of marriage by definition. Theism or atheism is based on beliefs. The only way one could define a baby by beliefs is to assume babies are capable or incapable of belief. Thus, the reasoning for defining a baby as an atheist contradicts the reason for limiting atheism to humans. If we can limit atheism to humans, surely we can limit atheism to those capable of belief. If we do not limit atheism to humans....well so much for the word.

 

[Willamena]

Take the expression married/not married for example. That an infant can technically be not married dilutes "not married" of meaning. We must all work so that not married can only apply to those who have made a conscious decision to be not married. On second thought... maybe it's not worth the bother.

Every person, even an infant (even children yet to be born), has the capacity to marry, though, so it doesn't really compare.

 

[Willamena]

"Dilute atheism?" Like atheism is supposed to be some profound concept?

Not a profound concept, no. Just a word in the English language.

 

[Thief]

Obviously. Hard to believe in something you're unaware of.
But this is relevant only to the atheist-as-denier crowd. Most atheists aren't denying anything.

Sorry, you're wrong. Weak or implicit atheism need not involve any understanding, decision or declaration.
You know this, Atanu. It's been explained dozens of time in this thread. Why do you keep bringing this up?
It is. The implications of absence seem pretty clear to me, but some people, somehow, see presence in absence.
And, having not considered the proposition, he'd have no opinion, wouldn't he?

so we are going to toss babies til they cry?

atheism is a choice.....thought about and declared

now...go ask a baby

 

[ArtieE]

Every person, even an infant (even children yet to be born), has the capacity to marry, though, so it doesn't really compare.

That was not the point you see Willa. To not be a theist requires no conscious decision any more than not being married does.

 

[ArtieE]

If we can limit atheism to humans, surely we can limit atheism to those capable of belief.

We don't "limit" atheism to humans. A theist is defined as a person. Obviously even though we stick an a- in front of the word theist we are still talking about persons.

 

[Valjean]

Atheists, who prefer to avoid logical messes do not want a definition that includes everything under the sun. Married is a legal status that could in theory be applicable to any human with or without their consent. The only thing that prevents babies from being "married" is our legal definitions and notions of consent. So yes babies are unmarried. But this is distinguished from incapable of marriage by definition. Theism or atheism is based on beliefs. The only way one could define a baby by beliefs is to assume babies are capable or incapable of belief. Thus, the reasoning for defining a baby as an atheist contradicts the reason for limiting atheism to humans. If we can limit atheism to humans, surely we can limit atheism to those capable of belief. If we do not limit atheism to humans....well so much for the word.

I think you're reading too much into this, George. It's not so complicated. It just means without belief in God.

 

[Willamena]

That was not the point you see Willa. To not be a theist requires no conscious decision any more than not being married does.

Mine did.

And your double-negative is poor grammar.

 

[Willamena]

I think you're reading too much into this, George. It's not so complicated. It just means without belief in God.

Which, in normal speech, means an acknowledgement.

 

[Demonslayer]

Now, it's not the fool, but the ignorant, and it's not the ones who say in their heart there is no God, but those who lacks belief in God who are ignorant.

What's funny is how religious people's heads spin off with righteous indignation if anyone calls them ignorant because they believe in the Cloud King, but it's perfectly OK for them to categorize non-believers as ignorant.

SMFH

 

[Demonslayer]

Which, in normal speech, means an acknowledgement.

Do you acknowledge everything that you are without? Have you put any thought into your lack of tentacles, your lack of an eleventh toe, or your lack of ability to fly?

Or are you making a special case for religious belief because, from your view, it's fundamentally different from everything else?

 

[Willamena]

Do you acknowledge everything that you are without?

When it's meaningful for me to do so, I acknowledge a lack.

Have you put any thought into your lack of tentacles, your lack of an eleventh toe, or your lack of ability to fly?

I don't lack tentacles, at all. And I do fly, I went to Australia on my last flight.

Or are you making a special case for religious belief because, from your view, it's fundamentally different from everything else?

I'm not making any special case for the baby. I use the language consistently.

 

[PackJason]

..

I see it now.

Hallelujah!

To say that the baby is "not believing" in an atheistic sense, when it's only a case of being incapable of believing, is to dilute "atheism" of meaning.

Dilute atheism's meaning? Atheism doesn't mean anything other than to describe a lack of a trait. It never meant much to begin with.

 

[Willamena]

Dilute atheism's meaning? Atheism doesn't mean anything other than to describe a lack of a trait. It never meant much to begin with.

Thank you! You're the first person in a long time willing to admit that atheism isn't a trait but the lack of one.

And that lack is meaningful, for some of us.