Are babies agnostic? or atheistic?
Offline 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.
Your logic is flawed...on... so many levels it hurts.
A rock is not an atheist. A rock doesn't believe. A rock doesn't have a mind. It is not capable of believing or disbelieving. It is the same for a person who is brain dead. It is impossible to say they are an atheist or not. ... My coke can is not an atheist. Nor is it religious. It is not capable of rational thought. It is nothing.
This is a tough topic to discuss however just my two cents....Kian you say a rock is not an atheist you are absolutely correct because you stated a rock does not have a mind. however even at birth a baby has a consiousness. Studying psychology has its benefits here teaching that even though baby's are born without sight they are still accumulationg data and experiencing the world around them through sound and so many other factors that the brain picks up on..now this is where psychology has a hugh secion that i absolutely love....Nature vs. Nurture...basically in my opinion a baby is born atheist because the fact it does have a conciousness and therefor the consiouness is still accumulating information at the time of birth but because i cannot grasp or even understand a concept of god untill a year or two later therfore a baby can make no deduction about god or religion in general.
[quote=Kian]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. [/quote]
While I agree there is a difference between the atheism expressed by an adult and the type of atheism a baby posseses, this doesn't take away from the fact that a baby still disbelieves, and is therefore an atheist.
[quote]I think its about teh age 2 that rational thought is said to actually develop... [/quote]
This is somewhat accurate. It's called "T.O.M" Theory of Mind, and it represents the point where babies start to develop the awareness of those types of decisions. A baby is completely incapable of accepting god belief until it reaches that point, and many babies are different as to what age it develops, some as late as 3 or 4, in some (mentally disabled people) it never properly develops.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]Woah, I've been reading since 9 months, and doing math since about a year, so don't set an age for rational thought. [/quote]
Impressive.
[quote=Kian]Your logic is flawed...on... so many levels it hurts.
A rock is not an atheist. A rock doesn't believe. A rock doesn't have a mind. It is not capable of believing or disbelieving. It is the same for a person who is brain dead. It is impossible to say they are an atheist or not. ... My coke can is not an atheist. Nor is it religious. It is not capable of rational thought. It is nothing.[/quote]
I must agree here. However, I'd like to point out that I don't particularily care for babies. At all. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd shoot all babies out of a cannon into a brick wall and the ones that survive deserve to live. Babies are a nuisance.
Still, though. Your statistics are flawed, as well. 50% sure, 50% unsure? I highly doubt that that's the case with a great deal of people.
[quote=Kian]Your logic is flawed...on... so many levels it hurts.
A rock is not an atheist. A rock doesn't believe. A rock doesn't have a mind. It is not capable of believing or disbelieving. It is the same for a person who is brain dead. It is impossible to say they are an atheist or not. ... My coke can is not an atheist. Nor is it religious. It is not capable of rational thought. It is nothing.[/quote]
Did you read the definitions?
Atheists don't have to believe. Atheism can mean simply "not believing" otherwise known as "disbelieve."
[quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]Nice fucking grammar buddy.[/quote]
You too. :barf:[/quote]
Again, what are your goddam credentials?
[quote=Sapient]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.
[/quote]
Nearly every comment you leave has nothing to do with the topic, quit attempting to flame me due to your grudge.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]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.[/quote]
I rock cannot be an atheist, because it has no ability to disbelieve. There is a different between lack of belief and disbelief.
Yes, and atheism encompasses both areas.
Atheism, in and of itself, is almost a useless word. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in leprechauns, or the tooth fairy, etc..(well, except rational).It simply means, bereft of theism.
Therefore, yes, a rock can be an atheist(lacking theism), just as a rock can lack the quality of having a mullet.
Hey I dont mean to pick and pull quotes out of your comment, but im sure you've heard this before, I just havnt heard the answer personally .
Isn't saying "Christianity deals with absolutes, I do not believe in absolutes" in itself an absolute? It is absolute you do not believe in absolutes. Therefore, it is an absolute that there are absolutes.
[quote=Adam Burnfin]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.[/quote]
[quote=Adam Burnfin][quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]Nice fucking grammar buddy.[/quote]
You too. :barf:[/quote]
Again, what are your goddam credentials?[/quote]
Sweets, you don't need credentials to point out that someone has bad grammar. ... Why do you troll? It's sort of annoying.
As for the real topic at hand - I see where you're all coming from. ... A baby can be labelled an atheist... because it is unaware of god, thus not having any faith in god. Making it a 'soft atheist' as the definition goes. To be a strong atheist - that is to have disbeliefe in god, the baby would have to be a rational being, and be able to think fully and voice opinions. ...Hmm
exactomundo.
As for Burnfin, I assume in credentials, you are referring to his positing of 'his' definition of agnosticism over yours? it's not just his definition, the coiner of the phrase, Thomas Huxley, used that definition. I'd hope that's a good enough authority. In the ase you truly just only debate w/ people who have credentials... well, I think that doesn't even need an explanation as to why it's stupid.
[quote=Adam Burnfin]
I rock cannot be an atheist, because it has no ability to disbelieve. There is a different between lack of belief and disbelief.[/quote]
You continuosly demonstrate an inability to understand what the word disbelieve means. Disbelieving is lacking a belief, there is no difference.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]exactomundo.
As for Burnfin, I assume in credentials, you are referring to his positing of 'his' definition of agnosticism over yours? [/quote]
I assume Adams asking for credentials is merely his way of dodging a lost battle, as if a PhD or being a high school drop out would change the terms. If Adam needs credentials from everyone he debates with in order to concede lost points, then by all means do as you already said you would (show some dignity by holding to your word) and leave this forum for pastures that flaunt their credentials.
I have no need or desire to show my credentials, as I prefer to remain as modest as possible. This in addition to the fact that they are simply unimportant. Expecting one to have credentials for a point to be valid in argument is known as an appeal to authority, it's a logical fallacy, and if you had any Philosophy credentials you would know this.
I expect you to partake in the usual ad hominem attack again, as seems to be your strong suit. You're also excellent at projecting your flaws onto others with such nuggets as "Nearly every comment you leave has nothing to do with the topic, quit attempting to flame me due to your grudge."
[quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]
I rock cannot be an atheist, because it has no ability to disbelieve. There is a different between lack of belief and disbelief.[/quote]
You continuosly demonstrate an inability to understand what the word disbelieve means. Disbelieving is lacking a belief, there is no difference.
[/quote]
You continuously demonstrate an inability to try and see someone's point of view and step off your high horse.
You can't not believe in something if you have no knowledge of it. ...I'm not an idiot, I see what you're saying. But if you ask someone who has never heard of a unicorn before if they believe in unicorns their answer is going to be "I don't know" not "no".
[quote=Kian][quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]
I rock cannot be an atheist, because it has no ability to disbelieve. There is a different between lack of belief and disbelief.[/quote]
You continuosly demonstrate an inability to understand what the word disbelieve means. Disbelieving is lacking a belief, there is no difference.
[/quote]
You continuously demonstrate an inability to try and see someone's point of view and step off your high horse.
You can't not believe in something if you have no knowledge of it.[/quote]
Yes, that's exactly what you do if you don't have knowledge of it. You'd "not believe" in it. You'd be a disbeliever. And having an understanding of this, I wouldn't think puts me on a high horse, but I guess in this discussion it appears it has. Telling me I'm on a high horse here is the equivalent of telling a math teacher they are on a high horse because they think 70+30=100 when Adam thinks it equals -100. How dare that math teacher not see his point of view!
[quote] ...I'm not an idiot, I see what you're saying. But if you ask someone who has never heard of a unicorn before if they believe in unicorns their answer is going to be "I don't know" not "no".[/quote]
Ok, well if you see what I'm saying than you recognize the person saying "I don't know" is a disbeliever in unicorns, making them an aunicornist. Of course they may say "I don't know" and still have a belief in unicorns anyway, this would make them a believer. Either you believe or you don't, it's so extremely simple and basic.
here's the key:
[i]lack of belief[/i] is not necessarily [i]belief of lack[/i]
one who has never heard of the idea of a god (like babies) will lack belief
lack belief = doesn't [i]have[/i] a belief
in other words, a baby does not "believe there is a god"
at the same time, it doesn't "believe there is no god"
because of the first statement, the baby qualifies as an atheist
[quote=Adam Burnfin]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.[/quote]an atheist, by defenition [b][i]IS[/i][/b] one who has [b][i]no belief[/b][/i] in a god
[quote=Sapient][quote=Kian][quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]
I rock cannot be an atheist, because it has no ability to disbelieve. There is a different between lack of belief and disbelief.[/quote]
You continuosly demonstrate an inability to understand what the word disbelieve means. Disbelieving is lacking a belief, there is no difference.
[/quote]
You continuously demonstrate an inability to try and see someone's point of view and step off your high horse.
You can't not believe in something if you have no knowledge of it.[/quote]
Yes, that's exactly what you do if you don't have knowledge of it. You'd "not believe" in it. You'd be a disbeliever. And having an understanding of this, I wouldn't think puts me on a high horse, but I guess in this discussion it appears it has. Telling me I'm on a high horse here is the equivalent of telling a math teacher they are on a high horse because they think 70+30=100 when Adam thinks it equals -100. How dare that math teacher not see his point of view!
[quote] ...I'm not an idiot, I see what you're saying. But if you ask someone who has never heard of a unicorn before if they believe in unicorns their answer is going to be "I don't know" not "no".[/quote]
Ok, well if you see what I'm saying than you recognize the person saying "I don't know" is a disbeliever in unicorns, making them an aunicornist. Of course they may say "I don't know" and still have a belief in unicorns anyway, this would make them a believer. Either you believe or you don't, it's so extremely simple and basic.
[/quote]
THis is just getting circular. I give up. You obviously won't recognize what I'm trying to say. You think it's black and white, I think its black white and grey.
I'm not argueing this anymore with you because your arrogance is extremely irritating. Are you one of the people who run this board? You may want to know that I've gotten word from 2 other people who i encouraged to sign up, but they wouldn't because a) people on here bicker far too often and b) 'the mods, one specifically actually, arn't inclusive and are too arrogant'.
Anyway, I've rocognized your argument, its too bad you won't recognize mine and instead want to stick your nose up at me. I was going to just not reply, but I didn't want to give you the satisfaction of thinking you had 'won'.
A math teacher isn't dealing with a subject that one can have different opinions on. ...If someone is unaware of something, this is a form of disbeliefe, but once they are educated on the issue they then have the opportunity to say yes or no. ...Where "i dont know" is a legitamite answer, its not just black and white and 'extremely basic'.
[quote=Kian][quote=Sapient][quote=Kian][quote=Sapient][quote=Adam Burnfin]
I rock cannot be an atheist, because it has no ability to disbelieve. There is a different between lack of belief and disbelief.[/quote]
You continuosly demonstrate an inability to understand what the word disbelieve means. Disbelieving is lacking a belief, there is no difference.
[/quote]
You continuously demonstrate an inability to try and see someone's point of view and step off your high horse.
You can't not believe in something if you have no knowledge of it.[/quote]
Yes, that's exactly what you do if you don't have knowledge of it. You'd "not believe" in it. You'd be a disbeliever. And having an understanding of this, I wouldn't think puts me on a high horse, but I guess in this discussion it appears it has. Telling me I'm on a high horse here is the equivalent of telling a math teacher they are on a high horse because they think 70+30=100 when Adam thinks it equals -100. How dare that math teacher not see his point of view!
[quote] ...I'm not an idiot, I see what you're saying. But if you ask someone who has never heard of a unicorn before if they believe in unicorns their answer is going to be "I don't know" not "no".[/quote]
Ok, well if you see what I'm saying than you recognize the person saying "I don't know" is a disbeliever in unicorns, making them an aunicornist. Of course they may say "I don't know" and still have a belief in unicorns anyway, this would make them a believer. Either you believe or you don't, it's so extremely simple and basic.
[/quote]
THis is just getting circular. I give up. You obviously won't recognize what I'm trying to say. You think it's black and white, I think its black white and grey.
I'm not argueing this anymore with you because your arrogance is extremely irritating. Are you one of the people who run this board? You may want to know that I've gotten word from 2 other people who i encouraged to sign up, but they wouldn't because a) people on here bicker far too often and b) 'the mods, one specifically actually, arn't inclusive and are too arrogant'.
Anyway, I've rocognized your argument, its too bad you won't recognize mine and instead want to stick your nose up at me. I was going to just not reply, but I didn't want to give you the satisfaction of thinking you had 'won'.
A math teacher isn't dealing with a subject that one can have different opinions on. ...If someone is unaware of something, this is a form of disbeliefe, but once they are educated on the issue they then have the opportunity to say yes or no. ...Where "i dont know" is a legitamite answer, its not just black and white and 'extremely basic'.
[/quote]
ok there are points to both your agruments but Kian here takes the cake because she is fully correct that its not just Black and White and alot of poeple seem to forget that...nothing along the subject of Atheism or Theism is that simple...ever. there are always varibles in the situation so being a littl emore open minded Sapient is somehting you should consider...i mean thats why we are hear our minds were open enough to reject Societies (sp?) organized religion...
[quote=Kian]
THis is just getting circular. I give up. You obviously won't recognize what I'm trying to say. You think it's black and white, I think its black white and grey.[/quote]
I recognize what you're trying to say. What you're missing is that "I don't know" doesn't answer the question: do you believe? It is black and white, some things just are.
theist: someone with a belief in a god
atheist: anyone who is absent of theism
gnostic: someone who knows
agnostic: anyone who is without that knowledge
Most atheists are also agnostic.
[quote]I'm not argueing this anymore with you because your arrogance is extremely irritating.[/quote]
Sorry you feel that way, it's not my intention to be arrogant, merely to educate where one is lacking the information. Unfortunatly I think the problem is that our mostly religious society has brainwashed some people into thinking "I don't know" properly answers a question of "do you believe?" If you "don't know" then you are likely without positive belief, and therefore aren't a believer. Christians tell us that atheists are people who know a god doesn't exist and agnostics are people in the middle, as most of us would agree Christians have many things wrong, and this is another one of those things.
[quote]Are you one of the people who run this board?[/quote]
Yes. See the [url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/admin_team]team[/url] page.
[quote]You may want to know that I've gotten word from 2 other people who i encouraged to sign up, but they wouldn't because a) people on here bicker far too often and b) 'the mods, one specifically actually, arn't inclusive and are too arrogant'.[/quote]
Do you feel excluded in some way? In what way would you say this place isn't inclusive? Not a single person has been banned from posting on these boards. One creationisty has been asked to keep his posts limited to one of our other boards as he's not a teen, and that's it.
For the record though, I'm not here to impress anyone, and if the charge of arrogance was referring to me, that doesn't bother me. I often see other people form a distaste for others when they have been beaten in a debate, I've been on the "I don't like you anymore" end of the stick plenty of times.
[quote]Anyway, I've rocognized your argument, its too bad you won't recognize mine and instead want to stick your nose up at me.[/quote]
You see, I recognize your argument. The fact that you think I need to recognize your argument however illustrates that you haven't fully accepted my argument. If someone is without a positive belief (I don't know position) they are a disbeliever, in relation to god they are an atheist. Saying, "why wont you see it my way" is to say, they're not an atheist, they're not a disbeliever. And I'm sorry that is something I am unable to do.
[quote]I was going to just not reply, but I didn't want to give you the satisfaction of thinking you had 'won'. [/quote]
To save you the time, please understand that you can choose to not reply to this message and it wont change how I feel about being right or wrong on this point. I would however like to know how the person you're referring to felt excluded.
A math teacher isn't dealing with a subject that one can have different opinions on. ...If someone is unaware of something, this is a form of disbeliefe, but once they are educated on the issue they then have the opportunity to say yes or no. ...Where "i dont know" is a legitamite answer, its not just black and white and 'extremely basic'.
[/quote]
here is the MSN convo between the person and I ....
[quote]Katie says:
why'd you say it wasn't 'inclusive'
Karl says:
well for someone like you its fine
Katie says:
expand karl...expand...
Karl says:
just their conversations and its almost like they have a clique.
Karl says:
That serpant or sapient fellow is completely unapproachable.
Katie says:
I approached...
Karl says:
You never shut up. But for someone like me or Ash to go into that sort of setting its really horrible. There is so much hostility and arrogance drifting over the board that I didnt even want to start participating.
Karl says:
and their front page blog is horrible.
Katie says:
hahaha well, not everyone can blog daily like you and I. More criticisms? I'm sending this to the mod, I think he'd appreciate as much feedback as possible.
Karl says:
I dont know. Just the whole atmosphere of the website. Maybe it's good for 13 and 14 year olds... but it's almost too immature for 18 and 19 year olds.[/quote]
There it be.
[quote=Kian]
Katie says:
why'd you say it wasn't 'inclusive'
Karl says:
well for someone like you its fine
Katie says:
expand karl...expand...
Karl says:
just their conversations and its almost like they have a clique. [/quote]
Be honest, doesn't this sound more like Karls issues? How does he know if he doesn't try?
[quote]
Karl says:
That serpant or sapient fellow is completely unapproachable.
Katie says:
I approached...[/quote]
Exactly, you approached. I might seem unapproachable, I can understand that, however I have no problem dialoguing with just about anyone. It's mostly moot however because I don't particpate in most of the threads. I generally don't participate in opinion threads. For example, advice threads, or what should we do for the environment, things like that. I (ironically) generally only speak up when the issue is black or white, and I can explain a clear cut position on an issue.
Lastly, you don't need to approach me. Nobody does. I'm not what makes this board. See any teen admin or moderator, those are the people you approach with an issue or for conversation, they run this site. I'm just here to lend a helpful word when I can.
[quote]Karl says:
You never shut up. But for someone like me or Ash to go into that sort of setting its really horrible. There is so much hostility and arrogance drifting over the board that I didnt even want to start participating.[/quote]
Is Karl a Christian? Just curious. He seems to be making a sweeping generalization about everyone on the board. Maybe message boards just aren't for Karl... is that possible?
[quote]
Karl says:
and their front page blog is horrible.[/quote]
Clearly a reason not to take part. :P
[quote]Katie says:
hahaha well, not everyone can blog daily like you and I. More criticisms? I'm sending this to the mod, I think he'd appreciate as much feedback as possible.
Karl says:
I dont know. Just the whole atmosphere of the website. Maybe it's good for 13 and 14 year olds... but it's almost too immature for 18 and 19 year olds.[/quote]
Well this board is really what everyone makes of it. If it seems to be for 13 and 14 year olds so be it, sounds fine by me. I readily admit that 17-19 year olds might find more enjoyment on a board with more adults, however I think it's nice to know you can fall back on this atmosphere of youngsters for whatever reason.
[quote=Toryn]
ok there are points to both your agruments but Kian here takes the cake because she is fully correct that its not just Black and White and alot of poeple seem to forget that...nothing along the subject of Atheism or Theism is that simple...ever. there are always varibles in the situation so being a littl emore open minded Sapient is somehting you should consider...i mean thats why we are hear our minds were open enough to reject Societies (sp?) organized religion...
[/quote]
Thanks, I'll try to start being more open minded.
[quote=Sapient][quote=Kian]
Katie says:
why'd you say it wasn't 'inclusive'
Karl says:
well for someone like you its fine
Katie says:
expand karl...expand...
Karl says:
just their conversations and its almost like they have a clique. [/quote]
Be honest, doesn't this sound more like Karls issues? How does he know if he doesn't try?
[/quote]
*shrugs* this is just an observation that someone had when first coming to the board which has turned h im off of coming back. I dont think its a problem for him.
[quote]
Exactly, you approached. I might seem unapproachable, I can understand that, however I have no problem dialoguing with just about anyone. It's mostly moot however because I don't particpate in most of the threads. I generally don't participate in opinion threads. For example, advice threads, or what should we do for the environment, things like that. I (ironically) generally only speak up when the issue is black or white, and I can explain a clear cut position on an issue.
Lastly, you don't need to approach me. Nobody does. I'm not what makes this board. See any teen admin or moderator, those are the people you approach with an issue or for conversation, they run this site. I'm just here to lend a helpful word when I can.
[/quote]
To be fair, I approach anyone and everyone...
[quote]
Is Karl a Christian? Just curious. He seems to be making a sweeping generalization about everyone on the board. Maybe message boards just aren't for Karl... is that possible?
[/quote]
No, he's not a christian. Karl is a frequent message..board..er...... ahem.
[quote]
Clearly a reason not to partake[/quote]
Well, it is the first thing you see when you come to the site... ...Had I not noticed that there was a message board I would have wandered off myself.
[quote]
Well this board is really what everyone makes of it. If it seems to be for 13 and 14 year olds so be it, sounds fine by me. I readily admit that 17-19 year olds might find more enjoyment on a board with more adults, however I think it's nice to know you can fall back on this atmosphere of youngsters for whatever reason.
[/quote]
I have a headache.
...Well, you asked for reasons why he said that stuff, and I gave you reasons. If you just want to ignore it all ... sweet, whateves.
[quote=Kian]
...Well, you asked for reasons why he said that stuff, and I gave you reasons.[/quote]
Yup, much appreciated.
[quote] If you just want to ignore it all [/quote]
Could you please stop doing that? I didn't ignore your viewpoints before, and I didn't ignore what Karl had to say.
That's because it is black and white. On the other hand, Sapient rarely posts, except to settle big decisiont that nobody seems to be able to resolve(at least while I've been here, which has basically been the whole time)
'I don't know' means you lack a strong conviction. A belief is a strong conviction. Therefore, answering "I don't know" to the issue of the existence of god is to be an atheist, by lacking belief in god.
There is only black and white when it comes to word definitions.
Just because you recognize his argument does not mean he ought recognize yours.
[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]
Just because you recognize his argument does not mean he ought recognize yours. [/quote]
Ah, the lovely inclusive behaviours of the forum. Its really really nice. Makes a person warm inside. Really. It does. This place is so friendly.
Seriously, this is what Karl is spouting about.
If I had some sort of 'feelings' that could be hurt, or wasn't a cold hearted bitch... I wouldn't even be bothered with this place. Maybe teens are just mean. But the adult atheist board that I'm a part of is a lot nicer to go to.
Kian, just imagine how insane it would sound to you if someone insisted that 3+3=8. That anyone who didn't recognize that 3+3 could equal 8 is close minded, arrogant, has no credentials, can't see your side of the argument, and more. Would any of this seem like insanity to you? How about if we said, that not seeing that 3+3 could equal 8 isn't inclusive of others, it shuns others away. Would you expect people with basic math skills to do much more than laugh?
In any other sense this debate is insanity. It's irrational.
Inclusiveness, while nice, only ought be applied to ideas that have proven their merit, and defended attacks on such merit. Until an idea is backed up and justified, to include it, or even to take it seriously is almost laughable. Maybe even without the almost. It is much like Christianity. Is not the fact that you recognize his argument a detriment to your own?(since they are opposed)
Damn Brian, you're killing him.
My thoughts, which may or may not have been already said: Babies are not theist or atheist. They are ignorant. Once you are presented with the possibility of God's existence, you either accept it or reject it. And that's where "belief" comes.
"Did you believe in The Flying Razor Blade-Eating Hamburger?! No? Well, then I guess you were an atheist in respect to it."
That doesn't make sense. You had never heard of The Flying Razor Blade-Eating Hamburger before, so how could you know if you believed or didn't believe in it?
Babies can only be classified as atheists if there's a very flimsy definition of atheism being used.
~P-Dunn
I beleve that that definition is weak atheism. It means that you do not beleve in god. I beleve that this definition means that you either do not beleve because you find it hard to accept or you do not beleve because have not heard of it. (as far as I beleve the definition goes... Until now you are all amagicalunicorngoblinfairything because you did not know that such a thing was rumord to exist...
now that it is you can decide whether not to beleve in it (weak atheism again).. to accept it (theism)... to say that it is impossiable to prove that it exists (Strong agnosticism)... to say that you dont know if it exists (Weak agnisticism)... or to conciously say that It does not exist (strong atheism)
I dont know if this demonstration is helpful, or even correct (so if I am wrong, dont hesitate to correct me (Because I think that this forum is holding back on its opinions haha :) )
I think the term is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism]implicit atheist[/url].
That sounds better as a definition, A weak atheist seemed to have a double meaning there :)
flimsy? without theistic belief.
Just because I have never seen a guitar doesn't make my being without one any less real.
Wow... this has to be about the stupidest debate I've ever read... Now I see why the 'Irrational Responders' are laughed at by anybody with a brain.
Terror
I have to agree that this seems frivolous. This is semantics. Who ever wins the bickering war over the definition of atheist wins. Here is my question: Who cares what beliefs a child holds? They haven't had time to think about it! Whatever term you use, whether it is Atheist or Agnostic, they don't have any good reason for being a part of your group!
Who cares? I dont know... proably nobody, but it passes the time
Regardless of whether you agree, I'm pretty big on language, semantics, complete clarity, and truth, regardless of its real-world importance.
Oh, I think clarity and truth are some of the greatest virtues. But this makes neither Babies' beliefs nor atheism clearer, nor does this define truth.
Unfortunately, it's very, very important to some of the more obnoxious atheists out there. They feel that if babies were born atheists, then atheism is the default state, and therefore they have no obligation to accept any sort of burden of proof. It leads to a dead end in the discussion, usually.
I think that a nonbelef in anything that cannot be directly proven through the senses is the "default" position.
It says nothing about reality (having all children be originally atheists says nothing about God). If no one told me that there were air molecules and I had not heard of any physical evidance for them.. I would not beleve in them - I would not disbeleve... ( it just woulent have occured to me. The same is for God, santa, and planets on other suns. My knowledge (or lack of) really says nothing about the truth of the matter.
I beleve that the burden of proof is on the theist, just as the burden of proof is on the person who beleves that 911 happened or the Halocaust happened (or that fairies, the sun, or air molecules exist)
Because I dont see more proof of god than of santa, and most people are a-santa because of a lack of evidance I am a-god (funny, could that be a word...) or atheist because of a lack of evidance.
(people dont start off beleving in santa, this says nothing about the existance of santa... however the burden of proof is on the belever to prove that santa exists)
My opinion: this thread is one giant semantic game and needs to die.
Haha, like I said, it passes the time... plus quibbeling/ bickering is programmed into some of us (if the nazis would have quibbeled (spelling...?) more there might have been less of a war (just a thought.. if hitler couldent net the definition of "genocide" then he might have just given up..? haha :) )
And in all seriousness, this is not so much an argument of babies as it is for the burden of proof (I think)
Actually I find the whole discussion about defining 'athiest' or 'agnostic' to be a giant semantic game. Tell me, what is the real difference between 'disbelief in god(s)' and 'belief in no god(s)?' Even if such a distinction is possible(I'm not convinced it is), in the end, is it really going to make any difference?
You're right about one thing, though. It does help pass the time.
The distinction is not importaint when your a theist (I mean... I diddnt care aobut it...)
The distinction is that one is making a broad assumption, and is a positive assertion. Strong atheism (the positive disbelef in god) is actively saying that there are no gods. It equates god with what people all over the world equate leprechauns and talking spiders. We beleve that they dont exist.
Weak atheism (a simple rejection of god) is a shift of thought. It is not a positive assertion, like saying that we dont beleve in santa, but he could still be. I think it is on the same level as a person who does not think that there is a god, but finds no reason to actively deny one.
A strong atheist would beleve that a god is logically impossiable
A weak atheist would find the lack of evidance for god to mean that there proably isnt one... so he/she does not beleve
I dont know if i made this perfectly clear... wikipedia has a good article on this and i think that it defines it better... so if you want to understand more...[url=http://]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism[/url]
I, for instance, consider myself an Atheist. I have thought about it, and depending on your definition of a God, one might be possible, and if it is omnipotent (a silly concept, to me) it would be able to provide absolutely no evidence of its existence. I don't claim to know everything, and perhaps you think that makes me agnostic.
Here is where I derive my atheism. I contend that no major religion has got a possible answer yet. I have thought about it, and because if there is a creator, it must be Benevolent (basically saying only nice people make crap for others; creation is, in itself, a sign of good will). But a Benevolent Omnipotent God would make things better for people, like giving us giant shells, like snails. Humans would stop killing each other if it was impossible to do so. And I think a Benevolent Omnipotent thing would do that. Killing people isn't good.
I beleve a god (by definition, any supernatural thing) is impossiable. They imply that conciousness can rule existance. (that will can alter fact/structure)
This is impossiable. Not only has no one ever demonstrated even the slightest ablility to warp reality with their mind, it would be immpossiable to do so. Conciousness is dependant on reality, not the other way around. If all conciousness were to dissapear, reality would still be here. We have no impace on the physical world (and neither would a god) apart from our physical bodies acting upon it.