Originally posted by rwingettOriginally posted by rwingett
All non-theists are atheists. You futilely resist this because you've been bred to believe that atheism necessarily equals hard atheism, and that by conceding that infants are implicit atheists means we are somehow claiming that they're predisposed toward explicit atheism. The only point being made here is that non-theism equals atheism. And that everyone w ...[text shortened]... t, an atheist (non-theist). Every single man, woman and child on the planet is one or the other.
"And that everyone who does not self-identify as a theist is, by default, an atheist (non-theist). Every single man, woman and child on the planet is one or the other"
..... self identify as a theist or atheist (non-theist) at what age?
Originally posted by googlefudgeOriginally posted by googlefudge
No it doesn't disbelieve it LACKS belief.
Atheism does not require disbelief, only a lack of belief.
Atheism includes the neutral default position of lacking a belief either way.
"No it doesn't disbelieve it LACKS belief.
Atheism does not require disbelief, only a lack of belief.
Atheism includes the neutral default position of lacking a belief either way."
Atheism requires a lack of belief in what or whom; and when?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyoh ffs.
Originally posted by googlefudge
"No it doesn't disbelieve it LACKS belief.
[b]Atheism does not require disbelief, only a lack of belief.
Atheism includes the neutral default position of lacking a belief either way."
Atheism requires a lack of belief in what or whom; and when?[/b]
lack of belief in the existence of god/s.
"Are Babies Atheists?"
"For a long time, the word "atheism" has been defined as the view that there is no God--i.e., the claim "God does not exist.
More recently, some atheists have begun to define atheism as simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there is no God, thought it unlikely that there is a God, or didn't know if there is a God. Simply not agreeing with the claim "There is a God" would make you an atheist.
Some atheists have claimed that this is the natural state of humanity. On this view, we all start out as atheists and we have to learn belief in God. In other words: Babies are atheists. Is this correct?
What's the Attraction?
I understand why the atheists who make this claim would be attracted to it. At least, I understand why I would find it attractive if I were an atheist:
1. It can be plausibly claimed that babies do not have a belief in God, which makes one of the premises of the argument seem true.
2. If every position other than outright assertion of God's existence falls under my banner, my position would seem larger and more popular.
3. I could claim atheism as mankind's natural state, thus creating an implicit argument for it. Being in accord with human nature is good, right?
4. I could claim atheism as the default human belief, and thus avoid of the burden of proof in arguing with others. I could then claim that the burden of proof is on those who want to believe in God. Until I'm satisfied by their arguments, I'm entitled to act on the assumption that God does not exist. But consider this . . .
Babies Also Do Not Believe That There Is No God
One problem with the argument is that it is reversible. One can just as easily switch to the conventional definition of atheism and say:
1. Babies also do not believe the proposition "There is no God." Therefore, they are non-atheists.
2. If everybody except those who outright assert that "There is no God" falls under my banner (non-atheism), that shows that my position is larger and more popular.
3. I could claim that non-atheism is the natural state of humanity, and being in harmony with human nature is good, right?
4. I could claim non-atheism as the default human belief, and thus avoid of the burden of proof in arguing with atheists. I could then claim that the burden of proof is on those who assert the non-existence of God. Until I'm satisfied by their arguments, I'm entitled to act on the assumption that God does exist.
The Fundamental Problem
The fundamental problem is that babies do not make a good test case for determining the popularity, natural-ness, or default-ness of any claim that is beyond their years. You might be able to appeal to the beliefs of babies to support things like: Milk tastes good; Faces are interesting; Unexpected, loud noises are scary.
But advanced concepts like God, atoms, and the stock market are beyond their ken. Babies neither believe nor disbelieve in these things. They have no opinion on them, because they are not yet capable of understanding the concepts involved, because they have not heard of the concepts, and because they have never considered or agreed to the concepts.
It is therefore a mistake to appeal to babies one way or another regarding what the popular, natural, or default belief concerning God is." http://www.strangenotions.com/are-babies-atheists/
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou really need to stop 'explaining' to us why we [atheists] think things.
[b]"Are Babies Atheists?"
"For a long time, the word "atheism" has been defined as the view that there is no God--i.e., the claim "God does not exist.
More recently, some atheists have begun to define atheism as simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there is no God, thought it ...[text shortened]... atural, or default belief concerning God is." http://www.strangenotions.com/are-babies-atheists/[/b]
You are abysmal at it.
I don't define atheism as a lack of belief in gods as opposed to a belief in
the lack of gods simply so that I can claim babies are atheists or to try to
make my position seem popular, and I know of nobody else that does.
I care about the concept not the label.
If you define atheism away to mean only gnostic hard atheism then that doesn't
make all atheists positions gnostic hard atheism. It means we now have to find
a new word for the positions we do hold.
However given theists history for defining words purely for the benefit of creating
strawman arguments attacking atheists positions there is no point coming up
with a new word because you will immediately just start redefining that in the
same way.
So we stick with atheist and battle with morons who think that redefining it is
a clever strategy because we have to have some label for the concept of not
believing in gods and if we are going to have to battle over the meaning of the label
then it might as well be the first and best.
The default position on ANY truth claim is a lack of belief in it's validity until sufficient
justification [evidence and reason] exists to justify belief or non-belief in the claim.
In the case of the claim that a god or gods exist, belief in the truth of that claim is
theism. Everything else is not-theism... which is what atheism means.
That is our tent. And it will remain our tent no-matter how you try to rename it.
The fact that it contains babies who have no opinion on the matter is not an argument
for or against theism or atheism it's just a fact.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBobby, there's a special place in Hell for whoever showed you how to copy and paste.
[b]"Are Babies Atheists?"
"For a long time, the word "atheism" has been defined as the view that there is no God--i.e., the claim "God does not exist.
More recently, some atheists have begun to define atheism as simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there is no God, thought it ...[text shortened]... atural, or default belief concerning God is." http://www.strangenotions.com/are-babies-atheists/[/b]
Who helped you to think before Google came along?
Originally posted by googlefudgegooglefudge, I've frequently mentioned my interest in understanding atheism, its distinctives and appeal. Learned quite a bit from black beetle, LemonJello and Penguin; then, tried reverse role playing with Great King Rat. You're here often, so I've initiated conversation with you but you're tiring of the comments and questions, so I'll cease and desist for now. Thanks.
You really need to stop 'explaining' to us why we [atheists] think things.
You are abysmal at it.
I don't define atheism as a lack of belief in gods as opposed to a belief in
the lack of gods simply so that I can claim babies are atheists or to try to
make my position seem popular, and I know of nobody else that does.
I care about the co ...[text shortened]... no opinion on the matter is not an argument
for or against theism or atheism it's just a fact.
Originally posted by rwingettFlow chart?!
Is an infant a theist? Yes or No? If an infant is not a theist, then he is an atheist (albeit an implicit atheist). No active choice is required. Case Closed. Thank you for playing.
To help you with this concept I have made a flow chart to clarify the situation. Now, I do not typically make flow charts, so some people may have some quibbles with its org ...[text shortened]... depiction of the process:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/rwingett/AtheistFlowChart.jpg
I loooove flow charts!!
Can you make one that separates the world into 'people who love pie' and 'people who are stupid?' Then we could call it a pie graph flow chart. That'd be coool.
Originally posted by rwingettInterview with an Infant
I thought we had progressed beyond all that. Alas, it appears we're back to square 1.
I repeat: Is an infant a theist? Yes or No? If an infant is not a theist, then he is an atheist (albeit an implicit atheist). No active choice is required. Implicit atheism is the default state from which questions about theism are subsequently considered. To paraphrase ...[text shortened]... of the theism question would equal implicit atheism, which would be the default state at birth.
Q: Infant, do you believe in God, or do you reject the notion?
Infant: I don't understand what the hell you are saying.
Q: Never mind.
Infant: I still don't understand what the hell you are saying.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNot sure why you are so insistent (although I have an idea) in framing the discussion in such sparse terms, when it has been demonstrated repeatedly how atheism lies in the arena of thought.
Theism and atheism are exclusive and exhaustive.
You can only be one or the other, and not both [exclusive].
And they are the only possible options [exhaustive].
To be a theist you must believe that a god or gods exist.
If a being does not have such a belief [b]for any reason
then that person is not a theist and thus must be an atheis ...[text shortened]... se for those two groups.
Theist and atheist are the most sensible labels currently available.[/b]
You want something exhaustive and exclusive? How about 'alive' and 'dead?' Those are pretty exhaustive, either/or and exclusive, right?
Does the infant know whether he is alive or dead?
If he doesn't know if he is alive, he certainly must be dead.
Or maybe it's just something he hasn't developed the capacity to even think about yet.
Either way, your position rests solely on such an isolated and narrow definition of atheism--- one which takes a sliver and rejects the tree--- that the word itself becomes meaningless.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyA question back at you--
How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
Of the 186 known bodies in the solar system, how many do you expect have life on them if an Almighty Being tuned parameters to maximize fertility of planets and moons?
If He is batting 0.005, is that good enough? (That is 1 out of 186, which might well be the actual fraction.)
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf you do not self-identify as a theist (at any age) then you are an atheist. Only an explicit atheist requires self-identification. An implicit atheist is the default status of anyone incapable of self-identification.
Originally posted by rwingett
"And that everyone who does not self-identify as a theist is, by default, an atheist (non-theist). Every single man, woman and child on the planet is one or the other"
..... self identify as a theist or atheist (non-theist) at what age?
I can keep repeating this in slightly different forms for as long as you like.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe infant doesn't understand, which makes him an implicit atheist. The question is...do you understand that point, or not? You obviously don't agree with it, but I have my doubts as to whether you even understand it.
[b]Interview with an Infant
Q: Infant, do you believe in God, or do you reject the notion?
Infant: I don't understand what the hell you are saying.
Q: Never mind.
Infant: I still don't understand what the hell you are saying.[/b]