Originally posted by KellyJayI think it has more to do with the brain development of babies and what they're physically capable of conceiving. I'll be the first to admit that maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
I am not the one claiming knownledge about that you are! I don't know! It
is not beyond a reasonable doubt as far as I'm concern since I don't know
when life begins. If life is more than just a chemical reaction than something
other than chemicals comes into play, and if that is the injection of a soul or
spirit at some point, where does that soul or sp ...[text shortened]... has anything to do with
evidence or proof, just a claim of what you want to believe.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettI have no doubt you think your right, quite a circle there isn't it? Is God our
I think it has more to do with the brain development of babies and what they're physically capable of conceiving. I'll be the first to admit that maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
maker real or not? You don't have a way to say that you know when life
begins, but you want to claim to have enough knowledge to claim a brain must
be developed just right to have knowledge about a God you don't believe in.
Not sure what the 'rules are' on knowledge about a God you don't believe in is,
or who gets to write them? I imagine if God is real He would be the author of
all the rules which would leave you on the outside looking in, if not than there
are no real rules since everyone would be making them up as they go. Which
would take us back to no one has any more knowledge about this than anyone
else, so anyone making a positive claim is just blowing smoke.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYour post is just gibberish. It's almost painful to read. I readily concede that we cannot know if a god exists or not (there's no reason to assume that one does), but I'm pretty certain that we can prove that a baby lacks the mental capacity to conceptualize of a god.
I have no doubt you think your right, quite a circle there isn't it? Is God our
maker real or not? You don't have a way to say that you know when life
begins, but you want to claim to have enough knowledge to claim a brain must
be developed just right to have knowledge about a God you don't believe in.
Not sure what the 'rules are' on knowledge about a ...[text shortened]... ut this than anyone
else, so anyone making a positive claim is just blowing smoke.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettThere are reasons to believe God is real, you choose to be against them, and
Your post is just gibberish. It's almost painful to read. I readily concede that we cannot know if a god exists or not (there's no reason to assume that one does), but I'm pretty certain that we can prove that a baby lacks the mental capacity to conceptualize of a god.
you define yourself as one who is against them. Knowledge of God can be
known how? Seriously, what does it take to know someone? You assume that
the baby has some knowledge of it's mother? You assume the baby has some
knowledge of itself? What do you really know about what a baby knows? You
are making claims you have no right to, you make them because it suits your
stand against knowledge of God there are no other reasons to.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettWow, you managed to find a quote from a few hundred years ago saying something that agrees with you...i'm sold.
No, you don't have to understand theism to be an atheist. Anyone who is not a theist, including babies, is an atheist. But for good measure I'll leave you with the following quote for your edification:
"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
-Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)
Originally posted by rwingettIf the Baron said it, then you must believe.
No, you don't have to understand theism to be an atheist. Anyone who is not a theist, including babies, is an atheist. But for good measure I'll leave you with the following quote for your edification:
"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."
-Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)
7 edits
Originally posted by rwingett====================================
There's no point in being a foojuwapus unless you believe in it. Fer cryin' out loud, you're the one who came up with the stupid thing and even YOU don't know what it is.
There's no point in being a foojuwapus unless you believe in it. Fer cryin' out loud, you're the one who came up with the stupid thing and even YOU don't know what it is.
=====================================
Your example that a baby is born an Atheist is stupid.
There is no point in being an Atheist unless you have been persuaded in something - the non-existance of God.
You are attempting to blur the dichotomy of the belief in the existence of God verses the belief in the nonexistence of God.
This is the new atheist's attempt to blur the dichotomy. By blurring the dichotomy you hope to put your philosophy of God's non-exitance into some most default position Then you can argue that to take a persuasion of God's existence is an unnecesary move.
I think you want to believe that no persuasion is necessary to be an Atheist
Was it before conception you became an Atheist ? Was it after one month you developed into an Atheist? Was it at six months or nine months you became an Atheist ? Or was it the moment you came out of your mother at that moment you became an Atheist ?
Were you an Atheist before the sperm and the egg joined together ?
Actually as I think about it this new definition of being an implicit Atheist by simply being a born human being "protesteth too much." It very well could be that you really know that God exists and the strongest possible refuge you can create to deny that is to say a born human being is an Atheist.
Ie. Man by definition is atheistic. He just needs to be born and that is his normal state.
Maybe you think by destroying the dichotomy between the two persuasions you can eliminate any tension between them or hold that any tension is artificial. The "burden of proof" is on being persuaded of anything else besides just being born.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe point is to demonstrate that my position is not just something I just made up out of the blue, or that it is something that is exclusive to me. It is an interpretation that has a long history and that is shared by some great minds who have considered the question deeply. The Baron d'Holbach's opinion on the nature and scope of atheism, whether or not you agree with them, are still relevant to this day. The Baron subscribes to the broad definition of atheism, which, as the word specifically implies, includes all non-theists (including babies). It is an interpretation with which I fully agree.
Wow, you managed to find a quote from a few hundred years ago saying something that agrees with you...i'm sold.
Originally posted by rwingettThanks. But an old and great mind can be wrong too.
The point is to demonstrate that my position is not just something I just made up out of the blue, or that it is something that is exclusive to me. It is an interpretation that has a long history and that is shared by some great minds who have considered the question deeply. The Baron d'Holbach's opinion on the nature and scope of atheism, whether or not yo ...[text shortened]... s all non-theists (including babies). It is an interpretation with which I fully agree.
And isn't that view too old when folks didn't know enough about science as we do today? You know those older more superstitious types were prone to have faulty ideas.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou read more into my position here than is warranted. You seem to think my position that babies are implicit atheists is being used to undermine the existence of god himself. The two have nothing to do with one another. Whether or not babies can conceptualize of a god tells us nothing about whether such a god actually exists. He would certainly do so independently of whether or not babies are capable of believing in him. Neither do I contend that a baby's implicit atheism should logically lead to a later explicit atheism. It may be that humans are especially receptive to religious thought once they've been introduced to the concept. The universality and persistence of religious thought seems to bear this out. It is likely (or so it seems to me) that religious thought was an evolutionary adaptation amongst humans that provided some survival benefit.
There are reasons to believe God is real, you choose to be against them, and
you define yourself as one who is against them. Knowledge of God can be
known how? Seriously, what does it take to know someone? You assume that
the baby has some knowledge of it's mother? You assume the baby has some
knowledge of itself? What do you really know about what a ba ...[text shortened]... hem because it suits your
stand against knowledge of God there are no other reasons to.
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillAs a theist you have a vested interest in maintaining a narrow definition of atheism, which is to restrict it to people who believe in the non-existence of god. There is no basis for this other than your ideological predisposition. I subscribe to the broad definition of atheism, which, as the word specifically implies, includes all non-theists (including babies).
[b]====================================
There's no point in being a foojuwapus unless you believe in it. Fer cryin' out loud, you're the one who came up with the stupid thing and even YOU don't know what it is.
=====================================
Your example that a baby is born an Atheist is stupid.
There is no point in being an A ...[text shortened]... The "burden of proof" is on being persuaded of anything else besides just being born.[/b]
So, to answer your question, I was born an implicit atheist, as I had no conception of god. The impression of god was subsequently imprinted upon my consciousness and, after a halfhearted dalliance with theism, I eventually became an explicit atheist.
The dichotomy you want to enforce here is a false one. Atheism is not a rival belief system, set up in opposition to theism. It is the neutral starting point from which theistic claims must be examined. You want to restrict atheism into being an 'anti-theism', which is simply not the case. Atheism includes all non-theism, whether that is implicit or explicit.
Originally posted by rwingettNo, God being real or not has something to do with this, but it is not the main
You read more into my position here than is warranted. You seem to think my position that babies are implicit atheists is being used to undermine the existence of god himself. The two have nothing to do with one another. Whether or not babies can conceptualize of a god tells us nothing about whether such a god actually exists. He would certainly do so indep ...[text shortened]... ous thought was an evolutionary adaptation amongst humans that provided some survival benefit.
point of discussion here. If God is not real, than the thing I talked about with
respect to spirit and soul really does not matter, so what a baby thinks would
be unimportant. If God is real, and the spirit or soul of a life comes from where
and with what knowledge?
The main point I have been making is you simply do not know what a baby
knows. Knowledge of one's self or the baby's mother and so on, what does it
take to have knowledge? If a baby opens its eyes and sees, or listens to what
it hears it grows in knowledge. If it is aware of God, than something about God
would have to be known to the Baby, it would not be due to its laying in its
mother's arms and dwelling on the concept.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou can speculate on the existence of god and/or child cognitive development stages all you want, I still maintain that newborn infants (either with or without souls) have no conceptualization of god and that such concepts are socially transmitted to the growing child. If we could perform the experiment of raising a child in complete isolation from any cultural influences, I would put money on him turning out as an implicit atheist, with no knowledge of god.
No, God being real or not has something to do with this, but it is not the main
point of discussion here. If God is not real, than the thing I talked about with
respect to spirit and soul really does not matter, so what a baby thinks would
be unimportant. If God is real, and the spirit or soul of a life comes from where
and with what knowledge?
The m ...[text shortened]... , it would not be due to its laying in its
mother's arms and dwelling on the concept.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettWe have the vast major of the world believes in one it can be our case study.
You can speculate on the existence of god and/or child cognitive development stages all you want, I still maintain that newborn infants (either with or without souls) have no conceptualization of god and that such concepts are socially transmitted to the growing child. If we could perform the experiment of raising a child in complete isolation from any cult ...[text shortened]... fluences, I would put money on him turning out as an implicit atheist, with no knowledge of god.
Bottom line is still, you DO NOT KNOW what a baby knows, yet you wish it to
agree with you. May as well say you doing to this topic as you claim people
do who believe in God, they make the pieces fit their beliefs, no matter if they
really do or not.
Kelly