Word Usage Survey

[doppelganger]

Oh, it's definitely not absurd. I understand that if you think of atheism as the rejection of theism, it wouldn't make sense to call a baby an atheist. However, if you just use the definition "one who lacks belief in gods", a baby fits the description.

Does it make any sense to describe a pebble as "atheist"?

In the absence of an observer organizing reality through forms in memory . . . nothing "exists."

 

[Magic Man]

Does it make any sense to describe a pebble as "atheist"?

Funny you bring that up. I don't know whether you've followed the other thread at all, but the idea of a rock being an atheist was brought up. I wouldn't use the term for a rock or non-living thing mostly because I'd define it as "a person who...". But a baby is a person.

In the absence of an observer organizing reality through forms in memory . . . nothing "exists."

OK, but a baby is still a person with a brain able to form thoughts. And that person still lacks the belief in God, which is all that's necessary to fit the broad definition "one who lacks belief in God (or gods)".

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Does it make any sense to describe a pebble as "atheist"?

using the definition "lack of belief in gods", yes, a pebble would be an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does it make any sense to describe a pebble as "atheist"?

I remember we had one Muslim member here who claimed that the entire universe, including unconscious matter, worships God. I think calling unconscious matter "atheist" makes more sense than that.

 

[Falvlun]

I voted D.

While I do agree that there is a sense of the word "atheist" that would apply to any person who doesn't actively believe god(s) exists, I do not find that definition to be the most appropriate application in this case.

 

[outhouse]

Aren't those kind of the same thing?

Lack of belief in God is pretty much synonymous with believing that there is no God, from my understanding.

there was a whole thread were this was debated into the ground.

My view is that I dont believe there is no god, I know there is no god as described.

I guess im under the lack of belief part of there is or is not a god

But I do see your point and I dont think its worth argueing over and thats why I didnt participate very much at all in the thread.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not quite. Lack of belief in God just means you don't hold the belief that God exists. It doesn't mean you hold the belief that God doesn't exist.

I see.

But isn't the word "atheist" used to describe both?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But isn't the word "atheist" used to describe both?

It can be used to describe either.

 

[Magic Man]

I see.

But isn't the word "atheist" used to describe both?

Exactly. As long as you don't hold the belief that God exists, you're an atheist. That can include the people who also hold the belief that God doesn't exist. In fact, many atheists probably do hold the belief that God doesn't exist. I hold that belief.

 

[Songbird]

We're defining beliefs again? I did NOT come to a religious forum to discuss God.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

I see.

But isn't the word "atheist" used to describe both?

the term atheist describes the general lack of belief in god. both stances can be described by the term atheist, yet the term atheist does not imply that the atheist holds both beliefs. a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square, type of deal.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We're defining beliefs again? I did NOT come to a religious forum to discuss God.

Good point - religion has nothing to do with god.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm unsure if you can say a baby is athiest, given it's a non-belief in a concept. You say "I do not believe in xxxx". A baby doesn't have the concept to begin with, and cannot say (if it could say) if it has a belief one way or the other.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm unsure if you can say a baby is athiest, given it's a non-belief in a concept. You say "I do not believe in xxxx". A baby doesn't have the concept to begin with, and cannot say (if it could say) if it has a belief one way or the other.

If it doesn't have the concept, then it doesn't have belief in that concept.

 

[Riverwolf]

Exactly. As long as you don't hold the belief that God exists, you're an atheist. That can include the people who also hold the belief that God doesn't exist. In fact, many atheists probably do hold the belief that God doesn't exist. I hold that belief.

So, I was correct in my saying that the atheism of a baby isn't the same as the atheism of someone who deliberately denies the existence of any God or God-concept?

 

[Koldo]

So, I was correct in my saying that the atheism of a baby isn't the same as the atheism of someone who deliberately denies the existence of any God or God-concept?

Yep, it isn't the same, but still both cases are called atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good point - religion has nothing to do with god.

The latter exists entirely in the world of the former.

 

[Penumbra]

So, I was correct in my saying that the atheism of a baby isn't the same as the atheism of someone who deliberately denies the existence of any God or God-concept?

It's a matter of implicit atheism or explicit atheism. Babies are implicit atheists.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yep, it isn't the same, but still both cases are called atheism.

I'll buy that, but only as another example as to why modern English SUCKS!

 

[Koldo]

Now, on regards to the questions of the OP.

1) I believe it is more accurate to say the baby is an atheist.

2) Both answers are valid, and at the same time. Bob is an agnostic atheist.