22 Jul '11 17:53>
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundExcept for Rush Limbaugh, of course.
...a dog turd has no concept of God...
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundA few first principles might help.
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
Originally posted by finneganYou have not provided a precise definition, or even a loose one, for "magical thinking." I do not take it as a self-evident term, like "point" or "line" in geometry.
A few first principles might help.
First, infants have no clear boundary to distinguish self from other. Part of early development requires them to construct a well defined notion of self and other, and to learn some rules that enable them to predict how the other will respond to their behaviour and meet (or not meet) their needs. So for example they le king is to imagine religion will disappear in a puff when exposed to a clever argument.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI grow tired of wasting my time on the repetition of this point. But for clarity's sake I will do so yet again. It makes no sense to label dogs and chairs as atheists because they are incapable of ever believing in a god, or in anything else for that matter. Human babies will eventually grow into human adults who are capable of believing in god and a great many other things as well. It is therefore worthwhile noting that babies are implicit atheists until such time as they learn about god. Their eventual belief in god, if they come to believe it at all, is a learned behavior and not an innate one.
A table has no concept of God, a chair has no concept of God, a dog turd has no concept of God. By your rational these things are all atheist. A baby does not have the ability to form opinion, therefor it can not have an opinion...therefor it can not by definition have the disbelief in a deity.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAll non-theists are atheists. That's what the term means: to be without theism. I do not accept that agnosticism exists as a separate category unto itself. It is a modifier to either theism or atheism, as in agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. I understand the popular misconception is to assume agnosticism exists as it's own category, but it doesn't. Sorry. If you are not a theist then you are an atheist, whether you choose to accept the label or not.
This is a false dichotomy. A non-theist is not necessarily an atheist. An atheist is someone who denies or disbelieves in god. I'm not even sure you can call babies agnostic since I feel that that position requires a conscious decision not to accept either postulate.
Originally posted by rwingettIt does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
I grow tired of wasting my time on the repetition of this point. But for clarity's sake I will do so yet again. It makes no sense to label dogs and chairs as atheists because they are incapable of ever believing in a god, or in anything else for that matter. Human babies will eventually grow into human adults who are capable of believing in god and a great ...[text shortened]... rror of your ways and that we can quit going around and around on this tiresome merry-go-round.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe only people who seem to have a problem with the blanket term "atheist" are theists, who want to paint atheists as being as ideologically committed as themselves, and self-styled 'agnostics' who mistakenly buy into the theistic misrepresentation of atheism.
It does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAs far as I'm concerned, what so called "agnostics" really are is agnostic atheists. But they somehow feel the need for a separate term to distinguish themselves from the "hard atheist" bogeymen.
It does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAtheism, like any other term, needs to be defined before it is used. (Or maybe when it is used... just to be sure everybody's on the same page.) Atheism can be either belief in no god at all or disbelief in a particular god (early Christians were often accused of (EDIT: brought up on charges of) atheism for not believing in the pagan gods).
It does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
Originally posted by divegeesterTry harder. All sides should see if this fits.
I don't understand "hard atheist". Surely a person is either a theist or not; conversely; atheist or not?
Originally posted by rwingettAs I see it, you have three possible positions. It seems logical therefore to have three different labels.
As far as I'm concerned, what so called "agnostics" really are is agnostic atheists. But they somehow feel the need for a separate term to distinguish themselves from the "hard atheist" bogeymen.
Originally posted by rwingettSelf-styled? Why do you say that? While there may be argument as to the definition of the term 'atheist', the term 'agnostic' is quite clearly defined.
The only people who seem to have a problem with the blanket term "atheist" are theists, who want to paint atheists as being as ideologically committed as themselves, and self-styled 'agnostics' who mistakenly buy into the theistic misrepresentation of atheism.