This should be my last post, in order to clarify why i believe a baby can not be atheist in a way that even rwingett can understand.
Let's define theist. theist is made up of theos and ist.
Theos - God
ist - a person who adheres ot or advocates a doctorine (socialist, Zionist, etc).
The definition of atheist is therefor either...
a - not
theos - God
ist - a person who adheres ot or advocates a doctorine (socialist, Zionist, etc).
or....
a- not
theist - a person who adheres ot or advocate a belief in God.
...................................
If we use the first definition, a baby can not be an atheist as it does not have the ability or capability to adhere to or advocate a doctorine. If we use the second definition we are saying that an atheist is everything in the universe except a believer in God (tables, chairs, dog turds).
If you are labelling a baby an atheist because it falls into the second definition, it is technically correct, but intelectually corrupt (and open to the fact that is unprovable).
If you use the first definition, then a baby is not capable of being an atheist.
You decide rwingett....either you are saying that a baby is able to understand and advocate the doctrine of atheism, or you are basing your argument on the fact that a baby has the mental capacity of a table.
Originally posted by rwingett=============================
"Hard atheist" is typically used for people who supposedly claim to 'know' that god does not exist. It is often claimed that there are some of these around, but I've never seen one.
But you are correct, when it comes down to it, one is either a theist or an atheist. Anything else is just hair-splitting.
But you are correct, when it comes down to it, one is either a theist or an atheist. Anything else is just hair-splitting.
======================================
Sounds good to me.
So an "implicit atheist" is just hair splitting.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-Removed-=======================
Do you believe there is such a thing?
Edit: I mean as discrete from "atheist"
================================
No. An atheist takes a position that there is no God.
The idea of an implicit atheist is an imagined atheist position which seems easier to defend. No position is always easier to defend.
I think the invention of the phrase an "implicit atheist" is a continuation of the late and popular campaign to dress up atheism as much as possible as the most natural and normal position to have.
"An atheist is a person who lacks belief in God" , is part this popular move.
And this idea of an "implicit atheist" is another way.
Both theists and atheists philosophers go back and sure up their arguments. They evaluate where their position is vulnerable and rethink ways to present philosophical arguments to make them stronger.
Originally posted by rwingettYou assert that he was 'wrong' because his position is different from yours? The problem with your position is that most people in his time and in ours understand the term 'atheist' to mean 'disbelief in or denial of the existence of god'. This understanding is not really surprising since most dictionaries define it so. The structure of the word does, as you point out, imply simply an absence of theism, but the vernacular use of the word renders that irrelevant.
Because he wrongly perceived of atheism as being synonymous with 'hard' atheism.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWell, as I'm sure you can well imagine, I don't give a tinker's cuss about what the popular understanding of atheism is, or of the prevalence of vernacular usages. The word literally means an absence of theism. I would amend the popular understanding to read: Non-belief in, disbelief in, or denial of the existence of god. That covers all the bases.
You assert that he was 'wrong' because his position is different from yours? The problem with your position is that most people in his time and in ours understand the term 'atheist' to mean 'disbelief in or denial of the existence of god'. This understanding is not really surprising since most dictionaries define it so. The structure of the word does ...[text shortened]... y simply an absence of theism, but the vernacular use of the word renders that irrelevant.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundBabies are non-believers. Non-believers are not theists. People who are not theists are atheists. Therefore babies are atheists.
Babies are the uncarved block, what happens after that depends on what they are taught...they are born believers though (they'll believe any ol crap).