Do children start out atheist?

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.03.2020 05:04AM

-->

@ethang5

Tautology in reference to a baby. Babies cannot accept or not accept any preposition.

Infants are specific human beings. This makes them people. They don't have belief in the existence of a god or gods (trees I suspect also lack belief in god as does anything that doesn't believe a god or gods exists) being both people and not believing in the existence of a god or gods makes Infants atheists.

The religious leanings of the authors are immaterial. I've shown that babies do NOT qualify under of the definition YOU offered. Your definition required atheists to have had NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods. Babies have NOT done that. Babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods, a requirements of being an atheist by your definition.

Which of the following do you assert is false?

Infants do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Infants are people.

You keep skirting that directly relevant question. Do you agree with those statements?

#152

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.04.2020 01:50AM

-->

@amandragon01

Infants are specific human beings.

So what? Infants have not rejected belief in god.

This makes them people.

That has never been in contention.

They don't have belief in the existence of a god or gods

Tautology. They have no belief in anything and cannot have beliefs in anything. Saying of a baby, "It doesn't have belief in the existence of a god or gods is silliness when a baby cannot have belief in the existence of a god or gods.

...being both people and not believing in the existence of a god or gods makes Infants atheists.

No sir. Being people and rejecting a belief in the existence of a god or gods, makes people atheists. No one is atheist simply because they exist.

Which of the following do you assert is false?

Infants do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Tautology. To "not believe" requires knowledge of the belief and the ability to believe.

Infants are people.

I believe infants are people. But most liberals do not.

You keep skirting that directly relevant question. Do you agree with those statements?

Of course not. One is illogical and the other is irrelevant.

#153

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.04.2020 09:12AM

-->

@ethang5

So what? Infants have not rejected belief in god.

An atheist isn't necessarily someone who has rejected belief in god. An atheist is simply a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. Rejection is not required for that definition to apply knowledge of the claim isn't necessary for that definition to apply. Infants are people.

Tautology. They have no belief in anything and cannot have beliefs in anything. Saying of a baby, "It doesn't have belief in the existence of a god or gods is silliness when a baby cannot have belief in the existence of a god or gods.

The statement that infants lack belief in the existence of a god or gods is meaningful to this discussion. It directly Impacts if they meet the criteria necessary to be an atheist. So far we have established that we agree they're people. This leaves us to determine if they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is directly relevant to the determination of if they are atheists or not. Since we seem to be in agreement that they don't believe a god or gods exists. We now simply seem to be discussing if their not believing is meaningful. For the purpose of determining if they're atheist, I would say very much so. Their lack of belief in the existence in a god or gods is what makes them atheists.

#154

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.04.2020 10:21AM

No sir. Being people and rejecting a belief in the existence of a god or gods, makes people atheists. No one is atheist simply because they exist.

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods

Nowhere does this definition state that one may know of god or gods, nor does it state anything about rejection of any claim.

Of course not. One is illogical and the other is irrelevant.

The first that an infant is a person is relevant to defining if they're atheists, as it's a criteria that must be met to be an atheist.

The statement that infants lack belief in the existence of a god or gods is also true. We can establish this because either by establishing that they cannot believe or because they don't know the concept of god or gods.

Infants fit all the criteria to be defined as atheists, why this would please or displease anyone I have no idea, but it is the only conclusion that makes sense given the above definition of atheist.

#155

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.05.2020 03:42AM

-->

@amandragon01

An atheist isn't necessarily someone who has rejected belief in god. An atheist is simply a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Then the White House is an atheist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your own definition specifies the rejection as a condition.

Rejection is not required for that definition to apply...

Then orange trees are atheists. I reject any argument with such a ludicrous conclusion.

Infants are people.

You might as well call infants trees.

The statement that infants lack belief in the existence of a god or gods is meaningful to this discussion.

It lacks meaning in any discussion. It is tautology.

It directly Impacts if they meet the criteria necessary to be an atheist.

Then trees and platypuses do too. Your definition said rejection of a belief in God or gods was a criteria. A rejection requires knowledge of. Babies do not meet the criteria.

This leaves us to determine if they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of a god or gods.

No sir. This leaves us to determine if they know of and rejected belief in the existence of a god or gods. They did not.

Their lack of belief in the existence in a god or gods is what makes them atheists.

Then flat head screwdrivers are atheists too!

Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherant. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?

...it is the only conclusion that makes sense given the above definition of atheist.

Sorry, it simply doesn't make sense. There is a reason atheists have been restricted to people. That reason is not true for babies. Babies are people, but do not qualify under the definition.

Your only 2 logical choices are to,

1. Ditch the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all inanimate objects as qualifying as atheists, or...

2. Keep the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all infants as unqualified under the definition.

Now, if you can show us a reason that is not dependant on cognition for why only people can be atheists, then I will agree with your inclusion of babies. Otherwise, the fact of babies being people is immaterial.

#156

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.05.2020 08:59AM

-->

@ethang5

Then the White House is an atheist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your own definition specifies the rejection as a condition.

Are you asserting the White House is a person? Because the definition of atheist clearly states being a person as a criteria.

Then trees and platypuses do too. Your definition said rejection of a belief in God or gods was a criteria. A rejection requires knowledge of. Babies do not meet the criteria

No not once does it state rejection is necessary. Being a person is necessary, which none of the above are. Disbelief or lack of belief is necessary. Lack of belief doesn't require rejection of the claim.

Then flat head screwdrivers are atheists too!

Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherant. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?

Of course, it's because it is the discussion of humanity that is relevant. The debate of and search for religion is by all evidence a deeply human enterprise. Infants are humans. They lack belief in gods, so they are atheist, if that changes or not depends entirely on if they should ever come to accept as true the existence of a god or gods. To not recognise them as atheists would be to either force beliefs upon them or reject their humanity, I will do neither.

#157

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

12.05.2020 11:06AM

-->

@ludofl3x

No atheist sees a baby and thinks "ANOTHER MEMBER OF OUR CABAL IS BORN! HAIL YE PHYSICS AND SCIENCE!"

That's riiiiight... *twirls mustache*

#158

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.05.2020 11:57AM

Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

This is a blatant strawman, you repeatedly assert rejection as a requirement. Being an atheist requires being a person + not believing in a god. This is made clear by the definition. Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. Notice there is no need to reject the existence of a god or gods. Simply to lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. We agree infants are people, we seem to agree that infants don't believe in god. This makes them atheists. No where does it specify a need for rejection, knowledge of or even ability to comprehend the concept of gods, merely that they be people who don't believe in gods.

#159

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.05.2020 12:24PM

-->

@ethang5

Sorry, it simply doesn't make sense. There is a reason atheists have been restricted to people. That reason is not true for babies. Babies are people, but do not qualify under the definition.

Your only 2 logical choices are to,
1. Ditch the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all inanimate objects as qualifying as atheists, or...
2. Keep the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all infants as unqualified under the definition.

Point one is a strawman there is no people/thinking requirement, simply a people requirement. Infants fit that. They are people, they fit the first criteria to be an atheist.

Point two is also flawed in assuming person = thinking. I consider infants people. They fit perfectly under the definition. Can you support the claim as to the reason atheist requiring thinking to be part of the definition?

#160

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.06.2020 03:22AM

-->

@amandragon01

Then the White House is an atheist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your own definition specifies the rejection as a condition.

Are you asserting the White House is a person?

No. I'm pointing out that, according to your argument, the White house is an atheist.

Because the definition of atheist clearly states being a person as a criteria.

The definition of atheist clearly states rejecting a belief as a criteria. You will not be allowed to use an equivocal definition that wriggles depending on whether we're talking about "persons" or "rejection".

In post #103 Drafterman said,

The implicit scope of any "-ism" is humanity. It is only within this implicit scope that I have been speaking. Anything non-human is out of scope.

I'm assuming you agree with this, so I'm asking again, WHY is the implicit scope of any "-ism" humanity? It is because humans think, is it not? Babies are people, but do not think. Thus including them as atheists, non-thinking people, makes the -ism incoherent.

Then trees and platypuses do too. Your definition said rejection of a belief in God or gods was a criteria. A rejection requires knowledge of. Babies do not meet the criteria

No not once does it state rejection is necessary.

It implicitly does by restricting the definition to "people"! Only people can reject a belief. That is why the restriction exists at all.

Being a person is necessary, which none of the above are.

Being a person is one necessary criteria for being an atheist, but being a thinker is a necessary criteria for being a rejecter. If being a thinker is not necessary to be an atheist, Lego blocks qualify as atheist as the thinking requirement is moot.

Disbelief or lack of belief is necessary. Lack of belief doesn't require rejection of the claim.

Then why is personhood necessary? How is the personhood restriction not ad-hoc? How does the fact that a lemon tree is not a person bare on the definition? What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?

Then flat head screwdrivers are atheists too!

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherent. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?

Of course, it's because it is the discussion of humanity that is relevant. The debate of and search for religion is by all evidence a deeply human enterprise. Infants are humans. They lack belief in gods, so they are atheist, if that changes or not depends entirely on if they should ever come to accept as true the existence of a god or gods. To not recognise them as atheists would be to either force beliefs upon them or reject their humanity, I will do neither.

You dodged the question and spoke about the discussion instead of the definition. Here, try again.

1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism? Why can't a scarf be an atheist?

2. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?

...it is the discussion of humanity that is relevant.

I'm asking why is it restricted to humanity? There must be a reason. And that reason must be coherant and relavent to your definition. Because you also claim that, "Lack of belief doesn't require rejection of the claim.

It is true that a " lack of belief" doesn't require rejection of the claim, but atheism DOES require a rejection of the claim. That is why it is called a - theism. Atheism is in coherant without theism!

To not recognise them as atheists would be to [snip] force beliefs upon them....

And pray tell, what belief would that be? And how would it be forcing?

...or reject their humanity,...

How would calling them atheist be "accepting" of their humanity?

...I will do neither.

What you are comfortable doing is immaterial. Your argument is all over the place, ad-hoc, and incoherent. This is why you can't answer the simple questions posed to you.

#161

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.06.2020 03:44AM

-->

@amandragon01

Point one is a strawman there is no people/thinking requirement,

Untrue. The "people" requirement is due to the fact that only people think. If you remove the thinking requirement, you lose the logical reason for restricting the definition to people.

simply a people requirement. Infants fit that. They are people, they fit the first criteria to be an atheist.

No, they fit the criteria to be people. They do not fit all the criteria to be atheists.

And you are still dodging the question of why a "people" restriction. If not because of thinking, then what?

Point two is also flawed in assuming person = thinking.

We are not trying to define person, we are trying to define atheists. And "atheist" does require "thinking". True that "person" ≠ thinking, but thinking does = person, as only persons think.

Your definition, and therefore your argument is dead in the water unless you justify the restriction to people that is independent of cognition. So far, you have dodged telling us why the definition of atheist must be restricted to people, if thinking is not necessary.

I consider infants people. They fit perfectly under the definition.

They fit under the definition of people, NOT under the definition of atheist.

Can you support the claim as to the reason atheist requiring thinking to be part of the definition?

I was forced by logic into that claim because you could offer no reason for why atheist require people to be part of the definition of atheist. The only logical reason seems to me to be that only people can think. So I've asked you several times to justify the "people" restriction in your definition without referring to cognition. You have so far dodged answering that challenge.

For me, your dodging gives the same result as an your honest answer would. It validates that your argument is illogical.

#162

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

12.06.2020 04:01PM

-->

@ethang5

@amandragon01

Disbelief and (or) lack of belief are being used synonymously, because it is specific to the existence of God or gods. Atheism isn't defined as "lack of beliefs" it is specific to the rejection (or disbelief) in God (or more specific, to the existence of God), as opposed to Theism. The definition would not exist without the cognition and understanding of theism, thus an understanding of God is necessary. This is so simple to understand, I have a "lack of" patience engaging any further in the topic at hand.

Lets call a disbelief in leprechauns A-gnomism.....as opposed to gnomism which is a belief in leprechauns.....Saying I lack belief in leprechauns is also saying I disbelieve in them, or have no belief why? because I first have cognition of them to have no belief specific to the existence of leprechauns. Claiming I lack beliefs is not the same, it has no relevance to A-gnomism specifically.

A-gnomism is not a lack of beliefs, that's not how it is defined, it is a disbelief (or lack of belief) in leprechauns. Again, the misconception that atheism means a lack of beliefs is somewhat silly, because we all know that without the cognition of Theism the term makes zero sense, it no longer means anything not to mention the reality that the definition itself insists the cognition of the existence of God or gods. There is no word for "lack of beliefs", other than saying "lack of belief". Babies can lack beliefs, but can't disbelieve in God (which is synonymous with a "lack of belief" IN GOD). .

A-theism was intended as a term for the lack of belief (or disbelief) in God specifically, for one to have no beliefs in the existence of God specifically one has to be aware of such concept otherwise a-theism is a worthless term. Without a belief in God there can be no term opposing it, and upon opposing it or rejecting it the term a-theism now has relevance. A baby cannot be an atheist (which is an opposing position to the existence of God or gods), though they can lack beliefs.

#163

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

12.06.2020 04:09PM

-->

@ethang5

Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherent. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?

Lol the simplicity of what you're saying seems to be going over his head. Part of the problem is that the poster thinks atheism means a lack of beliefs. Rather than a disbelief specifically in God.

Atheism is not defined as a lack of beliefs, why that doesn't sink in I have no idea. A-theism is specific to Theism, which is the comprehension of the existence of God or gods....otherwise atheism means nothing.

#164

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.07.2020 03:36AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Good post Etrnl.

I think he gave us a clue in one of his posts where he said (I'll paraphrase) not calling a baby an atheist would be "forcing" a belief on them!! It's like they think a-theism has nothing to do with God (theism)! It is just neutral and default.

I suspect this is where American atheists are heading. They wish to de-couple atheism from theism. They see the problem they have at needing theism to give them a coherent definition. I predict in the next few years, atheists will suggest a new word to define them that they think will not need theism to give it relevance.

Anti-theist is a step in that direction, but they want something with even less connection to theism. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

#165

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.07.2020 01:06PM

-->

@ethang5

If you want to assert that we should look at Atheism as a-theism or atheist as a-theist for purposes of definition then it follows that. Atheism is not theism, the word itself would certainly have required an atheist to make sense, but that doesn't mean there weren't atheists before theism, in fact, if there were people before theism then they were most certainly atheists, even if they didn't know that themselves, this is made clear by the fact that they were people who weren't theists. If we're looking at the word by definition: 'A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods ' then they were atheists, being people who disbelieved in the existence of a god or gods. If we're using the a-theist in the literal sense of not-theist, then they fit because they were no theists. Infants fit for the same reason.

Untrue. The "people" requirement is due to the fact that only people think. If you remove the thinking requirement, you lose the logical reason for restricting the definition to people.

This is your repeated assertion, it is however unfounded. I have addressed this, it addresses humanity. It addresses the fact that humans are the only beings we know of relevant to the discussion of religion.

By discounting infants from the group of people who disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods you are effectively either claiming they believe in gods or dismissing them as humans. The first would require evidence as a claim, the second is something I'm not willing to do.

1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism? Why can't a scarf be an atheist?
2. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?

I haven't dodged any question, I've already answered this question. It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.

Where our difference of opinion lies in both in the importance of identifying when they become relevant. I won't dismiss babies from the position of being human. Nor will I accept the effort of theists to shoehorn in 'rejection' into atheism/atheist. There is no implication or necessity or rejection or knowledge of god in the definition of atheist, only that one is human and doesn't believe in god.

As for the second question. Photosynthesis and the ability to grow lemons among many other things. What makes a lemon tree unqualified to be an atheist is not being a human and as such not being a person.

#166

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.07.2020 01:40PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Disbelief and (or) lack of belief are being used synonymously, because it is specific to the existence of God or gods. Atheism isn't defined as "lack of beliefs" it is specific to the rejection (or disbelief) in God (or more specific, to the existence of God), as opposed to Theism. The definition would not exist without the cognition and understanding of theism, thus an understanding of God is necessary. This is so simple to understand, I have a "lack of" patience engaging any further in the topic at hand.

No, an understanding of god is necessary to define oneself as an atheist. In no way does being an atheist require you to define yourself as one or even know that the term exists. You fail to understand the difference between defining the word and the state itself. Before theists all humans would have been atheists. However, they wouldn't have defined themselves as such, that doesn't mean they weren't atheists. Also, atheism very much is defined as the lack of belief in a god. It's defined as 'Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.' Notice lack of belief right in there. It most certainly isn't specific to the rejection of god. In no way does it state or imply this. Atheism covers those who believe n gods non-existence sure, but it also includes every other position on the existence of god that isn't the acceptance of the existence of a god or gods.

Lets call a disbelief in leprechauns A-gnomism.....as opposed to gnomism which is a belief in leprechauns.....Saying I lack belief in leprechauns is also saying I disbelieve in them, or have no belief why? because I first have cognition of them to have no belief specific to the existence of leprechauns. Claiming I lack beliefs is not the same, it has no relevance to A-gnomism specifically.

This isn't an apt analogy. To make this relevant we'd have to define A-gnomism as 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of leprechauns' if we do that then we can easily say that it's fair to say George has never heard of leprechauns, he's agnomist because he lacks belief in leprechauns.

A-gnomism is not a lack of beliefs, that's not how it is defined, it is a disbelief (or lack of belief) in leprechauns. Again, the misconception that atheism means a lack of beliefs is somewhat silly, because we all know that without the cognition of Theism the term makes zero sense, it no longer means anything not to mention the reality that the definition itself insists the cognition of the existence of God or gods. There is no word for "lack of beliefs", other than saying "lack of belief". Babies can lack beliefs, but can't disbelieve in God (which is synonymous with a "lack of belief" IN GOD). .

Your definition isn't no, because you never defined it as such. However, the term atheist is defined as the lack of belief specifically. It also isn't a misconception, it's literally the oxford dictionary definition of atheist/atheism. That entire paragraph is in direct conflict with the oxford dictionary definition of atheist, the definition I very clearly expressed as how I define atheist right back when I started posting. Also, again, the thing can exist without us being able to define it or even knowing it exists. The definition doesn't insist the cognition or atheists on the part of the atheist, it simply acknowledges that the people using the term atheist are aware of the claims of gods existence. In no way does that mean that all atheists are aware of the claim they're not accepting as true. Lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods is atheism by definition.

A-theism was intended as a term for the lack of belief (or disbelief) in God specifically, for one to have no beliefs in the existence of God specifically one has to be aware of such concept otherwise a-theism is a worthless term. Without a belief in God there can be no term opposing it, and upon opposing it or rejecting it the term a-theism now has relevance. A baby cannot be an atheist (which is an opposing position to the existence of God or gods), though they can lack beliefs.

This is incorrect. One doesn't need to be aware of god not to have belief in the existence of god specifically. They would need to be aware of god to refer to themselves as not believing in the existence of gods specifically, but if they don't know of the god claim/concept, then they most certainly have no beliefs in the existence of god or gods specifically. Again you slip from discussing the relevance of the thing itself and the relevance of the term. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or simply a mistake on your part.

Your argument that the term atheist would be meaningless without theist is true, but that doesn't mean that an atheist must reject god or even be aware of god, only that someone must.

The state of being an atheist doesn't require knowledge of the claims or concepts of gods at all.

The term atheist is dependent on someone being aware of the claims or concepts of a god or gods existing.

In no way does the atheist have to be in the aware group, nothing about the definition suggests that, it is simply that state of not accepting as true the existence of a god or gods, anyone who doesn't know that there is a claim of such a thing doesn't have that specific belief, so they fit the definition of atheist.

#167

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.07.2020 02:18PM

-->

@amandragon01

This is your repeated assertion, it is however unfounded.

I wish you'd say how.

I have addressed this, it addresses humanity.

We know. But why?

It addresses the fact that humans are the only beings we know of relevant to the discussion of religion.

But relevant in what way?? You are dodging dragon, and I think I know why.

I haven't dodged any question, I've already answered this question. It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.

Relevant in what way?

1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism?

Because only humans are relevant.

Relevant how? I say it's because only humans can think. You're dodging.

2. Why can't a scarf be an atheist?

Because only humans are relevant.

Relevant in what way? I say it's because only humans can think. You're dodging.

3. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?

Because only humans are relevant.

Sorry. That doesn't answer the question. What is it that makes humans relevant and lemon trees NOT relevant?

It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.

Relevant in what way? There are a thousand ways to formulate this question and I will ask you till you answer it, or run away. Either way the result will be the same to your argument. It will kill it.

I won't dismiss babies from the position of being human.

No one is asking you to dismiss babies. Babies are human. Your semantic ploy is disingenuous. Babies are not atheist. Being atheist does not confer humanity. So saying babies are not atheist does not mean they aren't human. Only humans can be atheists, but not every human is an atheist.

Nor will I accept the effort of theists to shoehorn in 'rejection' into atheism/atheist.

And yet you will not answer WHY only human are relevant! Do you see your conundrum dragon?

There is no implication or necessity or rejection or knowledge of god in the definition of atheist, only that one is human and doesn't believe in god.

Theism and atheism are describing states of belief in a certain thing. Namely God. As EtrnlVw pointed out, the definition of atheist cannot possibly simply be, "doesn't believe". If theism/God is taken out of the picture, atheism become incoherent. There is no state of belief that is " no belief". But that is what you are trying to say atheism is.

That is untrue. Atheism is NOT a state of having no beliefs, it is the state of having no beliefs about God, but without knowledge of God, that definition become gibberish.

Can you tell me why you think babies are not agnostic?

Topic's author

#168

RoderickSpode

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

RoderickSpode

12.13.2020 03:57PM

-->

@amandragon01

Let's just say for the sake of argument, there were common ancestors. With which common ancestor would the superstition, and God concept begin with?
I don't know and it's immaterial. If we assume common ancestors, then we can logically conclude that at some point one of them had the concept of god for the first time. If you want to assert that can only have been so if it was given to them by god, then I ask can you show that this is the case? If it could have formed without revelation from a god, then why is it unreasonable to consider that a possibility?

It's not so much that's it's an impossibility, but it's a huge stretch.

Sure, some assumed male common ancestor way back when, while sniffing around for a female CA in heat, may have all of a sudden started pondering their existence. But why would I assume such a thing?

The only concern in the animal kingdom is food, sex, and sleep. Some animal infants are lucky if their parents nurture them instead of eat them.

So logically the further we would go back in the alleged evolutionary chain, the less likely of any concern outside of basic needs and pleasure.
This is again immaterial. Would you agree that humans are capable of having ideas? Would you say it's possible for humans to create complex fictions? If so, then why couldn't a humanity entirely devoid of the concept of gods imagined their way to that concept on their own? What relevance does our ability or inability to pin point when we became capable of conceiving of god have to do with the question of if babies are atheists?

Do claim babies believe in a god?

Do you accept babies are people?

Again, I'm not claiming it's impossible.

Wouldn't you agree that it's a bit shaky?

And not to mention the fact that there's just no proof that early man made up the concept from imagination.

Yes, babies are people.

Do they know whether or not God exists?

No?

Ah! They must also be agnostic then.

Sure, but that's your opinion. We know that people can imagine. We know that we can come up with ideas that are either true or false (intentionally or otherwise) and that people can believe ideas, regardless of if they are true or not.

Why is it so implausible a position to consider that early humans anthropomorphised the world around them? We anthroporphise a great deal after all.

As for why they'd take the time, the world was scary and dangerous and brutal. Don't you think the idea that intelligence and powerful beings that bring good and bad events into our lives wouldn't have been more comforting than the idea that disasters were simply beyond their control? At least with a being doing it we can hope to bargain or at least find reason to the events.

Again, not claiming an impossibility. But why should I consider it beyond a mere suggested possibility?

As far as the fear factor, how do animals handle the scary and brutal things of life?

#169

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

12.16.2020 04:46PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

It's not so much that's it's an impossibility, but it's a huge stretch.

Sure, some assumed male common ancestor way back when, while sniffing around for a female CA in heat, may have all of a sudden started pondering their existence. But why would I assume such a thing?

Yet you're willing to assume a creator. We have no example of any intelligence being able to create life from scratch, we have no example at all of life ever coming from scratch, with the information (or lack of) available then why should we assume a creator? How do you show that the assumption of a creator is more logical than the assumption of abiogensis? Ultimately why not avoid the assumption altogether? Why not withhold conclusion until such a time as we've managed to gather enough information for an informed answer?

Again, I'm not claiming it's impossible.

Wouldn't you agree that it's a bit shaky?

And not to mention the fact that there's just no proof that early man made up the concept from imagination.

What exactly is shaky about believing that human imagination could be responsible for the concept of gods? More relevant to this discussion, why is it more shaky than assuming the universe originated with an intelligence that we're unable to show exists, I have seen human imagination, I have evidence that it can create concepts of things that don't or can't possibly be expected to exist. I see no way this isn't at the very least at least as reasonable an explanation for the origin of god concepts as the existence of a god. But again that isn't my point, my point isn't to make that assumption it's to ask why we should assume your position rather than simply continue to accept that we need more information before we can know? My position isn't that god is a figment of human imagination, it's that I won't accept the position that a god exists until evidence is provided to support that claim.

Yes, babies are people.

Do they know whether or not God exists?

No?

Ah! They must also be agnostic then.

Two points here, firstly babies can't be agnostic. Agnosticism isn't the knowledge of gods existence or nature, it's the belief that gods existence and nature is unknown and unknowable. Iroincally if you don't know of the concept of god you can't be an agnostic. Secondly, if babies were agnostic it'd have no bearing on if they were atheist or not.

Again, not claiming an impossibility. But why should I consider it beyond a mere suggested possibility?

Then you're now beginning to see what my position is on the existence of a god. My position is rather than taking a position that can't be shown to be true assume that it is and then also assume that ideas that conflict with that are false, why not accept we don't have enough information to make a logical and accurate conclusion and try to avoid forming a bias (as much as possible) until we have sufficient information? So far I have no evidence of a god or gods, I have no evidence that a creator is needed for the universe to form, I haven't the information necessary to determine how likely life is to start on its own or the universe or any of the other things we see in the universe, with that in mind I have no reasonable way to determine the likelihood of either position. When we can determine that likelihood, when we can figure out the chances, then we can make reasonable assumptions, when we can show that something in nature necessitated a creator then I'll believe in a god. Before then, it seems logical to believe only that the universe as it exists, life as it exists stem from a currently indeterminate origin.

#170

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.18.2020 02:03AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

@amandragon01

This is your repeated assertion, it is however unfounded.

I wish you'd say how.

I have addressed this, it addresses humanity.

We know. But why?

It addresses the fact that humans are the only beings we know of relevant to the discussion of religion.

But relevant in what way?? You are dodging dragon, and I think I know why.

I haven't dodged any question, I've already answered this question. It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.

Relevant in what way?

1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism?

Because only humans are relevant.

Relevant how? I say it's because only humans can think. You're dodging.

2. Why can't a scarf be an atheist?

Because only humans are relevant.

Relevant in what way? I say it's because only humans can think. You're dodging.

3. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?

Because only humans are relevant.

Sorry. That doesn't answer the question. What is it that makes humans relevant and lemon trees NOT relevant?

It's because of humanity, of all known species humans are relevant in the discussion of belief in a god.

What do you know, he ran away.

#171

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

12.18.2020 06:33AM

I think connotation can be as important as denotation in communication, and the connotation of "atheist" is informed disbelief. Children do not begin with informed disbelief. I would not call a baby an atheist.

But I think this is generally a silly semantics argument. Babies are babies.

#172

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875