Atheism: What's the point?

[Canuck Utopia]

the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

Canuck apparently wants to rubbish the idea of 'atheist babies' without actually having to defend his/her assertions.

It's an intellectually bankrupt technique, and very poor debate practise.

I have obviously made some good points., or else you wouldn't be sharpening the sword.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have obviously made some good points., or else you wouldn't be sharpening the sword.

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

I think you maybe had the potential to be invovled in a worthwhile debate, and wasted it in petty insults, semantic quibbling asides, and evasion.

It's hard to judge whether you had good points, because you've hidden behind a screen of prevarication.

[Canuck Utopia]

the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

[Dyakovo]

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

And you'd continue to be wrong. The minimal requirement to be atheist is not to believe in gods.

You are trying to argue that white is black. My statement is correct.

Way to not pay attention

[Grave_n_idle]

Just to stop your constant trolling, this post best sums up my feeling on the matter. The link to the article is at the bottom.

The key component of that article:

It’s an awesome display of honesty; no child is born with a knowledge of God. At the same time, no child is born with Atheism as their philosophy–and all freethinkers must and do submit to this truth readily.

And the conclusion is rather explicit to the point that I have continually put forward:

So, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews and everyone in between (inlcuding me): how about we educate our babies instead of slapping them with labels. How about we broaden their perspective instead of boxing them into a worldview that worked for us, but may not work for them? Just a thought?

I think that should suffice.

Asking you to actually respond on the topics YOU'VE contributed to, is not trolling.

Asking you to defend your assertions, is not trolling.

You have stated that babies are not atheists. But you consistently refuse to answer the question about whether you - therefore - think they DO believe in god.

And, even in THIS post - you've still not answered the question.

The question 'do babies believe in gods' is NOT answered by '...no child is born with a knowledge of God'... because knowledge and belief are NOT the same thing. Neither is it answered by "...how about we educate our babies instead of slapping them with labels..." because I'm not ASKING you for a label - I'm asking you for a yes or no answer to a simple question.

This is just one more layer of evasion.

Now - answer the question - do babies believe in gods?

[Grave_n_idle]

the absurd suggestion that babies are born atheists.

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

And - label-free... do they believe in gods?

[The Tofu Islands]

Just to stop your constant trolling, this post best sums up my feeling on the matter. The link to the article is at the bottom.

The key component of that article:

It’s an awesome display of honesty; no child is born with a knowledge of God. At the same time, no child is born with Atheism as their philosophy–and all freethinkers must and do submit to this truth readily.

Would you be willing to concede that babies are implicit atheists?

[Dyakovo]

Fine. What ARE they born as then. How would you describe it, if not atheism ?

It is not theism, unless you wish to claim that babies believe in god(s).

It is not agnosticism either, unless you wish to claim that babies are able to reason at a high enough level to make statements about knowledge.

It is not atheism according to you.

Then what IS it ?

Canuck apparently wants to rubbish the idea of 'atheist babies' without actually having to defend his/her assertions.

It's an intellectually bankrupt technique, and very poor debate practise.

Just to stop your constant trolling, this post best sums up my feeling on the matter. The link to the article is at the bottom.

The key component of that article:

It’s an awesome display of honesty; no child is born with a knowledge of God. At the same time, no child is born with Atheism as their philosophy–and all freethinkers must and do submit to this truth readily.

And the conclusion is rather explicit to the point that I have continually put forward:

So, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews and everyone in between (inlcuding me): how about we educate our babies instead of slapping them with labels. How about we broaden their perspective instead of boxing them into a worldview that worked for us, but may not work for them? Just a thought?

I think that should suffice.

How about you answer the question put to you...

Do you think babies believe in a god or gods?

[The Alma Mater]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

Humour us. Attach a label anyway. You know, based on the properties the babies actually have.

[Luna Amore]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

So we shouldn't label babies at all? Don't label them male/female, or by their ethnicity, or height, or weight, or even as humans. Just Tabula Rasa. Oh wait, that's a label too.

[Canuck Utopia]

Just to stop your constant trolling, this post best sums up my feeling on the matter. The link to the article is at the bottom.

The key component of that article:

It’s an awesome display of honesty; no child is born with a knowledge of God. At the same time, no child is born with Atheism as their philosophy–and all freethinkers must and do submit to this truth readily.

Would you be willing to concede that babies are implicit atheists?

Absolutely not, because they aren't. I truly believe that an attempt to make everyone an atheist based on a new improved definition of atheism not only harms the atheist position but will likely result in a backlash against atheism. Look for more and more theists to push for prayer in school or increased theology lessons. Theists no more want to be called atheists than atheists want to be called Bible thumpers.

[Ifreann]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

So we shouldn't label babies at all? Don't label them male/female, or by their ethnicity, or height, or weight, or even as humans. Just Tabula Rasa. Oh wait, that's a label too.

Babies is a label too. We'll just have to refrain from talking about....you know.....them.

[The Tofu Islands]

Absolutely not, because they aren't. I truly believe that an attempt to make everyone an atheist based on a new improved definition of atheism not only harms the atheist position but will likely result in a backlash against atheism. Look for more and more theists to push for prayer in school or increased theology lessons. Theists no more want to be called atheists than atheists want to be called Bible thumpers.

I'm not calling theists atheists. I'm calling people who don't believe in gods atheists. This is known as the exact definition of the fucking word. Babies have no knowledge of gods, so they can't believe. Therefore they aren't theists. Therefore they are implicit atheists.

Anyway, I have to go for the night, I'm sure GnI will do fine without me.

[Canuck Utopia]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

So we shouldn't label babies at all? Don't label them male/female, or by their ethnicity, or height, or weight, or even as humans. Just Tabula Rasa. Oh wait, that's a label too.

I think you missed the point.

[Dyakovo]

[quote="The Tofu Islands"Would you be willing to concede that babies are implicit atheists?

Absolutely not, because they aren't. I truly believe that an attempt to make everyone an atheist based on a new improved definition of atheism not only harms the atheist position but will likely result in a backlash against atheism. Look for more and more theists to push for prayer in school or increased theology lessons. Theists no more want to be called atheists than atheists want to be called Bible thumpers.[/quote]
Again I'll ask you:

Do you think babies believe in a god or gods?

[Canuck Utopia]

Absolutely not, because they aren't. I truly believe that an attempt to make everyone an atheist based on a new improved definition of atheism not only harms the atheist position but will likely result in a backlash against atheism. Look for more and more theists to push for prayer in school or increased theology lessons. Theists no more want to be called atheists than atheists want to be called Bible thumpers.

I'm not calling theists atheists. I'm calling people who don't believe in gods atheists. This is known as the exact definition of the fucking word. Babies have no knowledge of gods, so they can't believe. Therefore they aren't theists. Therefore they are implicit atheists.

Anyway, I have to go for the night, I'm sure GnI will do fine without me.

You can call them want you want, but most people will not agree with you.

Expanding or changing the definition of atheist to include everyone on earth is a poor attempt to increase the flock.

[Luna Amore]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

So we shouldn't label babies at all? Don't label them male/female, or by their ethnicity, or height, or weight, or even as humans. Just Tabula Rasa. Oh wait, that's a label too.

Babies is a label too. We'll just have to refrain from talking about....you know.....them.

They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Labeled should do quite nicely.

[Grave_n_idle]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

So we shouldn't label babies at all? Don't label them male/female, or by their ethnicity, or height, or weight, or even as humans. Just Tabula Rasa. Oh wait, that's a label too.

I think you missed the point.

Oh, the irony.

See - you're so desperate to avoid having to accept the 'Implicit Atheist' label, that you're missing the point.

Semantically, if you manage to convince enough people that 'Implicit Atheism' doesn't belong in the Atheism bracket - that's cool. It'll end up somewhere else - but it will STILL be 'people that do not believe in gods'.

And that means, babies will STILL be... whatever it is you call that... until someone provides an actual argument for babies believing in gods.

[Luna Amore]

They are born babies free from whatever labels you or I would slap on them.

So we shouldn't label babies at all? Don't label them male/female, or by their ethnicity, or height, or weight, or even as humans. Just Tabula Rasa. Oh wait, that's a label too.

I think you missed the point.

Oh really? Was the point that you arbitrarily picked a label that we shouldn't attach to babies ignoring all the other labels we attach to babies?

[Luna Amore]

Expanding or changing the definition of atheist to include everyone on earth is a poor attempt to increase the flock.

It has nothing to do with 'increasing the flock.' It's about accurate definitions.

[Ifreann]

Absolutely not, because they aren't. I truly believe that an attempt to make everyone an atheist based on a new improved definition of atheism not only harms the atheist position but will likely result in a backlash against atheism. Look for more and more theists to push for prayer in school or increased theology lessons. Theists no more want to be called atheists than atheists want to be called Bible thumpers.

I'm not calling theists atheists. I'm calling people who don't believe in gods atheists. This is known as the exact definition of the fucking word. Babies have no knowledge of gods, so they can't believe. Therefore they aren't theists. Therefore they are implicit atheists.

Anyway, I have to go for the night, I'm sure GnI will do fine without me.

You can call them want you want, but most people will not agree with you.

Expanding or changing the definition of atheist to include everyone on earth is a poor attempt to increase the flock.

Unless you think everyone on Earth is a baby then you're full of shit.

[Grave_n_idle]

...not only harms the atheist position but will likely result in a backlash against atheism...

Had to pick this one up...

Seriously?

Have you even VISITED reality, lately?

Atheists ARE the monority!

Yes, we're a little stronger and more vocal in this generation, but it's fairly recent that our 'belief' structure was considered somewhere between 'wickedness' and actual CRIME.

The history of... well, history has been a 'backlash against Atheism'. Backlash is about the last thing we're worried about.

[Grave_n_idle]

is a poor attempt to increase the flock.

Another one I had to pick up...

Atheists are under some obligation to recruit. We don't need to 'increase the flock'.

The interesting thing, then - is that our segment is actually one of the fastest growing demographics. Not because we're recruiting. Not because we evangelise. No - just because people are turning away from religions - and that's all it takes for Atheism to increase.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Are you still fighting over the definition of atheism and who is considered one? Yeesh, I thought we were finally over that. Oh and Canuck Utopia, stop saying things that make you look stupid. It doesn't serve your cause.

[Domici]

Atheists get free cookies.

Um. No Catholics get free cookies. Granted, they're awful cookies, and after you eat one the phrase "melts in your mouth" ceases to be an inducement. But they are free. All you have to offer in exchange for them is your soul, which if you're an atheist... OH! I get it!