Murphy Jnr Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What you are describing in your posts is an antitheist, someone who not only has an absence of belief (an atheist) but actually rejects the idea of God (antitheist). If you agree that post #27 is correct then any person, of any age, who does not HAVE a belief in God (whether there's a reason for it or not) is an atheist. It really is that simple. I'm not so sure. A baby is not capable of any of this so it seems unfair to call it anything. In this case the baby simply is: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Cheers for the derogatory reply (yes I did read your post before you edited it)- discussion with you is as unpleasant as usual. I'll continue in a more grown up manner than you seem capable of. I've looked up 'a' as a preffix and I'll admit I was wrong. My definition of atheism came from my understanding that an atheist is somebody who denies the existence of god Denies the existence of which god? There are many thousands of gods I don't have any belief in. In most cases this can't possibly be an active denial on my part as I know nothing whatsoever about most gods that people believe in/have believed in the the past. The same is true to a total extent for babies who are obviously completely ignorant of the claims people make about the existence of all gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Denies the existence of which god? There are many thousands of gods I don't have any belief in. In most cases this can't possibly be an active denial on my part as I know nothing whatsoever about most gods that people believe in/have believed in the the past. The same is true to a total extent for babies who are obviously completely ignorant of the claims people make about the existence of all gods. Why are you bothering making this point when in the same post I admitted it was wrong and described why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 What you are describing in your posts is an antitheist, someone who not only has an absence of belief (an atheist) but actually rejects the idea of God (antitheist). If you agree that post #27 is correct then any person, of any age, who does not HAVE a belief in God (whether there's a reason for it or not) is an atheist. It really is that simple. I don't think it is. Atheism simply means absence of theism. It shouldn't need to be argued. I think the philosopher/humanist Paul Cliteur describes it correct in his book The Secular Outlook where he states: The atheist position may be summarised as follows: atheism is a negative doctrine. The atheist is not convinced by the proofs of theism. This being the case, he does what every sensible person would do. He says “I am not a theist”. So I would argue your point that we are born atheist is incorrect- a baby has no concept of this (as has been mentioned by some posters) so cannot reject what it has not yet been shown or presented with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 But the adult can be given a title because of their capacity to understand. He or she decides to either believe or not or to be in a state of uncertainty, the baby does not have the capacity to do this. It doesn't have to understand, it doesn't have to make a decision. It meets the criteria of athiesim LITERALLY by existing without a belief in God. It an't get any simpler than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 I don't think it is. Atheism simply means absence of theism. It shouldn't need to be argued. I think the philosopher/humanist Paul Cliteur describes it correct in his book The Secular Outlook where he states: So I would argue your point that we are born atheist is incorrect- a baby has no concept of this (as has been mentioned by some posters) so cannot reject what it has not yet been shown or presented with. You've just agreed with me in your second line, which is the bare bones pure definition of atheism, why complicate it with the opinions of some other guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 But the adult can be given a title because of their capacity to understand. He or she decides to either believe or not or to be in a state of uncertainty, the baby does not have the capacity to do this. Neither does a substance with no life, but it's still acceptable to describe it as abiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If a child was brought up in a controlled environment where information was filtered and they were given no information about any god, what would their belief/value system be? Does god have a way of communicating with people or has he devolved the spiritual continuence on the parents of the child to bring said child up in said faith? I wonder how many children who are brought up in faith A, sudenly denounce it and adopt faith B? The lack of wholescale movement to the 'one true god' suggests to me that god has no active involvement in which faith children are brought up in. This becomes an issue whern we consider that children could burn in hell for eternity if they do not accept the correct god. Why is god so devolved from the process? Jesus could have a little chat with every child when they get to say, five years old. He could introduce himself and explain about sin, redemtion and eternal life. Instead he keeps himself hidden away and leaves this important task to mere mortals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Neither does a substance with no life, but it's still acceptable to describe it as abiotic. I see what you're saying Cavegirl, hell i even understand it, I just don't go with it. In every case we've come up with a word to describe something because everything whether its animate or inanimate has to have a name or an identification, a mark, anything so we can say 'oh yeah that's what that is.' We cant have something without and in this case it's the babies religious or non religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 It doesn't have to understand, it doesn't have to make a decision. It meets the criteria of athiesim LITERALLY by existing without a belief in God. It an't get any simpler than that. It all seems to come down to how we define atheism. My definition of atheism would be based on a conscious rejection of religion whereas yours seems to include that and a lack of knowledge and understanding of religion. I would reject your quote above because you could label any baby a believer in anything because it doesn't believe in the opposite of that whatever. A baby exists without a belief in god only because s/he has no beliefs at all. I wouldn't pin any label on a baby with regard to beliefs. Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism mentions your idea and we can all debate which definition we prefer as individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.