1 edit
Originally posted by apathistAtheism, the way I define it, isn't a belief, and babies are most definitely atheist. You may have a different definition, but your definition has not claim to superiority over mine. Mine at least:
Babies are not in the game. They have no dog in the fight. Babies have no belief and no disbelief in atheism or in theism.
1. Makes sense from the word root.
2. Is the most common used by organisations and individuals identifying as atheist.
3. Avoids undefined sets who are neither theist nor atheist.
I do not claim my definition holds any magical power or perfection. I am happy to use another definition for limited period for the sake of communication. But prior to agreeing to use another definition, if I use the word 'atheist', what I mean includes babies, and you cannot rightly tell me I am wrong.
Originally posted by twhiteheadA baby doesn't have beliefs, hence a baby lacks belief in god.
Atheism, the way I define it, isn't a belief, and babies are most definitely atheist. You may have a different definition, but your definition has not claim to superiority over mine. Mine at least:
1. Makes sense from the word root.
2. Is the most common used by organisations and individuals identifying as atheist.
3. Avoids undefined sets who are neit ...[text shortened]... use the word 'atheist', what I mean includes babies, and you cannot rightly tell me I am wrong.
A rock doesn't have beliefs, hence a rock lacks belief in god.
What's your point?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMy point is that the way I define atheism, a baby is an atheist. Apathist claims my definition is 'wrong'. He is mistaken. Rocks have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
A baby doesn't have beliefs, hence a baby lacks belief in god.
A rock doesn't have beliefs, hence a rock lacks belief in god.
What's your point?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMove away from the rock argument sir, move away.
Do you disagree that rocks lack belief in god(s)?
We are discussing humans and 'when' an atheist becomes an atheist. Trying to win a technical point using animals or inanimate objects having no belief in God is a nonsense and to be blunt something my 4 year old niece might put forward.
The issue at hand is that a godless existence is the natural human state, as babies are clearly born to perceive the world around them with no reference to a deity. (Does a rock have any sentience, any awareness?). Later in life that child might decide to become a theist. If it doesn't, it will remain an atheist. (Even if that child rationally rejects the idea of God, it is only reaffirming the lack of belief in God that has always been there).
Capiche?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI take your point that chess is a good illustration for something we know to have been designed because humans did in fact design it. Chess is saturated with intentionality.
Indulge me a little. When one picks up the king pawn and gently places it to the e4 square it has implications that reverberate around the entire chess board. Naturally the far reaching implications of this are not immediately discernible at first but as the march of logic progresses it will become manifest, will it not. Now when one takes a stanc ...[text shortened]... hessboard has been disturbed as force is set in motion.
Man I love a good chess illustration.
Placing God at the centre of a belief system clearly has implications for a person who believes the universe was designed. Moreover, removing God from a belief system which once had God at its centre would have serious implications for a person who formerly believed in God and suddenly found himself no longer able to.
But for a person who never believed in God, there is no there there. It is not simply that there is no God at the center of an alternative belief system; it is rather that there is no centre where anything even remotely like God would fit. Atheism isn't a belief system; this has been said so often and yet it doesn't seem to sink in for theists, what that really means. Lacking a belief in God doesn't have any of the implications it would have for a theist who tries to imagine what it would be like for him not to believe in God any more. Of course, a theist would feel there to be hole where his God used to be if God suddenly became unbelievable for him; but for an atheist, there is no there there where a hole might be.
To apply the metaphor of the chess game: to someone who isn't a chess player, for whom the pieces are just bits of wood, putting one of them on e4 has none of the implications or reverberations it has for you and me who know the rules of the game and understand something of chess strategy. For you and me, if the queen's knight is missing, we notice this immediately and see a 'hole' there; but for someone who does not know chess, the absence of one of the pieces has no meaning and is not perceived as something missing.
And so it is for an atheist: lack of belief in God has no implications for morality, or the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or the fate of the soul (if any such thing exists at all) after death, etc.
For an atheist, the universe, unlike chess, is not saturated with intentionality; so the "reverberations" to which you refer are simply physical processes. They may exhibit symmetry and balance and even beauty (e.g., a snowflake), but that is no evidence for intentionality or design. That is no evidence that God wanted snowflakes to be symmetrical and balanced and possibly beautiful for humans to behold. Without the presumption of intentionality, there are no moral or eschatological implications.
If one thinks of God as the Chess Champion of the Universe, then, of course, everything that happens can be interpreted as a 'move' in the Grandmaster's 'game.' But it begs the question to assert that the universe is a chess game and then refer everything to an alleged 'Mover' as evidence of that.
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkComparing a baby with a rock is ... um ..., thick as a brick.
A baby doesn't have beliefs, hence a baby lacks belief in god.
A rock doesn't have beliefs, hence a rock lacks belief in god.
...
Bricks neither have nor lack beliefs: the set of things to which the having or the not having of beliefs applies, does not intersect the set of rocks.
3 edits
Originally posted by moonbusso the "reverberations" to which you refer are simply physical processes - Moonbus
I take your point that chess is a good illustration for something we know to have been designed because humans did in fact design it. Chess is saturated with intentionality.
Placing God at the centre of a belief system clearly has implications for a person who believes the universe was designed. Moreover, removing God from a belief system which onc ...[text shortened]... he universe is a chess game and then refer everything to an alleged 'Mover' as evidence of that.
Indeed and it is the utter folly of the atheist to reduce everything to a base material level. We become the mere amalgamation of electro-chemical impulses! Our consciousness, our happiness, our smiles, our art, our spirituality all reduced to this base level and attempts to explain it away by some bunkum of the evolutionary hypothesis. It is utter folly because it ignores the rather glaring omission that as humans we have a spiritual need! we yearn for meaning, for purpose, to love and be loved, to create and engage in metaphysics! but this atheism is useless for such purposes because it reduces everything to a materialistic level, a smile, a gesture becomes nothing more than some evolutionary mechanism, some throwback to a time when we needed community for survival and to the rational thinking person its no wonder that it appears as nonsensical.
It has every implication my former Master, infact, as soon as one takes a stance, it has implications!!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie'...as humans we have a spiritual need we yearn for meaning, for purpose, to love and be loved, to create and engage in metaphysics...'
so the "reverberations" to which you refer are simply physical processes - Moonbus
Indeed and it is the utter folly of the atheist to reduce everything to a base material level. We become the mere amalgamation of electro-chemical impulses! Our consciousness, our happiness, our smiles, our art, our spirituality all reduced to this base level and ...[text shortened]... every implication my former Master, infact, as soon as one takes a stance, it has implications!!
The 'need' we have as humans for purpose, to love and be loved, to create and engage in metaphysics, is not a 'spiritual need.' This may be the case for you personally, but you can not extrapolate that this is a need shared by all humanity.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukebut you can not extrapolate that this is a need shared by all humanity - Ghost
'...as humans we have a spiritual need we yearn for meaning, for purpose, to love and be loved, to create and engage in metaphysics...'
The 'need' we have as humans for purpose, to love and be loved, to create and engage in metaphysics, is not a 'spiritual need.' This may be the case for you personally, but you can not extrapolate that this is a need shared by all humanity.
I can and I will and I just did!