Are babies agnostic? or atheistic?

Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Are babies agnostic? or atheistic?

By no means and I saying that people who oppose this are wrong, but to me it seems that saying that one cannot be completely agnostic appears too absolute (Christianity deals with aboslutes, I do not believe in absolutes). I also acknowledge that in order for one to be completely agnostic, they would have to be 50% sure, and 50% un-sure, which is extreeeeeeeeemely un-probable, but if you honestly have no belief in god as well as no disbelief in God, I can think of no reason to label yourself as anything to do with an atheist. On the other hand, if you think you are uncertain, but lean towards faith of lack there of, that is when I believe you should claim yourself to be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. And example I can think of (Yes Greg, lol) is babies. I am not currently sure where my oppinion stands on this matter currently, but some would say (like my friend Greg did in school a few days ago) that babies are atheists because they do not believe. This does make sense, but given that babies might not be able to percieve the concept of a God might change that. It seems to me that if you are knit-picking, and want to answer the question with an absolute, you would say that babies are atheists, but if one needs to be able to percieve something in order to declare belief in or against it, (which is deffinately determined by oppinion, in my oppinion :)) then babies cannot be theists or atheists, but maybe agnostic? I am not sure, just thinking about it.


Kyzer
Kyzer's picture
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Maybe babies are neither,

Maybe babies are neither, they are too dumb to comprehend a god even then. So there for they can't really believe or disbelieve in a supernatural or devine being because they don't even know what it means.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
I agree with that Kyzer, but

I agree with that Kyzer, but then wouldn't they be agnostic, because they lack the knowledge along with the perception? If not, what should what call them? ignoramouses? lol.


Kyzer
Kyzer's picture
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Hmm, i'm not quite sure. Too

Hmm, i'm not quite sure.

Too bad we couldn't do a poll yet on the forums :(

Then we could get everyones feedback!

ignoramoose too!

or ignoramice.

Or mininonbelievingthing.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Babies are atheistic, they

Babies are atheistic, they lack belief in a god. Agnosticism is an epistemological position that one must accept on their own. It is the acnowledgement that one doesn't know god, can't know god, or doesn't or can't know a first cause of our universe.

Atheism is simply what you are if you are absent of theistic beliefs.

Many adults who are atheist, are also agnostic. Agnostic is not a position in between atheism and theism, contrary to what a large chunk of America would tell you (they'd also tell you there is a god).

Use the Oxford English Dictionary not the bastardized American versions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kyzer wrote:Hmm, i'm not

[quote=Kyzer]Hmm, i'm not quite sure.

Too bad we couldn't do a poll yet on the forums :(

Then we could get everyones feedback!
[/quote]

Polling results and majority opinion don't make an incorrect concept correct, for if they did you could poll people on god, and find out he exists.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kyzer wrote: So there for

[quote=Kyzer] So there for they can't really believe or disbelieve in a supernatural or devine being because they don't even know what it means. [/quote]

That's an impossibilty, it's like a square circle. You either believe or you disbelieve, there is NOTHING in the middle. It would be cool if there was, but there isn't.

disbelieve: [b]Not to believe or credit[/b]; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

Don't get confused by the continuation of the definition, the bolded portion could exist on it's own as the definition of disbelieve.


Kyzer
Kyzer's picture
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
It was a joke my friend

It was a joke my friend :)

and i would still like to see polling on the forums, i know it doesn't make anything correct, but its nice to see peoples opinions without scrolling through 3 pages of mind consuming comments :)

arg!

and use the edit button Sapient!

I see what you mean, but there can or HAS be a middle, but the person HAS to be mentally deranged. I like to think of the world as a balance, there is one side, and opposite side, and one in the middle.

wait, skratch that....opposite forces balance each other out just fine with out a middle. :O


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Kyzer wrote:It was a joke my

[quote=Kyzer]It was a joke my friend :)

and i would still like to see polling on the forums, i know it doesn't make anything correct, but its nice to see peoples opinions without scrolling through 3 pages of mind consuming comments :)

arg!

and use the edit button Sapient!

I see what you mean, but there can or HAS be a middle, but the person HAS to be mentally deranged. I like to think of the world as a balance, there is one side, and opposite side, and one in the middle.

wait, skratch that....opposite forces balance each other out just fine with out a middle. :O
[/quote]
:-/ that sounds a bit christian. "there HAS to be a god" but oh well. The world can't be balanced, If it were it would be at a state of equillibrium, and it would cease to live. Just like we learned in Science :) When anything comes to an equillibrium it stops.

I agree with Sapient, I think babies are atheists. But, only one thing bugs me, what is the real definition of belief?


Kyzer
Kyzer's picture
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Err... w/e.. you know, some

Err...

w/e..
:D

you know, some things can sound christian and still be ok, it isn't all bad...

you also missed the scratch it part.

Sometimes i zone off during science, because it seems like i missed that part...


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
whoops, well then i guess

whoops, well then i guess you learned something today :)


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Kyzer wrote:

[quote=Sapient][quote=Kyzer] So there for they can't really believe or disbelieve in a supernatural or devine being because they don't even know what it means. [/quote]

That's an impossibilty, it's like a square circle. You either believe or you disbelieve, there is NOTHING in the middle. It would be cool if there was, but there isn't.

disbelieve: [b]Not to believe or credit[/b]; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

Don't get confused by the continuation of the definition, the bolded portion could exist on it's own as the definition of disbelieve.

[/quote]
You state the deffinition of disbelieve, which I agree with, but I do not believe that babies disbelieve in God because I believe they have no perception of an ultimate being, or possibly any being besides themselves. In the physical realm, there are only absolutes, but I do not believe that in the conceptual realm this is true. Saying that babies have to be atheists is a self-stoking flame. It appears that people that support this belief believe that babies have to be athiestic because there is no middle, but that there is no middle because you must be a theist or athiest, which doesn't leave room for a middle. That I believe is true towards conscious beings, but I believe babies are on a different psychological plane from us. One not being able to percieve god falls under the category of knowledge, or ability to attain knowledge (or lack there of), but doesn't appear to me to fall under the category of belief, other than that they cannot make a choice. "Even nothing is something, just not what it appears to be." -unknown.
Stating that there is NOTHING in between theism and atheism, and that it would be cool if there was, but there isn't sounds alot like an arguement I get from Christians quite frequently. (Don't worry, I am not degrading you to their level, lol ;)) I see the reasoning behind that, but again, it falls back into the self-stoking flame, which appears to me to be a logical falacy, and those don't appeal to me very much. ( :) ) Can you explain why the absence ability to believe cannot fit in between the two sides of the abilities endpoints? (Other than than that you either do or don't, which appears to be a conjecture, while absense of ability appears to be the counter-example, which would, as it does in mathematical terms, negate the statement).


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Adam Burnfin wrote: You

[quote=Adam Burnfin]
You state the deffinition of disbelieve, which I agree with, but I do not believe that babies disbelieve in God because I believe they have no perception of an ultimate being, or possibly any being besides themselves.[/quote]

If you agree with the definition, then why are you exhibiting lack of understanding?

If babies have no perception of yada yada yada, then they disbelieve in it.

[quote]That I believe is true towards conscious beings, but I believe babies are on a different psychological plane from us. One not being able to percieve god falls under the category of knowledge, or ability to attain knowledge (or lack there of), but doesn't appear to me to fall under the category of belief, other than that they cannot make a choice.[/quote]

It falls in both categories, babies are without knowledge (although are incapable of admitting it), and they are without belief (although incapable of admitting it).

Yes, a babies atheism is different from mine only in the sense that he didn't choose to abandon theistic beliefs, he was simply born that way.

[quote]Can you explain why the absence ability to believe cannot fit in between the two sides of the abilities endpoints?[/quote]

What?


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
I go by just that, they do

I go by just that, they do not believe, so they are atheist. It makes it short and simple. I see however where adam is coming from, that they are different. But their plane of consciousness or intelligence or whatever you want to call it does not make the definition null or make it an exception.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Greg wrote:I go by just

[quote=Greg]I go by just that, they do not believe, so they are atheist. It makes it short and simple. I see however where adam is coming from, that they are different. But their plane of consciousness or intelligence or whatever you want to call it does not make the definition null or make it an exception.[/quote]

There are hundreds of brands of theists, they are all still theists. One must wonder why we seek so hard to qualify a babies atheism, as if they are no longer atheist. He asked the question, he got the answer, it seems however he'd rather the answer have been different.


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Hmm, well everyone on her is

Hmm, well everyone on here is stubborn. No one here can deny that. ha. When we had the conversation at school and a coffee shop it never really concluded. I think that It relies solely on how you define belief now. Depending on whether it means consicious perception or not. Or something of the sort.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I messed that last

Sorry, I messed that last part up. I meant to say Can you explain why that lack of ability to believe cannot fit inbetween belief and disbelief.

You ignore my point, and restate your own. When you said:
"If babies have no perception of yada yada yada, then they disbelieve in it."
you totally disregarded my point by saying yada yada yada.
I will state my oppinion on the matter currently:

I believe that babies are atheistic in the sense that they do not believe in a God or Gods, (which appears and is to me, obvious) but then again, they cannot believe, so I do not believe we should label them the same way we label a conscious being who can choose. Though technically, they are atheists, this technicallity is only correct under the circumstances that there are absolutes on the psychological level. Overall, I believe babies to be solely (spelling?) agnostic (outside of technicality) because and only because they have no ability to believe. Maybe agnostic is not a good word to use... though I do believe the deffinition is fairly appropriate, because they lack knowledge, here, I expect one to say the deffinition of atheistic is true also, since they lack belief, which is true.

You stated not to get distracted by extentions of the deffinition atheist, but those might further define the guidelines in which one must fit to be an atheist. If it states one must be a sentient being in order to be described as an atheist, then that, as part of the deffinition, negates the statement that babies are atheistic, though I doubt it states that.

It seems we are both being rather stubborn, lol, because non us us apparently want to give. I admit, at first I did not think babies were atheists, and I now believe that without given exception, they are.
I believe babies being atheistic is an absolute which cannot be proven. I also believe babies being agnostic is the lack of absolute which cannot be proven. Hence, I don't believe either of these statements can properly negate eachother. I have more to say, but I need more time to organize my thoughts, my brain is like scrambled eggs right not, I apologize, feel free to keep talking though.


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
That again would depend on

That again would depend on how you define belief. It would have to be something that involved perception and some sort of decision. But I believe Brian was anwering your statement with another question acting as if it was a statement to prove a point. I looked at many definitions of belief, and none of them require the believer/disbeliever to be sentient at all. But many of the definitions are different also.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Are you implying I am a

Are you implying I am a theist?
Are you implying babies are another brand of atheist?
I believe that babies are, according to textbook definition, atheistic, but I believe they are on another level. I sort of think a new word should be invented for beings unable to percieve such things.


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
I dont think he meant you

I dont think he meant you were a theist. From what you are saying, I think you wouldnt need to invent a word, just add an adjective. Such as agnostic Atheist. Why not call them ignorant atheists?


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
because ignorant = agnostic

because ignorant = agnostic bbasically.
I was thinking something more along the lines of something describing an atheist that can barely think.


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
then your idea of unsentient

then your idea of unsentient atheist may work. I am not sure. The point though is that they are atheists


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Babies are

[quote=Sapient]Babies are atheistic, they lack belief in a god. Agnosticism is an epistemological position that one must accept on their own. It is the acnowledgement that one doesn't know god, can't know god, or doesn't or can't know a first cause of our universe.

Atheism is simply what you are if you are absent of theistic beliefs.

Many adults who are atheist, are also agnostic. Agnostic is not a position in between atheism and theism, contrary to what a large chunk of America would tell you (they'd also tell you there is a god).

Use the Oxford English Dictionary not the bastardized American versions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

[/quote]

So you are saying the specific dictionary that fits your view is correct. I believe that you (as in everyone) should develope views that state possibilities that vary pending on which definition of the word is used, because to-date, there is near no way to interperet which definition is correct. If atheism is simply lack, babies are athiests. But, since you take such an extreme, definite, absolutist, black and white stance, I will play the devil's advocate and reply with the possibilty that if one must choose to be a theist, one must choose to be an atheist, and agnosticism would (though not dealing directly with your precise religion) would correctly fit your affiliation, because in order to declare yourself atheist or theist, you need the knowledge of theit existances. Agnosticism, this lack of knowledge, prevents you from being theist or atheist.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Adam Burnfin wrote: So you

[quote=Adam Burnfin]
So you are saying the specific dictionary that fits your view is correct. [/quote]

No, I'm saying the most respected dictionary of the English language deserves respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_dictionary


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Adam Burnfin

[quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]
So you are saying the specific dictionary that fits your view is correct. [/quote]

No, I'm saying the most respected dictionary of the English language deserves respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_dictionary

[/quote]
I accept that point that the Oxford dictionary is the most reputed dictionary in the English language, but still in near every dictionary that I searched atheism, it stated atheism to be one denying the existance of God. (Note: I could not get my hands on a oxford dictionary to check for myself). But I still believe that there is not one dictionary that is ultimately correct and dictates validity of all other dictionaries. Hence, I believe atheism to not the l'LACK'of believe in God / Gods, but to be the refusal to accept God/Gods.

Also, I would like to point out to you that you have not responded to any of my statements against your theory that babies are atheistic. You appear to disregard them, do you think them unworthy? If so, I believe you are being unfairly biased towards your own oppinion (I only do not say fact because had every dictionary I checked said simply 'lack of' beliefe, I would accept your theory, but that is not the case. Lack of would have simply meant absence of, and absence requires no choice. No we can knit-pick these dictionaries for a very long time, but I would like to get some feedback regarding to the points that I have made is posts prior to this if you don't mind.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Adam Burnfin wrote: I could

[quote=Adam Burnfin] I could not get my hands on a oxford dictionary to check for myself[/quote]

A real OED would cost you a subscription, or hundreds of dollars, here is what the OED says (a link I had already given you):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

[quote=Adam Burnfin]
I believe that babies are, according to textbook definition, atheistic, but I believe they are on another level.[/quote]
[quote=Adam Burnfin]Also, I would like to point out to you that you have not responded to any of my statements against your theory that babies are atheistic. You appear to disregard them, do you think them unworthy?[/quote]

Sorry, the argument is not worth my time, you've already refuted yourself. Were I to have more time I'd chat with you all day.


cookieavalanche
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
It'd probably be better for

It'd probably be better for the discussion (if not this one, then others) if you decided on mutual terms. That way, you can stay on topic.

Or, instead of using terms that are easily confused, stick to phrases everyone can relate to on the same understanding.

So, I think that while babies obviously can't believe there is no god, they can't believe in a god, either.
I mean, can they believe anything at all?

Now, that's not to say religion is a "learned behavior" or what have you. Early humans created religion somehow. If you took a civilization of people, composed of humans ignorant of religion, religion would spring up again in a matter of centuries (or less!!)

So the will to believe in God(s) is inherent in babies somehow, even if it has to be "switched on" by their environment.

So let me know if you don't follow :)


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Adam Burnfin

[quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin] I could not get my hands on a oxford dictionary to check for myself[/quote]

A real OED would cost you a subscription, or hundreds of dollars, here is what the OED says (a link I had already given you):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

[quote=Adam Burnfin]
I believe that babies are, according to textbook definition, atheistic, but I believe they are on another level.[/quote]
[quote=Adam Burnfin]Also, I would like to point out to you that you have not responded to any of my statements against your theory that babies are atheistic. You appear to disregard them, do you think them unworthy?[/quote]

Sorry, the argument is not worth my time, you've already refuted yourself. Were I to have more time I'd chat with you all day. [/quote]

First I would like to apologize for the confusion on my part, my oppinion have been changing, as I have been thinking this over much.

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

-Sorry Sapient, but this discussion is not worth my time. You are simply incorrent, not to sound pretentious, but the fact that even the Oxford definition states refusal of acceptance points out that one must choose, babies, having no ability to choose, cannot choose, therefore do not match the definition of athiest. Also, you appear threatened by the role of devil's advocate that I have been playing. You made no counter-examples to anything I have stated as a possible counter-example to your statements, even before I knew the precise definitions, and shyed away and restated your original point without seeming to appemt to answer these suggestions. Babies have no concept of God, religion, or refusal, therefore they cannot meet the pre-requisites to match the definition of atheist and are not atheist. On the other hand, since agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which they lack, I would accept the answer (in a sense) that they are agnostic. If you must choose to be a theist, you must choose to be an atheist. <<< That statement I believe further 'backs-up' the definition of 'atheist', though is partially left to subject. Also, it is a very bold statement to say I have 'refuted' myself, for it is obvious that I am not incorrent. I also do not understand the last sentence of your comment prior to this.

-Cookie Avalanche: You stated.

"It'd probably be better for the discussion (if not this one, then others) if you decided on mutual terms. That way, you can stay on topic.

Or, instead of using terms that are easily confused, stick to phrases everyone can relate to on the same understanding.

So, I think that while babies obviously can't believe there is no god, they can't believe in a god, either.
I mean, can they believe anything at all?

Now, that's not to say religion is a "learned behavior" or what have you. Early humans created religion somehow. If you took a civilization of people, composed of humans ignorant of religion, religion would spring up again in a matter of centuries (or less!!)

So the will to believe in God(s) is inherent in babies somehow, even if it has to be "switched on" by their environment.

So let me know if you don't follow :)"

Religion is not a learned behavior, but a concept that we percieve, and it is only inherent (I believe) in babies that they can developement belief in a religion because they eventually develop to the point where they can percieve concepts, and lie to themselves to the point where they have convinced themselves that this 'religion' that they created is, to them, true. Also, behaviors being leanred is not solely determined by the environment, but everything that they experience is detrimental to they mental/psychological development.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
This is getting ridiculous,

This is getting ridiculous, if anyone is well versed in this please feel free to pick the ball up....

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

[quote]-Sorry Sapient, but this discussion is not worth my time. You are simply incorrent, not to sound pretentious,[/quote]

Incorrent? Did you mean incoherent? You're calling me incoherent as you project your own inadequacies and lack of comprehension, as we see here....

[quote]but the fact that even the Oxford definition states refusal of acceptance points out that one must choose, babies, having no ability to choose, cannot choose, therefore do not match the definition of athiest.[/quote]

Now, any human with basic comprehension skills feel free to read and see if it states that one MUST choose in order to be atheist....

atheism [u]Disbelief in[/u], or denial of, [u]the existence of a god[/u].

disbelieve 1. trans. [b]Not to believe or credit...[/b]

[quote]Also, you appear threatened by the role of devil's advocate that I have been playing.[/quote]

Nope not at all, just don't have the time to deal with your inability to comprehend. I'm only doing this because your Gregs friend, anyone else, I'd be gone.

[quote]On the other hand, since agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which they lack, I would accept the answer (in a sense) that they are agnostic.[/quote]

Ironically agnostic is a position that by the strictest sense of the word, a baby CAN'T be. Agnostic is an epistemological position that one must come to accept.

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Personally I think everyone is agnostic as nobody truly "knows" but there are people who claim to be gnostic, and people who don't claim agnostic, and therefore by the strictest sense of the word they're not agnostic. Babies while I agree don't "know" haven't take the epistemological position that they don't.

[quote]If you must choose to be a theist, you must choose to be an atheist. <<< That statement I believe further 'backs-up' the definition of 'atheist', though is partially left to subject.[/quote]

No, the statement is bullshit.

[quote]Also, it is a very bold statement to say I have 'refuted' myself, for it is obvious that I am not incorrent.[/quote]

You said babies are atheist, then said they aren't.

1. You refuted yourself
2. You have just made a fool of yourself by using the word "incorrent" again instead of "incoherent" (I'm assuming), which is just an oh too funny irony. Calling someone incoherent while being incoherent... oh the irony.


Stephen
Stephen's picture
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you must choose to

[quote]If you must choose to be a theist, you must choose to be an atheist.[/quote]

No one can chose to believe or disbelieve; Rather one simply does or doesn't.

There is no inbetween, EVERYONE is either a theist or an atheist. That's it...

To find out if you are an atheist or a theist ask yourself the question:
[b]Do I Believe in a god or gods?[/b]
Notice that this is a yes or no question.

You might think, "well, I'm not sure if a god exists", but that isn't what the question is concerned with. I am not 100% sure that there isn't some god somewhere, but I don't believe..

Babies are all atheists by definition. They do not believe in a deity.


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
I think Brian has this one

I think Brian has this one Adam, no hard feelings, but the definition has loopholes there.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:This is

[quote=Sapient]This is getting ridiculous, if anyone is well versed in this please feel free to pick the ball up....

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

[quote]-Sorry Sapient, but this discussion is not worth my time. You are simply incorrent, not to sound pretentious,[/quote]

Incorrent? Did you mean incoherent? You're calling me incoherent as you project your own inadequacies and lack of comprehension, as we see here....

[quote]but the fact that even the Oxford definition states refusal of acceptance points out that one must choose, babies, having no ability to choose, cannot choose, therefore do not match the definition of athiest.[/quote]

Now, any human with basic comprehension skills feel free to read and see if it states that one MUST choose in order to be atheist....

atheism [u]Disbelief in[/u], or denial of, [u]the existence of a god[/u].

disbelieve 1. trans. [b]Not to believe or credit...[/b]

[quote]Also, you appear threatened by the role of devil's advocate that I have been playing.[/quote]

Nope not at all, just don't have the time to deal with your inability to comprehend. I'm only doing this because your Gregs friend, anyone else, I'd be gone.

[quote]On the other hand, since agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which they lack, I would accept the answer (in a sense) that they are agnostic.[/quote]

Ironically agnostic is a position that by the strictest sense of the word, a baby CAN'T be. Agnostic is an epistemological position that one must come to accept.

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Personally I think everyone is agnostic as nobody truly "knows" but there are people who claim to be gnostic, and people who don't claim agnostic, and therefore by the strictest sense of the word they're not agnostic. Babies while I agree don't "know" haven't take the epistemological position that they don't.

[quote]If you must choose to be a theist, you must choose to be an atheist. <<< That statement I believe further 'backs-up' the definition of 'atheist', though is partially left to subject.[/quote]

No, the statement is bullshit.

[quote]Also, it is a very bold statement to say I have 'refuted' myself, for it is obvious that I am not incorrent.[/quote]

You said babies are atheist, then said they aren't.

1. You refuted yourself
2. You have just made a fool of yourself by using the word "incorrent" again instead of "incoherent" (I'm assuming), which is just an oh too funny irony. Calling someone incoherent while being incoherent... oh the irony.

[/quote]

Firstly to state, you are pretentious. Secondly, I do not believe you are doing this because I am Greg's friend, I believe you are doing it because you are stubborn. Thirdly, I did not mean to state that you were incoherent, but like I said, incorrect. Fourthly, I did not state that I thought babies were atheist, but at the time I thought it an acceptable possibility under certain circumstances, I changed my mind after complemtating the idea quite a bit. Is that a problem? I also stated various times that I had been changing my mind, you just used that point to make me sound like a fool, and yourself sound more intellectual. Next, I do not believe babies are agnostic, but I said I would accept that. And if they cannot be agnostic, or theist, they cannot be atheist. One must choose, even if the definition doesn't directly state every variable, you are knit-picking. If one chooses to be theist, one must choose to be atheist, and one MUST choose to be theist. It's basic logic. This is getting to the point where we are having to pick apart others sentences, and critique them, and when this happens the basic point can get partially lost. I think we should each re-state our basic thesis, and then continue from there, because this is growing out of hand.

Quote:
"If you must choose to be a theist, you must choose to be an atheist. <<< That statement I believe further 'backs-up' the definition of 'atheist', though is partially left to subject.

No, the statement is bullshit." - How so? You didn't back that up, you left it to interpretation, nor did y ou explain. The statement "No, the statement is bullshit." Is only worth bullshit.

-Babies cannot be atheist, for one must choose to be atheist, according to the definition. Though the definition does not state it perfectly obviously for the morons, it states DENIAL, or REFUSAL of acceptance. In order to deny or refuse, first one must be able to refuse or deny, which babies cannot do. Secondly, they need to be able to perceive what they are denying, which is also something they are incapable of doing. Now, I don't care about the agnostic part, because I highly doubt they match the definition of agnostic. but they cannot percieve God, therefore they cannot deny him.

"Quote:
On the other hand, since agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which they lack, I would accept the answer (in a sense) that they are agnostic.

Ironically agnostic is a position that by the strictest sense of the word, a baby CAN'T be. Agnostic is an epistemological position that one must come to accept." - Ironically, atheist is a position that by the strictest sense of the word, a baby CAN'T be. Atheism is a concept that one must grow to become.

"Quote:
On the other hand, since agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which they lack, I would accept the answer (in a sense) that they are agnostic.

Ironically agnostic is a position that by the strictest sense of the word, a baby CAN'T be. Agnostic is an epistemological position that one must come to accept." -This statement is so contradicatory to your points dealing with atheism, and don't say they are too different to compare, they are both concepts that one cannot take part in unless having accepted. "Oh the irony".

Don't attempt to put yourself in a position above me with your corky little remarks towards 1-My altering oppinion 2-My general view on the discussion. You are being a stubborn fool by over-simplygin the definition, and not giving credit to the words REFUSE and DENY.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
I am kind of pissed because

I am kind of pissed because I just wrote a huge comment, and it deleted it all when I clicked the post button. But nothing matters other than the fact that you are being a stubborn fool by over-simplifying the definition, and not giving credit to the words REFUSAL, and DENIAL in the definition of atheist, because one must first be able to deny, which babies cannot do, also they must be able to perceive what they are denying, (GOD) which they cannot do. Babies are not atheist (Also, they are not agnostic) --- Do not ridicule me for altering my oppinion as I progressively contemplate the situation, most of my past comments where warped and incorrent, but this post is true. Often in past posts I stated that I my oppinion was changing, do not exploit that fact after I have stated it would occur.

P.S. You are not spending to to argue with me because I'm Gregs friend, you are either doing it to further analyze to me see if I am worthy of being a mediator, or moderator, or whatever your call it. If not that, your are doing it simply out of stubborn-ness. Also, I would like to inform you not to even consider my becoming of a 'mediator' for I have no interest, and Greg had more interest for me to become one than I did.

Quote:
"On the other hand, since agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which they lack, I would accept the answer (in a sense) that they are agnostic.

Ironically agnostic is a position that by the strictest sense of the word, a baby CAN'T be. Agnostic is an epistemological position that one must come to accept." -Don't you see, if a baby must choose to be agnostic, they must choose do be atheist, for they both require perception to accept. Given that one must choose to be agnostic, one must choose to be theist, or atheist. You just contradicted yourself my making that statement. oh the irony.

My main question to you: Can you deny something without having any knowledge of it?


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Greg wrote:I think Brian has

[quote=Greg]I think Brian has this one Adam, no hard feelings, but the definition has loopholes there.[/quote]

The definition is simple, and has no loopholes. Make some decisions for yourself Greg, think for yourself.

-I also want to admit many of the past thoughts I had were based on the idea that atheism was not denial, but only lack of. They were very dumb.

-Also, Brian, credentials. Do you have any? I don't doubt it if you do, but what are they?


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
think for myself adam? you

think for myself adam? you have only ever said that when you lost a conversation and I backed the winning side. I have thought babies were atheist before I even got on here. The definition does work for it. So I believe they are.


aleepi
Joined: 2006-10-05
User is offlineOffline
Since we cannot truely know

Since we cannot truely know what goes on in a babies head, this question is difficult to answer. Maybe babies have strong convictions about what they believe right when they pop into the world, but babies most likely do not know the learned human ideas of religion and beliefs and therefore cannot choose. Maybe they are agnostics simply because they do not know? I'm not sure. Babies live in the moment, experiencing each color, feeling, taste, texture... to the fullest possible. Living in the moment is a Zen Buddhist idea. Maybe babies are all little buddhas? All enlightened ones. :-) Maybe they are monists too. They feel that reality has a huge oness, a oness that is not addressed as being a God or Goddess, a Hermaphrodite, or even human in form. Everything, everywhere, everyone and simultaneuosly nothing at all. Or maybe they are just nontheistic. I hope I brought up more questions than answers with this.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Somebody elses turn.

Somebody elses turn.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Greg wrote:think for myself

[quote=Greg]think for myself adam? you have only ever said that when you lost a conversation and I backed the winning side. I have thought babies were atheist before I even got on here. The definition does work for it. So I believe they are.[/quote]
Greg, I am sick of you doing what I claim you to do, and then getting defensive. It's true.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Somebody elses

[quote=Sapient]Somebody elses turn.

[/quote]
Due to your idiocy, I have been thinking. goodbye.


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
Mk. I have been quite absent

Mk. I have been quite absent for a time, so this will be a good refresher.

First off, I have previously written an article on agnosticism and atheism

http://freethinkingteens.com/agnostic_vs_atheist

However, I will give a spark notes version here.

Theism: The state of belief in a god or gods
Atheism: The state of being without such belief. Literally 'a'-without 'theism'-belief in god

Agnosticism- The state of believing knowledge of the supernatural to be unobtainable
Gnostic- The state of believing knowledge of the supernatural to be obtainable

Theism and Atheism answer the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?'

whereas

Agnosticism and Gnosticism answer the question 'Do you know there is(or isn't) a god or gods(or believe such knowledge to be possible)

In answer to the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?' let us break down the question. To believe is to hold a strong conviction or belief in. There would seem to be two obvious answers then to thie question: yes or no. If you believe, you are a theist. If you disbelieve, you are an atheist. If you doubt, you lack the strong conviction necessitated by theism, and are an implicit atheist.

There is no middle ground between belief and nonbelief, just like there is no middle ground between pregnancy and nonpregnancy(crappy metaphor, I know)

Therefore, not only can one be both agnostic and atheist, but babies are atheists by default.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: atheism

[quote=Sapient]
atheism [u]Disbelief in[/u], or denial of, [u]the existence of a god[/u].

disbelieve 1. trans. [b]Not to believe or credit...[/b]
[/quote]

Anyone know how to make this "or" bigger for Adam?


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Adam Burnfin wrote:Greg

[quote=Adam Burnfin][quote=Greg]think for myself adam? you have only ever said that when you lost a conversation and I backed the winning side. I have thought babies were atheist before I even got on here. The definition does work for it. So I believe they are.[/quote]
Greg, I am sick of you doing what I claim you to do, and then getting defensive. It's true.[/quote]
What the hell adam, You get stupidly insultive when you are angry and losing a conversation.


indolentbagel
indolentbagel's picture
Joined: 2006-10-10
User is offlineOffline
Technically, babies are [b]implicit[/b] atheists.

The terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it':

"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#Ignosticism)


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
George H. Smith aka the

George H. Smith aka the writer of practically the best book in existence. I never actually finished it(i returned it to my school library and one day it disappeared), but when I get my copy through amazon I'm gonna check it out. I've been told often that things I say sound like they're from his book.

But such terms of atheism precede him, albeit unnamed. Several Greco-Roman philosophers touched on absence of belief through absence of comprehension, and the issue of such people has been used as a counter to any specific religion for at least 50 years.


Adam Burnfin
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Greg wrote:Adam Burnfin

[quote=Greg][quote=Adam Burnfin][quote=Greg]think for myself adam? you have only ever said that when you lost a conversation and I backed the winning side. I have thought babies were atheist before I even got on here. The definition does work for it. So I believe they are.[/quote]
Greg, I am sick of you doing what I claim you to do, and then getting defensive. It's true.[/quote]
What the hell adam, You get stupidly insultive when you are angry and losing a conversation. [/quote]
One, dipshit, I am loosing nothing, you only loose when you let your opponent win, and I have not lost. I don't even give a fucking shit about the discussion any more, because you are all such fucking fool sit makes me want to hang myself. Again Sapient, what are your mother fucking credentials? You goddam hotshot phony. Ad Greg, I greg "stupidly insultive"? lmao. Nice fucking grammar buddy.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Adam Burnfin wrote:Nice

[quote=Adam Burnfin]Nice fucking grammar buddy.[/quote]

You too. :barf:


Derevirn
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
I'd say that babies are

I'd say that babies are non-theists, in the sense that they have no idea of the "God" concept. An atheist has denied that concept and therefore has the right to call himself and atheist.


Sapient
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I thought I should expand on

I thought I should expand on that, just in case someone didn't catch what I was referring to...

[quote=Adam Burnfin]
One, dipshit, I am loosing nothing, you only loose when you let your opponent win, and I have not lost. I don't even give a fucking shit about the discussion any more, because you are all such fucking fool sit makes me want to hang myself. Again Sapient, what are your mother fucking credentials? You goddam hotshot phony. Ad Greg, I greg "stupidly insultive"? lmao. Nice fucking grammar buddy.[/quote]

1. it's "losing"
2. it's "lose"
3. "because you are all such fucking fool sit makes me want to hang myself" You should have pluralized "fool"
4. "Ad Greg" should be "and"
5. "I greg" You should have capitalized his name, and I can't figure out what "I greg" is referring to, in order to correct the sentence.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You had this problem before telling me I was "incorent" instead of incoherent.

Additionally two last points...

1. People do lose whether they allow themselves to lose or not. I personally try to be modest and don't think of our discussion as a win lose situation. With that caveat aside, [i]I did[/i] inform you, or defeat your argument. I prefer to look at it as an education session. I educated you to an error in your thinking and you educated us on how close minded and angry you can get in order to cling to your incorrect point of view.

2. Your insultive nature has turned to a point where it is in violation of the board rules here. Please argue actual points, as opposed to mere insults. If you insist on insulting others, please do so in the context of arguing an actual point.


Greg
Greg's picture
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Adam Burnfin wrote:Greg

[quote=Adam Burnfin][quote=Greg][quote=Adam Burnfin][quote=Greg]think for myself adam? you have only ever said that when you lost a conversation and I backed the winning side. I have thought babies were atheist before I even got on here. The definition does work for it. So I believe they are.[/quote]
Greg, I am sick of you doing what I claim you to do, and then getting defensive. It's true.[/quote]
What the hell adam, You get stupidly insultive when you are angry and losing a conversation. [/quote]
One, dipshit, I am loosing nothing, you only loose when you let your opponent win, and I have not lost. I don't even give a fucking shit about the discussion any more, because you are all such fucking fool sit makes me want to hang myself. Again Sapient, what are your mother fucking credentials? You goddam hotshot phony. Ad Greg, I greg "stupidly insultive"? lmao. Nice fucking grammar buddy.[/quote]

If you don't care about the discussion, why come here? You repeatedly stated to me that you were done here and you didn't want to be on here. Why do you keep coming back? You say you haven't lost but it would seem that you think you have, and keep on needed to prove yourself, which continues to shove you deeper into a hole. As I said to you, credentials matter nothing. It shows how much work you have done. Any person would take this site, and the whole No God Network and a form of credentials. It is the result from a lot of hard work, which is basically what credentials are. How is my grammar bad? All I did was describe how much of a prick you were being. Your grammar ins't too great either. I have no problem with cursing, but if you are insulting grammar, look at what the words mean, and then read your sentence. The structure sucks


Kian
Kian's picture
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
murder is wrong because it

murder is wrong because it directly effects the rights of another person to whom we have moral obligations too for a multitude of reasons.... I'll go with the social contract just because I happen to like political philosophers today.

First of all. Why do you guys fight so much? It's really dissapointing to see you all bickering. Honestly.

Second, there is a reason infants are placed in the same category as a mentally challenged person in philosophical debates. They [b]are not[/b] rational beings. They do not have the capacity to form rational thoughts or opinions because they're simply not developed enough. You can't say a baby is, or isn't an athiest. Sure you can apply the standard definition that a baby "doesn't believe in god" but this is because it has yet to develop a brain that is capable of rationalizing thoughts about a higher, or ultimate reality.

The original question assumes that a baby can believe in anything - and this obviously isn't the case. So the answers are all mostly irrelavent. The baby is not an atheist and is also not religious. ...I think its about teh age 2 that rational thought is said to actually develop...


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
Woah, I've been reading

Woah, I've been reading since 9 months, and doing math since about a year, so don't set an age for rational thought. That being said, doesn't believe doesn't mean disbelieve. Technically, a rock is an atheist. (In other words, were you to ask whether a rock believed in god, the only possible answer is no) Anything which doesn't believe in a god, actively or by default, is an atheist. Some adults don't have the brain power required for rationalizing thoughts. We call them evangelicals. Yet they are still considered theists.