dont even talk about no babies and any god what god is awesome and powers christian is better than dumb atheist fuck atheist and christ is savior. also. god bless also. christs is persecuted and.
You're right. A baby can't have a belief in a god. But that is the exact description of an atheist. A person that do not have a theistic believe.
So babies are in fact atheists.
Animals are atheists.
Christians are atheists.
Christians dont believe in Poseidon, Thor, or Zeus or any of the other 15000 gods people have belived in through times. For some irrational deluted reason they choose to hold on to one of them though.
When you are born, you have no beliefs. It is your parents, culture and experiences that enable you to form beliefs. That is why many people are against Baptising babies, you're effectively pushing a belief system onto them before they have a chance to decide for themselves what they want to believe in. The word 'Atheist' means without belief in a deity of deities. Since a baby has no beliefs to begin with, they are by definition, atheists.
@YodaLN A: I am not religious, so therefore I don't understand why you phrased it this way, and B: I agree that it would be the only sufficient way to determine if the case could be made that the "default" position was atheism. As it stands, however, we haven't any of those studies, and since we don't, we make assumptions. We atheists claim that we require evidence for claims that can't, or haven't been proven, yet it's ok to jump to assumption when we feel like it?
@YodaLN A: I am not religious, so therefore I don't understand why you phrased it this way, and B: I agree that it would be the only sufficient way to determine if the case could be made that the "default" position was atheism. As it stands, however, we haven't any of those studies, and since we don't, we make assumptions. We atheists claim that we require evidence for claims that can't, or haven't been proven, yet it's ok to jump to assumption when we feel like it? I simply think it is in error
The fact that most people are theists is just the fact most people are theists. The Term 'Atheism' is just a simple applying the latin useage of 'A' to 'Theism' to describe something that is 'without'. Thus a Baby would be an Atheist since it is without Theism. The fact remains a persons initial faith is dependent on their culture. A baby of Hindu parents does not become a Catholic on their own. Each begins as a blank slate (without Theism) and thus is, by definition, an Atheist.
A lot of what you're talking about is a misappropriation of Theory of Mind to the universe at large in order to give people some sense of control over, and understanding of, their environment. This is likely what brought man invent deities back in the day.
That said, if you raise a person in a modern, technological society without ever introducing them to the concept of God/gods, I think it's unlikely such a person would ever invent the idea.
@bowlsallbroken I am not saying it is likely or unlikely. However, there isn't enough evidence one way or the other to determine it, and as such, any assertions made to the "truth" of any claim otherwise is unfounded. I don't think it is wise for we non-believers to go throwing around things that are assumed rather than proven. That's all I was saying.
@ThePunkReturns I would say as there are atheistic religions, the case for atheism as the default is pretty strong. Belief systems are taught. We do not start life with strong beliefs either way, just (usually) an urge to understand and question. I believe we have an evolved 'gullibility' when young to believe what we are told by elders, which usually helps protect us from harm in some cases, but has the rather nasty side-effect of indoctrination.
@neilswann80 as human beings, we use our language to implicitly illustrate what is normal and abnormal (even the words normal and abnormal illustrate this). Sure asexual reproduction came first, but it is "abnormal" to us. Thus the concept of sexual reproduction takes the "default" linguistic position, because the concept of sexual reproduction was understood first.
There is a divide between concept and reality. We may understand the concept of sexuality first, but that says nothing of the fact that asexuality existed before sexuality. This is because what is normal to us is also abnormal for other species on this planet, and visa versa. So the order of concepts in reality is non-existent; only the order of real things. Therefore we cannot say that atheism is not the default position in reality, for conceptual reasons, because of this.
ThePunkReturns: The point whether Atheism is the default position or not is really only about determining the most rational position to hold. If Atheism is the default position, the burden of proof lies with theists and their claims are irrational without evidence.
1) Babies are atheists for the same reason you acknowledge. You admit that babies would be nonbelievers, and atheism is simply nonbelief in a god. If a baby grows up and never gets indoctrinated by a religious dogma, they preserved their nonbelief without actively doing so, whereas adding religious beliefs would be actively changing their position from the default.
2) Default position matters in showing that religious beliefs are completely learned, not innate.
I guess it depends on your definition of Atheism, it's been defined many ways. The original meaning of theist and atheist was 'with god' and 'without god' respectively. Much the same as sexual and asexual reproduction is 'with sex' and 'without sex' respectively.
The latter in both cases implies everything other than the former. So Atheism would cover both people who reject the god concept as well as a person who has never heard/thought of the god concept.
1:45 in and i have to stop watching because you obviously don't understand the term "atheist" (you know what the word means but you don't understand it)
@LogicalStatements1 ...and you are obviously not understanding that he *completely* understands your simplistic definition, but disagrees with it. All you're doing is begging the question about the entire issue. So much for the veracity of your name.
The 'babies are atheists' argument/statement is precisely why I personally see a problem in the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism. From what I've gathered from many atheists overtime is they are atheists because they see a lack of evidence for the existence of gods and say, "I do not believe in any gods." And if that's the case, then I would argue that the definition of atheism should reflect that more than a literal 'lack of belief.' I mean....
Con't. I know that if one honestly thinks about it, defining atheism as 'a rejection of theism based on a lack of evidence' might take away that default position and imply a burden of explaining how there's a lack of evidence due to the 'can't prove god does/doesn't exist' dilemma, but explaining a lack of evidence means more dialogue and enlightenment. Besides, theists would still have the burden of explaining their 'abundance of evidence'.
dont even talk about no babies and any god what god is awesome and powers christian is better than dumb atheist fuck atheist and christ is savior. also. god bless also. christs is persecuted and.
RandomDrone79 4 days ago
You're right. A baby can't have a belief in a god. But that is the exact description of an atheist. A person that do not have a theistic believe.
So babies are in fact atheists.
Animals are atheists.
Christians are atheists.
Christians dont believe in Poseidon, Thor, or Zeus or any of the other 15000 gods people have belived in through times. For some irrational deluted reason they choose to hold on to one of them though.
soskid 6 months ago 2
When you are born, you have no beliefs. It is your parents, culture and experiences that enable you to form beliefs. That is why many people are against Baptising babies, you're effectively pushing a belief system onto them before they have a chance to decide for themselves what they want to believe in. The word 'Atheist' means without belief in a deity of deities. Since a baby has no beliefs to begin with, they are by definition, atheists.
themongru 6 months ago
@YodaLN A: I am not religious, so therefore I don't understand why you phrased it this way, and B: I agree that it would be the only sufficient way to determine if the case could be made that the "default" position was atheism. As it stands, however, we haven't any of those studies, and since we don't, we make assumptions. We atheists claim that we require evidence for claims that can't, or haven't been proven, yet it's ok to jump to assumption when we feel like it?
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
@YodaLN A: I am not religious, so therefore I don't understand why you phrased it this way, and B: I agree that it would be the only sufficient way to determine if the case could be made that the "default" position was atheism. As it stands, however, we haven't any of those studies, and since we don't, we make assumptions. We atheists claim that we require evidence for claims that can't, or haven't been proven, yet it's ok to jump to assumption when we feel like it? I simply think it is in error
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
Respond to this video...
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
Find me one atheist that claims that most people are not theists. I'll wait.
AintLifeSwell 7 months ago
The fact that most people are theists is just the fact most people are theists. The Term 'Atheism' is just a simple applying the latin useage of 'A' to 'Theism' to describe something that is 'without'. Thus a Baby would be an Atheist since it is without Theism. The fact remains a persons initial faith is dependent on their culture. A baby of Hindu parents does not become a Catholic on their own. Each begins as a blank slate (without Theism) and thus is, by definition, an Atheist.
VeritasLiber 7 months ago
@VeritasLiber The ONLY reason Theists are against this notion is because you don't like the word. In your own words, "Deal with it".
VeritasLiber 7 months ago
@VeritasLiber not a theist. Watch the response
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
A lot of what you're talking about is a misappropriation of Theory of Mind to the universe at large in order to give people some sense of control over, and understanding of, their environment. This is likely what brought man invent deities back in the day.
That said, if you raise a person in a modern, technological society without ever introducing them to the concept of God/gods, I think it's unlikely such a person would ever invent the idea.
bowlsallbroken 7 months ago 2
@bowlsallbroken I am not saying it is likely or unlikely. However, there isn't enough evidence one way or the other to determine it, and as such, any assertions made to the "truth" of any claim otherwise is unfounded. I don't think it is wise for we non-believers to go throwing around things that are assumed rather than proven. That's all I was saying.
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
@ThePunkReturns I would say as there are atheistic religions, the case for atheism as the default is pretty strong. Belief systems are taught. We do not start life with strong beliefs either way, just (usually) an urge to understand and question. I believe we have an evolved 'gullibility' when young to believe what we are told by elders, which usually helps protect us from harm in some cases, but has the rather nasty side-effect of indoctrination.
neilswann80 6 months ago
And you argument about the word 'Atheism' itself implying Theism is default is just absurd.
That's like saying Sexual reproduction must have came before Asexual because the latter word refers to the former.
neilswann80 7 months ago 2
@neilswann80 as human beings, we use our language to implicitly illustrate what is normal and abnormal (even the words normal and abnormal illustrate this). Sure asexual reproduction came first, but it is "abnormal" to us. Thus the concept of sexual reproduction takes the "default" linguistic position, because the concept of sexual reproduction was understood first.
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
@ThePunkReturns Default linguistic position yes, that's obvious. But as a philosophical or even rational position, then definitely not.
neilswann80 6 months ago
There is a divide between concept and reality. We may understand the concept of sexuality first, but that says nothing of the fact that asexuality existed before sexuality. This is because what is normal to us is also abnormal for other species on this planet, and visa versa. So the order of concepts in reality is non-existent; only the order of real things. Therefore we cannot say that atheism is not the default position in reality, for conceptual reasons, because of this.
Enkarashaddam 6 months ago
ThePunkReturns: The point whether Atheism is the default position or not is really only about determining the most rational position to hold. If Atheism is the default position, the burden of proof lies with theists and their claims are irrational without evidence.
neilswann80 7 months ago
@neilswann80 The burden of proof lies on them anyway.
ThePunkReturns 7 months ago
@ThePunkReturns Burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim.
Theist are the ones that claim a god exists, atheists simply demand evidence that support such extraodinary claim.
aabcehac 6 months ago
@ThePunkReturns
1) Babies are atheists for the same reason you acknowledge. You admit that babies would be nonbelievers, and atheism is simply nonbelief in a god. If a baby grows up and never gets indoctrinated by a religious dogma, they preserved their nonbelief without actively doing so, whereas adding religious beliefs would be actively changing their position from the default.
2) Default position matters in showing that religious beliefs are completely learned, not innate.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
Comment removed
neilswann80 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Babies do not believe that a god exists
Yahweigh 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you believe that babies are born with knowledge & beliefs?
If not then atheism IS the default.
(and why are you ashamed of your baldness?)
slamdrump 7 months ago
I guess it depends on your definition of Atheism, it's been defined many ways. The original meaning of theist and atheist was 'with god' and 'without god' respectively. Much the same as sexual and asexual reproduction is 'with sex' and 'without sex' respectively.
The latter in both cases implies everything other than the former. So Atheism would cover both people who reject the god concept as well as a person who has never heard/thought of the god concept.
neilswann80 7 months ago
1:45 in and i have to stop watching because you obviously don't understand the term "atheist" (you know what the word means but you don't understand it)
LogicalStatements1 7 months ago
@LogicalStatements1 ...and you are obviously not understanding that he *completely* understands your simplistic definition, but disagrees with it. All you're doing is begging the question about the entire issue. So much for the veracity of your name.
Wyglyph 7 months ago
@LogicalStatements1
I think he understands. He just doesn't buy the atheist propaganda about the definition of atheist.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
@owheydusoapsk nah he does not understand it.
He is retarded.
LogicalStatements1 7 months ago
what is a baby if it is not a theist nor an atheist?
when that baby grows up and becomes either an atheist or a theist, what was that person the day before that happened?
vesman81 7 months ago
I refute you! I was an atheist baby. And nothing - no evidence, no argument - ever pulled me away from atheism.
indignant99 7 months ago
Great addition to the conversation!
JasperAvi 7 months ago
Agreed.
Wyglyph 7 months ago
The 'babies are atheists' argument/statement is precisely why I personally see a problem in the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism. From what I've gathered from many atheists overtime is they are atheists because they see a lack of evidence for the existence of gods and say, "I do not believe in any gods." And if that's the case, then I would argue that the definition of atheism should reflect that more than a literal 'lack of belief.' I mean....
TheNeocatZone 7 months ago
Con't. I know that if one honestly thinks about it, defining atheism as 'a rejection of theism based on a lack of evidence' might take away that default position and imply a burden of explaining how there's a lack of evidence due to the 'can't prove god does/doesn't exist' dilemma, but explaining a lack of evidence means more dialogue and enlightenment. Besides, theists would still have the burden of explaining their 'abundance of evidence'.
TheNeocatZone 7 months ago