Animavore wrote: A baby has never made any decision or definined themselves in any way.

So...

It has not decided to believe in god or gods, nor defined itself as a theist

So...

It is without belief in god or gods

So...

(Guess what.)

It is an atheist.

redwhine wrote:

Animavore wrote: A baby has never made any decision or definined themselves in any way.

So...

It has not decided to believe in god or gods, nor defined itself as a theist

So...

It is without belief in god or gods

So...

(Guess what.)

It is an atheist.

But then you might as well say onions, rocks and corpses and anything else which lacks the mental faculties with which to form concepts are also athesit.

Animavore wrote:

redwhine wrote:

Animavore wrote: A baby has never made any decision or definined themselves in any way.

So...

It has not decided to believe in god or gods, nor defined itself as a theist

So...

It is without belief in god or gods

So...

(Guess what.)

It is an atheist.

But then you might as well say onions, rocks and corpses and anything else which lacks the mental faculties with which to form concepts are also athesit.

Now you're getting it.

Anything and everything that is not theistic is atheistic.

redwhine wrote:

Animavore wrote:

redwhine wrote:

Animavore wrote: A baby has never made any decision or definined themselves in any way.

So...

It has not decided to believe in god or gods, nor defined itself as a theist

So...

It is without belief in god or gods

So...

(Guess what.)

It is an atheist.

But then you might as well say onions, rocks and corpses and anything else which lacks the mental faculties with which to form concepts are also athesit.

Now you're getting it.

Anything and everything that is not theistic is atheistic.

How can something which is incapable of concepts such gods be considered to be atheist in any meaningful way? A rock is a- anything with regards man-made concepts.

That's an interesting case, Ani, and it did give me a little pause for thought, but I'd still call a corpse atheist.

ETA: Would you generally refer to dead people in the past tense? Would you not say that he was a theist, as opposed to still being one?

Animavore wrote:How can something which is incapable of concepts such gods be considered to be atheist in any meaningful way? A rock is a- anything with regards man-made concepts.

I addressed this in detail above.

hackenslash wrote:That's an interesting case, Ani, and it did give me a little pause for thought, but I'd still call a corpse atheist.

ETA: Would you generally refer to dead people in the past tense? Would you not say that he was a theist, as opposed to still being one?

I'd refer to them in the past tense. Whatever they were that is all gone once the brain ceases. After that they're just inanimate meat.
Some theists might refer to them dead ones as if they're still there, looking over them or some junk. I guess a person who is "with God now" is still a theist in the eyes of a theist. Although I'm sure they'd still refer to the corpse itself in the past tense. According to them whoever that person was, they've moved on.

Animavore wrote:I'd refer to them in the past tense. Whatever they were that is all gone once the brain ceases.

Bingo! So they're no longer theist, then.

After that they're just inanimate meat.
Some theists might refer to them dead ones as if they're still there, looking over them or some junk. I guess a person who is "with God now" is still a theist in the eyes of a theist. Although I'm sure they'd still refer to the corpse itself in the past tense. According to them whoever that person was, they've moved on.

Well, it should be noted that theists think that the person carries on after the bag of mostly water has expired, so in their worldview, the person would still and always, in the present, be a theist (or an atheist), but we also know that they're talking bollocks in this regard.

hackenslash wrote:
Bingo! So they're no longer theist, then.

They're no longer anything.

hackenslash wrote:
Well, it should be noted that theists think that the person carries on after the bag of mostly water has expired, so in their worldview, the person would still and always, in the present, be a theist (or an atheist), but we also know that they're talking bollocks in this regard.

I'm not sure how someone can remain an atheist after death in a theistic worldview. In fact many of them think that when we die and we're getting ass-raped with hot-pokers we'll know for damn sure there is a God.

Animavore wrote:They're no longer anything.

It's a true dichotomy.

I'm not sure how someone can remain an atheist after death in a theistic worldview. In fact many of them think that when we die and we're getting ass-raped with hot-pokers we'll know for damn sure there is a God.

I've addressed that at length in the past. I've already stated categorically that, even were a deity to introduce himself to me in person, with unequivocal evidence that he were, in fact, a deity, I would remain an atheist. Of course, we'd be operating under one of the other definitions of atheism at this point, but the simple fact is that I have no deity, regardless of the existence of one. It isn't mine, and I'm not its.

Well again, this is what I think - the only utility in labelling a corpse or a rock an atheist is in discussions like this where we are basically just thrashing out technicalities for situations which I can't conceive of ever coming up outside of said discussions. Technically speaking both are atheist, but much like we don't go around making the specific point that rocks don't enjoy films in the romance genre, we don't go round making that specific point either. I personally only find utility in using the word 'atheist' to describe other human beings, by which I mean post-birth and pre-death members of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Fallible wrote:Well again, this is what I think - the only utility in labelling a corpse or a rock an atheist is in discussions like this where we are basically just thrashing out technicalities for situations which I can't conceive of ever coming up outside of said discussions. Technically speaking both are atheist, but much like we don't go around making the specific point that rocks don't enjoy films in the romance genre, we don't go round making that specific point either. I personally only find utility in using the word 'atheist' to describe other human beings, by which I mean post-birth and pre-death members of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Exactly, and beautifully put.

What I often wonder about in discussions such as this is the following scenario; In a world without theists, according to some, there would be no atheists because they could not possibly have entertained the concept of theism. However, if in that world one person came up with the idea of gods and no one else knew about it, or even if only their immediate close friends knew about it, would everyone else in that world immediately become atheists?

halucigenia wrote:What I often wonder about in discussions such as this is the following scenario; In a world without theists, according to some, there would be no atheists because they could not possibly have entertained the concept of theism. However, if in that world one person came up with the idea of gods and no one else knew about it, or even if only their immediate close friends knew about it, would everyone else in that world immediately become atheists?

No, those who suggest that, in world without theists, there would be no atheists are simply wrong. We wouldn't have a word for it prior to a conception of deity being formulated but the world would still be full of atheists.

Animavore wrote:

redwhine wrote:

Animavore wrote:

redwhine wrote:
So...

It has not decided to believe in god or gods, nor defined itself as a theist

So...

It is without belief in god or gods

So...

(Guess what.)

It is an atheist.

But then you might as well say onions, rocks and corpses and anything else which lacks the mental faculties with which to form concepts are also athesit.

Now you're getting it.

Anything and everything that is not theistic is atheistic.

How can something which is incapable of concepts such gods be considered to be atheist in any meaningful way? A rock is a- anything with regards man-made concepts.

I don't see why this is a problem. Describing something, anything, as lacking a particular quality does not require that it could have that quality.
It might be odd to describe something like a rock that way if there was no particular reason, but if somebody claimed a rock was a Christian rock it would be correct to answer that it's atheistic because it lacks the capability of being theistic.

A red car is not a blue car even if it does not know that it is not a blue car.

redwhine wrote:A red car is not a blue car even if it does not know that it is not a blue car.

You know what, mate? That might be one of the most elegant posts I've ever seen.

Bookmarking to pop in the appropriate thread when it isn't a pain in the arse to do so.

Fallible wrote:Well again, this is what I think - the only utility in labelling a corpse or a rock an atheist is in discussions like this where we are basically just thrashing out technicalities for situations which I can't conceive of ever coming up outside of said discussions. Technically speaking both are atheist, but much like we don't go around making the specific point that rocks don't enjoy films in the romance genre, we don't go round making that specific point either. I personally only find utility in using the word 'atheist' to describe other human beings, by which I mean post-birth and pre-death members of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Well if there are atheist rocks you can point out to theists that they are being out-witted by pebbles!

Babies are born with a blank slate so, there are neither believer, nor non-believer babies.

This makes babies typical zipper-heads, their parents or guardians unzip their little heads and pour in whatever they want them to believe.

Why? Because, they are afraid that if they wait until the child can reason then the idea may be rejected.

You can't be neither a believer nor a non-believer.

Secondly, that's decidedly not the way I brought up my own kid.