All babies are atheists....?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, in Wikipedia it says he was "well known for advocating and taking psychedelics."

More seriously, though, the definition of an agnostic that I find in circulation is this: "A person who claims neither belief nor disbelief in god."

So, without claiming to believe in god, such a person is an atheist. If that person finds such a term vulgar and o ...[text shortened]... atheist.

If that doesn't wash with you, then I'm afraid I'm out of detergent.

Thomas Huxley, not Aldous.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
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 eith ...[text shortened]... sm, or you are basing your argument on the fact that a baby has the mental capacity of a table.

An atheist is not a person who believes in atheism. An atheist is a person who does not believe in theism. Atheism is to be without the particular -ism of theism.

Originally posted by rwingett
Well, 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.

Language will ever evolve according to popular usage, despite wishes and exhortations to the contrary. The currently accepted general definition of 'atheism' has been bedding itself in for a couple of hundred years, and I fancy it will take a rather more brobdingnagian effort than that to align it with your desires.

Originally posted by rwingett
An atheist is not a person who believes in atheism. An atheist is a person who does not believe in theism. Atheism is to be without the particular -ism of theism.

=================================
An atheist is not a person who believes in atheism.
==================================


Nonsense.

Along with NOT believing in God an Atheist believes in, you guessed it, A-THEISM.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Language will ever evolve according to popular usage, despite wishes and exhortations to the contrary. The currently accepted general definition of 'atheism' has been bedding itself in for a couple of hundred years, and I fancy it will take a rather more brobdingnagian effort than that to align it with your desires.

Brobdingnagian effort? Piece-o-cake, ATC. Maybe I'll even bring peace to the Middle East while I'm at it.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
An atheist is not a person who believes in atheism.
==================================


Nonsense.

Along with NOT believing in God an Atheist believes in, you guessed it, A-THEISM.[/b]

Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.

I understand that you are ideologically committed to painting atheists as 'believers in the non-existence of god' so you can escape from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof yourself, but that does not make it so.

Originally posted by rwingett
Brobdingnagian effort? Piece-o-cake, ATC. Maybe I'll even bring peace to the Middle East while I'm at it.

Good for you. I pledge to fight alongside you so long as you institute a policy of correct use of apostrophes.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are people born theists then?

===================
Are people born theists then?
===================

No.
Why should I hold a position that a newborn baby is a theist ?

These persuasions are not a matter of what one is born.
They are a matter of what one eventually is persuaded to be.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================
Are people born theists then?
===================

No.
Why should I hold a position that a newborn baby is a theist ?

These persuasions are not a matter of what one is born.
They are a matter of what one eventually is persuaded to be.[/b]

Well...if babies are not theists, then what term could we possibly use for someone who is not a theist? Hmmm...how about atheist? Yeah, that's got a nice ring to it.

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.

I understand that you are ideologically committed to painting atheists as 'believers in the non-existence of god' so you can escape from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof yourself, but that does not make it so.

========================
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.

I understand that you are ideologically committed to painting atheists as 'believers in the non-existence of god' so you can escape from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof yourself, but that does not make it so.
======================================

It doesn't bother me if you say "Prove the existence of God."
I'll just probably respond "I am not sure I can do that. I have a belief, a faith."

I think your monkeying with the definition of Atheism is more than an attempt to put all the "burden of proof", whatever that is, on the theist. It seems an attempt to get closer and closer to saying a human being is an atheist.

Ie. "The most default position, the most normal position, the most natural position is of course to be an atheist."

That's what you really want, to arrive at a philosophy that atheism is synonamous with just having a human life.

And this debate about "Who has the burden of proof" is obscure. Then you have to prove "Who has the burden of proof to prove who has the burden of proof", then "Who has the burden of proof to prove who has the burden of proof to prove who has the burden of proof" on and on, ad nauseum.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.

I understand that you are ideologically committed to painting atheists as 'believers in the non-existence of god' so you can escape from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof yourself, but that does not make it so.
======================================

...[text shortened]... burden of proof to prove who has the burden of proof" on and on, ad nauseum.[/b]

Not at all. It's just that the truth of theistic claims cannot be properly evaluated from a within a belief system that already accepts them as being true. Such claims must be examined from a neutral ground which is not predisposed toward accepting them, and, indeed, which may even be skeptical of them. That neutral ground is...(wait for it)...atheism.

You are attaching a whole host of intellectual baggage to atheism which does not properly belong there.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
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 eith ...[text shortened]... sm, or you are basing your argument on the fact that a baby has the mental capacity of a table.

Once again, a baby differs from a table in that it has the imminent potentiality for religious belief as an inherent part of its character. A table does not. So while it is true that tables do not believe in god, such an observation is sterile in that tables do not have the ability, or the potential, for believing anything.

In order to become a theist, though, a baby must be taught what god is. If no such instruction is forthcoming, then the child will remain without religious belief and will remain an implicit atheist.

Originally posted by daisychainsaw
when babies are born they dont really distiguish the differnece between them selves others, and thier enivironment, they spend the firsrt few years of thier life learning this, sound a bit like what buddishts try to do what with becoming one with the universe, obviously not the same thing but an interesting simmilarity.

Your spelling is terrible.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
An atheist is not a person who believes in atheism.
==================================


Nonsense.

Along with NOT believing in God an Atheist believes in, you guessed it, A-THEISM.[/b]

It is useful to know that you have this generalization stuck in your head and when you say 'atheist' you are thinking of it that way, jaywill. No offense intended, but it's a fact -- it's a generalization.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.

I understand that you are ideologically committed to painting atheists as 'believers in the non-existence of god' so you can escape from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof yourself, but that does not make it so.
======================================

...[text shortened]... burden of proof to prove who has the burden of proof" on and on, ad nauseum.[/b]

"It doesn't bother me if you say "Prove the existence of God."
I'll just probably respond "I am not sure I can do that. I have a belief, a faith."

Good. Then you aren't going to try to persuade anyone to agree with you. I support that attitude.