sccsux Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 We are born with a mother tongue though. Lots of research shows that babies are comforted by someone speaking the language that they could hear whilst in the womb more than by someone speaking another language Still a kind of programming though (through exposure in the womb). They have no beliefs at all So they must be atheist, by definition. Atheism exists as an opposite of belief in god.. No it isn't. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is a feeble attempt to muddy the waters. We are all born non-political also. Nothing constructive to add, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 But it doesn't. Atheism exists as an opposite of belief in god. Without one the other would be needless. Since it's a description used to describe a non believer the baby cannot be described as an atheist as it is impossible for it to be either. No it isn't. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is a feeble attempt to muddy the waters. Yeah, it was explained last night thank you. You can interpret the statement (out of context) how you wish. The point I'm making is not to rewrite the meaning of the word Atheist but to say that if we all existed without knowledge of Gods/deity's then the decription (atheist) itself would not be necessary as there would be no non believers, we would be a race of people possibly trusting in ourselves a little more. Therefore, being an atheist is the opposite of someone who is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Yeah, it was explained last night thank you. You can interpret the statement (out of context) how you wish. The point I'm making is not to rewrite the meaning of the word Atheist but to say that if we all existed without knowledge of Gods/deity's then the decription (atheist) itself would not be necessary as there would be no non believers, we would be a race of people possibly trusting in ourselves a little more. Therefore, being an atheist is the opposite of someone who is not. Only if you consider an apple to be the opposite of any fruit that isn't an apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Only if you consider an apple to be the opposite of any fruit that isn't an apple. No I don't but then apple isn't used to describe something that isn't an orange whereas atheist is used to describe someone that isn't a believer or it's a name they give themselves. If the orange didn't exist the apple is still an apple. Remove mans peculiar habit of putting faith in objects etc from the beginning of time and there would be no atheists as there would be no cause to describe people that do not believe in them. The words belief, god would not be a part of the language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Remove mans peculiar habit of putting faith in objects etc from the beginning of time and there would be no atheists as there would be no cause to describe people that do not believe in them. The words belief, god would not be a part of the language. You are wrong. in those circumstances, everyone would be atheist. They just wouldn't have a word for it. Who we are and what we think defines language, not the other way round (mostly). It is entirely possible to be something without knowing the word others would use for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Like a lot of words in the English language, what they are defined as and how they are used often differs. I think Atheist may well fit into that category. While the definition may be "without belief in God(s)" I think most people who refer to themselves as Atheist mean they have consciously rejected the concept of God and therefore it does become a belief - a belief there is no God You say that, yet I have only ever come across one or two atheists like that. Every single other atheist I have ever met (and that's a lot) would describe themselves as simply not believing in god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Technically you can call a newborn an atheist (semantics) and that's about it as its meaningless otherwise. A new born has not formed any sense of self awareness, knows nothing and cannot consciously chose to be an atheist or anything else so cant be classed as one. A baby does not know what a belief is therefore any sense of a lack of belief in a deity is nonsense and illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 A new born has not formed any sense of self awareness, knows nothing and cannot consciously chose to be an atheistOne does not need to consciously choose to be an atheist. That's exactly what the OP is saying. That atheism is the default setting. or anything else so cant be classed as one. A baby does not know what a belief is therefore any sense of a lack of belief in a deity is nonsense and illogical. You don't need to have a 'sense of lack of belief' to be an atheist. It is entirely possible to be an atheist without ever having heard of religion. Basically there are two options, either babies are born believing in god/s, or they are born atheists. There is no third option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You are wrong. in those circumstances, everyone would be atheist. They just wouldn't have a word for it. Who we are and what we think defines language, not the other way round (mostly). It is entirely possible to be something without knowing the word others would use for it. How would everyone be an atheist if the word isn't there. If there are no believers how can there be non believers. You can't be described as one if the other does not exist. To be a non believer implies that there are believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 You are wrong. in those circumstances, everyone would be atheist. They just wouldn't have a word for it. Who we are and what we think defines language, not the other way round (mostly). It is entirely possible to be something without knowing the word others would use for it. Others will not be using the word because the word will not exist purely because describing something that isn't is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.