Poll: Are all babies atheist?

[Breathe]

Seems so:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ginary-presidents-and-imaginary-gods-the-real

Agent detection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Makes sense.

 

[Badran]

True, i deviated a bit from point.

It is helpful grounding people to remember atheism is e default position, and the most inocent being can br an atheist, so they shouldnt feel all high miighty for being theists.

Well see, here's the thing, and why i think this would come down to a petty contest. Muslims, for example, or at least some of them, consider babies to be Muslims. In the most inclusive sense of being so. In the sense that they supposedly live in accordance with god, or in submission to god, or anything to that effect.

Logically, within the framework of the religion, this makes sense. It's not something i can say is incorrect. So, what happens here is that little is accomplished on either side, besides each throwing their most inclusive definition at each other to grab babies into their team (thus supposedly gaining the advantage of having the innocent creature on their side) and both succeeding in doing so.

From my point of view, it's more efficient to categorize them separately, as i'll try to explain in the next part, rather than embrace this redundant approach.

Finally, one note to put in mind regarding this part is that like i attempted to emphasize earlier, a position being a default speaks nothing positive about it, or at least necessitate anything positive about it.

Its like if the thread was called are babies illiterate or are babies single. Yes, yes they are.

Would you honestly not be thinking "what a ridiculous question" while reading the title of such thread? If yes, and i think we can both agree to that, here's why i'd think it's a stupid question.

Asking if babies are single is ridiculous because babies happen to also not be capable of mating, dating, or even thinking of doing so or anything else to that effect. So the question is redundant. Yes, they are 'single', but that's not saying anything about them we don't already know by our knowledge of the larger description that applies to babies, which is that they simply are not capable of thought as we understand it.

So the question might be useful in a case where an alien comes and asks "is this baby single?", where we would say "Oh dear. Yes, yes she is", and then go on to explain the larger issue which covers this small aspect, after which there'd be no need for him to ask such questions again, and there'd be no need for us to apply the term to babies ever again.

IOW, i think we'd do well for ourselves if we approach babies using the larger, obvious, and more relevant description, rather than quibble over minor technically true ones that are of no benefit (besides trying to put the 'other side folks' in their place).

 

[Badran]

Seems so:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ginary-presidents-and-imaginary-gods-the-real

Agent detection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Me Myself]

Well see, here's the thing, and why i think this would come down to a petty contest. Muslims, for example, or at least some of them, consider babies to be Muslims. In the most inclusive sense of being so. In the sense that they supposedly live in accordance with god, or in submission to god, or anything to that effect.

Logically, within the framework of the religion, this makes sense. It's not something i can say is incorrect. So, what happens here is that little is accomplished on either side, besides each throwing their most inclusive definition at each other to grab babies into their team (thus supposedly gaining the advantage of having the innocent creature on their side) and both succeeding in doing so.

From my point of view, it's more efficient to categorize them separately, as i'll try to explain in the next part, rather than embrace this redundant approach.

Finally, one note to put in mind regarding this part is that like i attempted to emphasize earlier, a position being a default speaks nothing positive about it, or at least necessitate anything positive about it.



Would you honestly not be thinking "what a ridiculous question" while reading the title of such thread? If yes, and i think we can both agree to that, here's why i'd think it's a stupid question.

Asking if babies are single is ridiculous because babies happen to also not be capable of mating, dating, or even thinking of doing so or anything else to that effect. So the question is redundant. Yes, they are 'single', but that's not saying anything about them we don't already know by our knowledge of the larger description that applies to babies, which is that they simply are not capable of thought as we understand it.

So the question might be useful in a case where an alien comes and asks "is this baby single?", where we would say "Oh dear. Yes, yes she is", and then go on to explain the larger issue which covers this small aspect, after which there'd be no need for him to ask such questions again, and there'd be no need for us to apply the term to babies ever again.

IOW, i think we'd do well for ourselves if we approach babies using the larger, obvious, and more relevant description, rather than quibble over minor technically true ones that are of no benefit (besides trying to put the 'other side folks' in their place).

Ironically that would make them muslim atheists, which by the way I think it's awesome

It is not unfit to understand a baby is illiterate if you want to see the number or people who have yet the need to learn to read. Sure, a baby doesnt have the immidiate need to learn because he is momentarily unable, but ut is important that we count them as one whose we will be teaching how to read in the future.

Likewise with the term atheist, but from a different context. It is saying that if no one teaches you about gods, you are an atheist, which includes babies. It something that does invite thought and is an interesting deliberation for those who care to deliberate. I found the question interesting and thought provoking.

By the same token I said "other" because from the angle I presented it is my argument that their tendency to animism is more relevant than their lack of belief in God, but it is still a discussion. One I found hindered by so many people being silly about the label atheist.

I think if you want to say they must be classified as apart it would be interesting to hear a more particular classification like the one I said with animist, ot sipy argue about propensities as others have.

Atheist is a term like any other and can be used whenever its definition allows it. I know YOU are not debating the term is wrong, but if I had to say what is pettied, I would say it is pettier to debate that it is wrong than to say it isnt.

Thats my stance.

 

[SageTree]

I am sure they don't.

I mean we still call names to that and those who wont call themselves by those.

We do call them "babies" dont we?

:namaste

:namaste

 

[Badran]

It is not unfit to understand a baby is illiterate if you want to see the number or people who have yet the need to learn to read. Sure, a baby doesnt have the immidiate need to learn because he is momentarily unable, but ut is important that we count them as one whose we will be teaching how to read in the future.

I think this kinda misses the point of my example. Its indeed not unfit to understand that a baby is illiterate, among the other myriad of things babies can't do (things that are a given to us). But if i'm counting illiterate people, in general, i won't make any category called "illiterate babies", just "babies". Because there aren't any literate babies, and for obvious reasons relating to the issue of them not being capable of being literate.

And if i'm trying to come up with statistics about illiterate people to get an idea about the problem of illiteracy, i don't think i'd be pointing to babies in the first place as a supposed part of the issue, or perhaps i'd include them but with certain conditions. Essentially, i'm saying the fact that they're a separate, different group is the most obvious and relevant fact, one that can not be overlooked when discussing the matter. So we might as well treat them as such, rather than try to squeeze them into our issues. I simply can't think of any practical uses for this usage of the word, and can see problems with it as well.

Let me try to put what i said in the first post differently. The are three senses i'm aware of to the word atheist, two of which are clearly dealing with an aware decision, or an embraced position. The third one allows for unaware positions and apathetic ones, but like i keep trying to say, it's unhelpful to us to get hung up on one aspect that is included under one of the three definitions and try to score points based upon it when it accomplishes nothing, and especially when putting in mind that the other side (which this whole categorization is aimed towards) can do the same thing.

For example, it leaves us with nothing but over complication, such as:

Ironically that would make them muslim atheists, which by the way I think it's awesome

Baby Muslim atheists.

Likewise with the term atheist, but from a different context. It is saying that if no one teaches you about gods, you are an atheist, which includes babies. It something that does invite thought and is an interesting deliberation for those who care to deliberate. I found the question interesting and thought provoking.

I thought i might be misunderstood in this regard. I wasn't saying that this thread is stupid, quite the contrary. First, the example i gave is of a non-controversial issue, which is why it serves as a good example or a parallel to display what i think would be the reaction to the notion if in a different context. The OP (as i understand) is specifically making the thread to explore this controversial issue, but she's also arguing against the notion.

By the same token I said "other" because from the angle I presented it is my argument that their tendency to animism is more relevant than their lack of belief in God, but it is still a discussion. One I found hindered by so many people being silly about the label atheist.

I think if you want to say they must be classified as apart it would be interesting to hear a more particular classification like the one I said with animist, ot sipy argue about propensities as others have.

I think this might explain to you my position the most. I don't actually see a need to label them with anything in this regard. I feel this is simply us attempting to squeeze them into conditions that need not apply to them.

There might actually be a label that fits them perfectly and raises no problems, and it might be animism, but i don't know enough about animism to comment on that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay, fine - babies are atheist like grasshoppers, rocks, and toothbrushes are atheist. If you find such descriptions useful or meaningful, then more power to you. Personally, I find language that addes no meaning or value to be pointless, and generally counterproductive, but others may find value in semantic pedantry for its own sake.

 

[Me Myself]

Okay, fine - babies are atheist like grasshoppers, rocks, and toothbrushes are atheist. If you find such descriptions useful or meaningful, then more power to you. Personally, I find language that addes no meaning or value to be pointless, and generally counterproductive, but others may find value in semantic pedantry for its own sake.

Grasshoppers, rocks and toothbrushes are not people, thus, cannot be atheists per Oxford Dictionary.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Grasshoppers, rocks and toothbrushes are not people, thus, cannot be atheists per Oxford Dictionary.

Just as I said, some people find value in semantic pedantry for its own sake.

 

[Me Myself]

I think this kinda misses the point of my example. Its indeed not unfit to understand that a baby is illiterate, among the other myriad of things babies can't do (things that are a given to us). But if i'm counting illiterate people, in general, i won't make any category called "illiterate babies", just "babies". Because there aren't any literate babies, and for obvious reasons relating to the issue of them not being capable of being literate.

And if i'm trying to come up with statistics about illiterate people to get an idea about the problem of illiteracy, i don't think i'd be pointing to babies in the first place as a supposed part of the issue, or perhaps i'd include them but with certain conditions. Essentially, i'm saying the fact that they're a separate, different group is the most obvious and relevant fact, one that can not be overlooked when discussing the matter. So we might as well treat them as such, rather than try to squeeze them into our issues. I simply can't think of any practical uses for this usage of the word, and can see problems with it as well.

Let me try to put what i said in the first post differently. The are three senses i'm aware of to the word atheist, two of which are clearly dealing with an aware decision, or an embraced position. The third one allows for unaware positions and apathetic ones, but like i keep trying to say, it's unhelpful to us to get hung up on one aspect that is included under one of the three definitions and try to score points based upon it when it accomplishes nothing, and especially when putting in mind that the other side (which this whole categorization is aimed towards) can do the same thing.

For example, it leaves us with nothing but over complication, such as:



Baby Muslim atheists.



I thought i might be misunderstood in this regard. I wasn't saying that this thread is stupid, quite the contrary. First, the example i gave is of a non-controversial issue, which is why it serves as a good example or a parallel to display what i think would be the reaction to the notion if in a different context. The OP (as i understand) is specifically making the thread to explore this controversial issue, but she's also arguing against the notion.



I think this might explain to you my position the most. I don't actually see a need to label them with anything in this regard. I feel this is simply us attempting to squeeze them into conditions that need not apply to them.

There might actually be a label that fits them perfectly and raises no problems, and it might be animism, but i don't know enough about animism to comment on that.

Its not about a need to label them. A want to label them suffices just fine.

They fit the label. If someone wants to label them such , they can. As you said and know it iwll be correct. If it is not meaningful term for them to you, then it is not meaningful term for them to you.

Putting some "innocence" on the term "atheist" is important to more than one person. My philosophy teacher was an example of that.

I can certainly understand he position 100%

 

[Me Myself]

Just as I said, some people find value in semantic pedantry for its own sake.

Or semantic accuracy.