"Humans are born as atheists"

[Mackerni]

 

[Willamena]

That's what atheism is -- a lack of a concept. They don't have a concept of politics, either. Therefore, they're apolitical.

But "apolitical" doesn't mean not having a concept of politics. It means having no interest in politics.

 

[Willamena]

Huh???

Non-belief, weather buy-in, buy-out or default, is non-belief. If the non-belief involves God, it's atheism.

Non-belief, in the context of having no concept of the subject of belief, cannot involve anything.

 

[McBell]

As evidenced by how calling the baby "atheist" sounds so absurd to some people's ears that they feel compelled to argue it on the Internet.

saying a baby is an atheist is absurd in that it is meaningless.
Just like saying a rock is an atheist.

 

[McBell]

Non-belief, in the context of having no concept of the subject of belief, cannot involve anything.

If you have no concept of it you cannot have a belief in it.
Not having a belief is non-belief.

No idea why this is such a difficult concept for some people.

 

[sojourner]

we do correctly say that babies are things within their ability, and being an atheist - i.e. being someone who has not been convinced of theism - is certainly within the ability of a baby. In fact, they must be atheists until they're at the point that they can understand at least one form of theism well enough to be convinced of it.

How can they be convinced -- unconvinced -- of something that -- for them -- doesn't even exist?? Babies are not "without theism." Theism doesn't exist for them to be without.

 

[Willamena]

saying a baby is an atheist is absurd in that it is meaningless.
Just like saying a rock is an atheist.

For some, it is absurd because of what "atheist" means to them.

 

[Willamena]

If you have no concept of it you cannot have a belief in it.
Not having a belief is non-belief.

No idea why this is such a difficult concept for some people.

Cannot believe (as in ignorance) and do not believe (atheism) are not the same thing. We don't "do" not believing, it's something we are. We don't "do" any nots. We do dos.

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't mean they aren't apolitical; it means they can't help but be apolitical.

If I can't do something, then this implies I don't do it.

Yes, but if "political" isn't part of your world, you can't be "a" something that already doesn't exist.

I'm not sure if I don't get the concept you're trying to express, or if you're just wrong. It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. If atheism is a lack of theism, then anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

Only if "theism" is part of your world. You and I cannot be "a" what doesn't exist, for we need the existence of the thing before we can claim to be "without" it. Can you tell me precisely what you are without that you have no concept of? How do you then know that you are "a" those things? Look at it this way: if there were no such thing as clothing -- if everyone was just naked all the time, no could be said to be "without clothing," because "clothing" wouldn't be a concept or a thing that it would even be possible to be "without."

Just because theism is a "thing" for most people, doesn't mean that it is even a possibility for all people. It's a concept that's based in individual awareness. Just because you and I have a concept of "theism" doesn't mean that "theism" exists for everyone. And for those for whom it does not exist, those people cannot be "without" what, for them, doesn't even exist in the first place.

If you're going to say that this lack of awareness disqualifies babies from being atheists, are you going to say that lack of awareness disqualifies adults? Because adult atheists are just as unaware of most god-concepts as a baby is.

Yes. I would say that. "Most" isn't a qualifier here. "God-concept" is a general awareness of some deific concept, not a specific formulation of a particular mythological construct.

 

[McBell]

For some, it is absurd because of what "atheist" means to them.

Yes.
Which is why i find it rather comical, and sad at the same time, that so many people are unable to understand there is more than one definition of the word "atheist".

 

[McBell]

Cannot believe (as in ignorance) and do not believe (atheism) are not the same thing. We don't "do" not believing, it's something we are. We don't "do" any nots. We do dos.

Your insistence of making it far more complicated than it needs to be does not change in any way what I said.

 

[Willamena]

Yes.
Which is why i find it rather comical, and sad at the same time, that so many people are unable to understand there is more than one definition of the word "atheist".

They understand differently because they believe in a positive world. It's not complicated. It's how they were taught.

Your insistence of making it far more complicated than it needs to be does not change in any way what I said.

It's not complicated at all. The world is positive, and the English language, properly used, reflects that.

 

[McBell]

They understand differently because they believe in a positive world. It's not complicated. It's how they were taught.


It's not complicated at all. The world is positive, and the English language, properly used, reflects that.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses doe snot help your "argument"...

 

[Willamena]

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses doe snot help your "argument"...

I don't know what that phrase means.

Post #373 is not made to advance my argument but to point at underlying causes of the disagreement.

 

[`mud]

Snot as you will.......
it never really helps !!
~
'mud

 

[First Baseman]

I think Willamena makes some good arguments on here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but if "political" isn't part of your world, you can't be "a" something that already doesn't exist.

It's a part of your world and my world, though, so it exists for us. It's you and I talking, so our shared understanding is enough.

The baby's understanding of politics only matters if we're trying to make ourselves understood by the baby.

Only if "theism" is part of your world. You and I cannot be "a" what doesn't exist, for we need the existence of the thing before we can claim to be "without" it. Can you tell me precisely what you are without that you have no concept of? How do you then know that you are "a" those things? Look at it this way: if there were no such thing as clothing -- if everyone was just naked all the time, no could be said to be "without clothing," because "clothing" wouldn't be a concept or a thing that it would even be possible to be "without."

Again: understanding of the terms only matters between the sender and the recipient. The subject of the communication doesn't need to be understood for the communication to be meaningful.

Just because theism is a "thing" for most people, doesn't mean that it is even a possibility for all people. It's a concept that's based in individual awareness. Just because you and I have a concept of "theism" doesn't mean that "theism" exists for everyone.

Do you have a concept of theism? I'm not sure I do. Theism ends up relating to gods and gods are... slippery.

And for those for whom it does not exist, those people cannot be "without" what, for them, doesn't even exist in the first place.

This strikes me as nonsense. If something doesn't exist, it's *impossible* to be without it. The fact that we might not be aware of this fact is a separate issue.

Yes. I would say that. "Most" isn't a qualifier here. "God-concept" is a general awareness of some deific concept, not a specific formulation of a particular mythological construct.

So you have "a general awareness of a deific concept"? By this concept of yours, which purported theists aren't actually theists? When you compare the "gods" they believe in against your god-concept, which ones does your god-concept allow you to say "they don't believe in a real god"?

Edit: as a sample case, take Mercury/Hermes vs. Gabriel/Jibreel. Both divine messengers, both with very similar attributes... similar to the point that any single "deific concept" would either accept them or reject them as a package deal. However, the Greeks and Romans maintained that their divine messenger was a god, but the Christians and Muslims hold as a point of doctrine that their divine messenger is absolutely NOT a god. So which group is wrong by your deific concept?

 

[McBell]

I don't know what that phrase means.

Post #373 is not made to advance my argument but to point at underlying causes of the disagreement.

That they think how they see things is the way it should be does not help either.

 

[Willamena]

That they think how they see things is the way it should be does not help either.

We all do.

 

[McBell]

We all do.

to one degree or another, yes.
which is usually not a problem.
However, when one starts denying the real world in favour of their ideal world, it can cause problems.