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.

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.

[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.

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

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...

[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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[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=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=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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

You too. :barf:

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.

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...