Are Babies Atheists?

[arwalden]

They are, after all, without a belief in deities. They're pretty much on auto-pilot (eat, sleep, poop, eat, sleep, poop) and they lack the cognitive ability to reason or conceptualize or understand the concept of religion or deities.

Are atheists atheists because they simply have no belief in deities, or are they atheists because they intellectually "reject" belief in deities? The word "atheist" simply means "without belief in deities", so wouldn't a baby fall under that description too?

Do we just automatically assume that a baby is a "Christian" (or any other religion) just because the parents are of a certain religion?

If someone thinks that the above question is true, does that also mean that the child of atheist parents should be considered to be an atheist by sole virtue of the fact that the parents do not believe in deities?

[FSogol]

1. Yes, that's why Christian parents have their babies Baptized.

And why unbaptized babies go to Limbo instead of Heaven.

[Iris]

4. I think limbo is a Catholic thing.

Not something all Christians believe in. And it may have even been debunked by the Catholic Church as well.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I really like how so many christians

in so many instances just toss something off as being a "Catholic thing." Like that isn't even christianity. It WAS the main sect of christianity and probably still is by sheer numbers.

And you are correct that the Catholic dogma no longer preachers limbo. Though I think "debunked" is far to generous of a term.

[Iris]

50. I'm not saying Catholics aren't Christian.

Believe me, though, I know what you're talking about - I grew up Catholic in a Baptist-run town in the Bible Belt. And the whole thing about the baptism is that the people who would SAY Catholics aren't Christians are typically from churches that do NOT baptize infants.

[Goblinmonger]

61. Sorry if I jumped on you

yours was about the 5th post today that I read in which someone just tossed off Catholics like they aren't really Christians. I see that wasn't your motive and I apologize. Sometimes my arguments with people in here spill over to others that do not believe the same thing.

I grew up Catholic but it was in a heavy catholic area. I was in a small town in North Dakota with about 500 people, and up until a couple years before I was born, they had two catholic churches.

[Iris]

62. No problem! I was fairly vague in my original post!

[Dervill Crow]

199. Whoops, I think I might have done that today on another thread.

Although there definitely is anti-Catholic sentiment among a lot of fundamentalists, for me at least it's just that catholicism seems a lot more complicated.

Catholicism is to Christianity as
British Traditional Witchcraft is to Paganism.

Too bad people focus on differences instead of what we have in common.

I was remarking on the other thread (where someone raised in the catholic church had said there is a lot of symbolism, some of it predating Christianity) that my husband is fine with my altar in our family room, but he was always uncomfortable going into an evangelical church with me back in my born-again Republican days. (Thank gods THAT was just a phase.)

[fiddlestix]

5. This reminds me of something my SIL told me...

She used to be a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit nurse, maybe 20 years ago, when many more of the little tiny babies died.....and she was a devoud Roman Catholic & she baptized the ones she took care of, without telling anyone, without asking the parents for permission...

She beleived that all babies that died unbaptized did not go to Heaven.

She is no longer a working nurse...but she's still a bit unhinged....

[sui generis]

17. wow, get one itty bitty rule wrong and that's yo ass

color me atheistic, just another reason. My sense of morality questions god-fearing.

[FuzzyDicePHL]

22. OMG

That's horrifying. Talk about imposing your beliefs on somebody else! Sick.

[Iris]

52. what would it hurt?

The poor woman was obviously trying to do what she thought was best. If there is no heaven/hell/purgatory God Jesus Mary or whatever then so what if she did the sign of the cross on an infant?

[FuzzyDicePHL]

147. Perhaps

the Hindu/Jewish/Atheist/Muslim parents of the baby would have a problem with it. I know I sure would.

The reason I think it's sick is b/c she was in a position that carried a lot of trust. Behaving outside the boundaries of what she was paid to be there for simply because *she* thought it was best, especially in such an insidious way, is psychopathic IMO.

[Iris]

164. Well, if I were the Hindu/Jewish/Atheist/Muslim parent, I wouldn't care.

Because if it wasn't something I believed in, it wouldn't have mattered at all.

It'd be different if this was a child who could communicate. But, jeez, if a Hindu performed a ritual for my baby b/c he was afraid it was going to die, I think I could accept it in the spirit with which it was intended.

[Goblinmonger]

40. According to Catholic dogma

unbaptized babies go to purgatory. They do not go to heaven. Please explain why that interpretation of god mythology is more flawed than your own.

[rug]

68. That's not dogma.

You're referring to limbo, a medieval postulate that never became dogma.

Purgatory is for those above the age of reason.

[Goblinmonger]

78. St Augustine

said that unbaptized infants suffer the same fate as the damned but that it is the least of the punishments.

There is a movement back toward Limbo.

[rug]

81. It never became dogma. It was and is an inept hypothesis.

The trend now for theologians is to throw up their hands and leave the fate of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God.

The story about St. Thomas Aquinas is that during Mass he had a vision of heaven and never wrote again explaining that all he wrote was dust.

The problem with theology is that it tries to measure the infinite.

[Goblinmonger]

82. You are probably right

I am in the middle of a discussion with someone about apostacy landing you in hell (he disagrees) so I am not on top of the limbo bit right now. I spent 4 years in a catholic seminary, but it has been a while to remember the fine points of limbo theory.

[rug]

83. That's pretty interesting.

Must have been tough to decide to join and tough to decide to leave.

I'm turning in. Catch you later.

[Inland]

46. Limbo's out.

It was never officially in, but now it's offically out per catholic church.

[qazplm]

2. I'd think they were agnostic

I tend to think an atheist is someone who has an active disbelief, while an agnostic is someone who has no active belief. Being an agnostic, I dont believe or disbelieve in the concept of God, I just dont know.

I'd say that babies are the same.

But you will get a neverending debate on this as atheists often hate the distinguishing between agnostics and atheists, while agnostics think it very important and clear.

[A HERETIC I AM]

170. "Atheists often hate the distinguishing between agnostice and atheists?

As an Atheist i disagree. I simply have no gods. I am A-THeos "Without gods"

An A-Gnostic is one who has no knowledge (Gnosis = knowledge) and/or feels that "god" is an unknowable or unprovable concept and therefore is unconvinced either way.

I do not mean to define your or anyones particular point of view for you but merely mean to define the terms properly. As far as having "An active disbelief" i am disturbed by that characterization. I have no more of an active disbelief in god than you have an active disbelief that there is a puffy, pink marshmallow in the shape of a toaster in orbit around Mars.

The OP'r said that the term Atheist means "Without belief in dieties". That is certainly not the accurate definition of the term and as far as the case for me, i am compelled to say i KNOW god is a mythical construct and give the idea no more merit than Unicorns, Leprechauns and Faeries.

[jrw14125]

3. of course, why else start the brainwashing at such an early age?

[Richard D]

6. No they are not atheists . . .

. . . nor are they religious. Atheism is a belief system as are other religions. Babies don't have belief systems in place yet. They just are.

[arwalden]

11. I Don't Follow Your Logic...How Is Having No Belief, A "Belief-System"?

Where's the "system"?

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. Some types of atheism ARE a belief system

I say this as an atheist myself.

So-called "strong atheism" makes the assertion, "There is no God." That is as much a theological position as the assertion, "There is (at least) a God." An argument could be made that, as a theological position, strong atheism is as much a belief system as most varieties of theism.

This is distinct from so-called "weak atheism," which asserts, "I know of no objective evidence concluding that there is (at least) a God." Rather than making a categorical statement, weak atheism makes an observation and leaves any conclusions as a personal matter.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Most aren't.

I say this as an atheist who has no "atheist belief system".

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. If you take no theological position, then it is not a belief system

If you express atheism as a theological position, then it is a belief system. That is the point I was making.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Make up your mind about what I believe.

First you say it's not a theological position, then you say it is.

If you take no theological position, then it is not a belief system

If you have reflected on your lack of theist beliefs and nonetheless continued with that lack of belief, then I would consider your atheism to be a theological or philosophical system

[TechBear_Seattle]

119. I say nothing about what you believe

I am only expressing my opinions on atheism. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want :hi:

You will notice that I use two different categories in the two different posts: a) theological position and b) theological or philosophical system. I was not precise in specifying the differences so I will do so now. I use "theological position" to mean an assertion of fact as to the existence or non-existence of one or more specified supernatural entity/entities. I use "theological or philosophical system" to mean the set of beliefs and values upon which a person consciously bases his actions, behaviors and interactions. I use "belief system" as a synonym for "theological or philosophical system."

I was in error when I wrote, "If you take no theological position, then it is not a belief system." There are many belief systems that have no theological positions. What I was trying to do was show that a theological position implies a belief system while the absense of a theological position does not necessarily imply a belief system. (I think I've got it right this time. It's what I get for posting from work.)

I will continue to assert that for a person to hold to a belief system, there must be genuine reflection on that system and a conscious decision to adhere to it. I do not see how anyone who is unable -- or unwilling -- to reflect on a belief system's beliefs and values and make a conscious decision to adhere to it can be said to hold to a belief system. The lack of belief in god(s) does not, itself, make a belief system. An infant who is unable to formulate any beliefs at all can not hold a belief system, any more than an infant who is unable to hold a gun can be a pacifist. I will continue that line of thinking in the relevant place in this thread.

[sui generis]

12. atheism is NOT a belief system

it is the rejection of deistic beliefs in favor of rationality.

But you're right, babies are the Tao of Poop.

[Inland]

49. That's a belief system.

The "in favor of rationality" part. One, because it's not part of the defintion, two, because "rationality" is a belief system.

The arguments that atheism is not a belief rely on the definition of atheism as an absense of belief. Add anything else and you've got a system.

[arwalden]

70. Earthworms are without belief in deities too. They are a-theists.

Explain that belief "system" to me.

My fountain pen is without a belief in deities. It is without theism. It is an a-theist. Does it also have this "belief-system" that you speak of?

[Inland]

72. "it is the rejection of deistic beliefs in favor of rationality"

That's what he said. If your fountain pen ascribes to "rationality", then it has a belief system.

I agreed with your definition. I don't think that anyone can state, by assumption or definition, that an atheist does not believe in a deity for anyu particular reason or out of any particular conviction, or for any reason or any conviction at all. It is a state of non belief. I just don't think it makes sense to talk about pens and babies and the brain dead in that manner in the first place.

[sui generis]

105. it's not faith

if that's what you're driving at.

Generally people who try to associate "Atheism" with a form of faith have a harmful agenda.

Atheism in and of itself doesn't require declaring oneself to be an atheist or to not have beliefs.

I can't believe in something that there is no proof of - that doesn't mean I have a system of belief about lack of proof. That's called science, not faith, unless we want to go so far as to qualify science as a system of belief.

Can't buy into that definition - it's nonsensical.

[Inland]

186. It's a system of belief, sure.

Adhering to science, or ruling out what isn't scientifically proven, is a belief system. It might not be "faith", but it's a belief system. The scientific method is a belief system.

It's more than a little troubling to see the extent that some atheists go to distinguish themselves from the religious in terms of "belief". One doesn't have to stretch very far to read many of these posts as "I don't believe in anything". It's hardly worth the effort to point out that if there's one thing that really scares middle america, religious or not, it's a party populated by people who "don't believe in anything." It's really the smallest of the examples of the tin ear politically in the religion and theology forum.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Tell me about this system

What is systematic about it? Does not believing in ghosts count as a system too? How about Bigfoot?

On edit: or tell arwalden. Obviously many atheists need to know what 'system' we've been following all these years without realising it.

[manic expression]

27. Sure thing

it encompasses the viewpoints which reject the thought of divinity. That is a "system", even if it is minimally so. If you do not like to use "belief" (like many people here), fine, but atheism still constitutes a way (system) of looking at the world.

Also, if you want to call someone a Bigfoot believer, there are certain beliefs that go along with that; if you want to call someone a non-Bigfoot believer (someone who does not think Bigfoot exists), there are certain beliefs that go along with that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. You haven't convinced me in the slightest

A system involves separate elements that work together in a particular way. Just because several people don't believe in gods, that doesn't mean they form a system. There's one opinion/belief/conclusion: an atheist doesn't believe in gods. Atheists don't have anything more than that in common, and their other opinions do not relate to that in any one single way. Therefore atheism is not a 'belief system'.

[manic expression]

53. That common conclusion

is the point. That constitutes a belief system, even if it is minimal. Atheists would generally agree on one very important point, a point that distinguishes that group entirely. Moreover, a "belief system" does not have to involve an x-number of elements, as long as it has a common outlook and conclusion on a certain subject. Atheism meets this definition.

Other opinions do not enter into the equation. Just as you can find religious people up and down any political spectrum, atheism does not define any other opinion of a person.

Also:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. I think you're abusing the meaning of the word 'system'

It has to have more than one part. The 'sy' comes from the Greek 'syn'. See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/system

[manic expression]

64. Maybe not

I would say a belief system is:

If you believe x, then you are y.

Is that unreasonable?

Another thing is that I think atheists would be able to generally agree on more than just one thing.

Also, the definition of system is more general than that:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=system

[sui generis]

106. awareness of divinity is an artifact of faith

you can't reject what you're not aware of, so it doesn't constitute "faith".

Anyway, it is actually bordering on offensive to try to convince people who reject what they perceive as irrationality that they're being irrational.

[manic expression]

139. Where

did I equate certain beliefs with "irrationality"? I didn't. Beliefs can be rational, and can be correct. All I am saying is that atheists do have certain beliefs on the subject of divinity. Irrationality or rationality doesn't enter into the equation.

Actually, I equated atheists with people who didn't believe in Bigfoot in my comparison, which is the opposite of insulting. The point of that was that people who don't believe Bigfoot exists still have beliefs about the concept of Bigfoot. That's all it really is.

[sui generis]

148. absolutely rationality figures into atheistic thinking

I am an atheist and am qualified to make that claim.

"irrationality" shouldn't be taken in its negative social context, or as insulting - just means a conclusion that cannot be reached through logical ratiocination.

I cannot conclude based on the evidence around me that there is a god, in your hypothesis or belief. So your belief is "irrational" to me. Not trying to be insulting or snide at all. Even understanding the lore of christianity, there are enough discrepancies and enough lack of clarity for me to doubt the bible and doubt the people who claim to have a personal relationship with god even if I somehow found myself believing in god.

I value rationality over irrationality because that's a fundamental tenet of my psyche. I can talk about scholarly concepts of god and theism and therefore frame a concept of what other people are generally held to believe without having the tiniest shred of "belief" in theism.

Having a belief about a concept is tying your brain in knots - it's not clear axiomatic thinking and is certainly not proof that atheism is a "belief". The absence of a belief in the absence of believers defies categorization until you have enough believers who require that as a category.

It's perfectly clear to me!

[manic expression]

150. Someone

who believes the Earth is round is thinking rationally. Someone who believes that evolution is a fact is thinking rationally.

Irrationality is not to be thrown around so lightly. If you do not agree with someone else's conclusions, that does not make them irrational. Furthermore, many religious people base their conclusions off of rational thinking, just as you do.

You conclude differently from me, and we are using the same evidence. Your belief is not "irrational", because you did not use irrational thinking to reach your conclusion. I find quite a bit of discrepancies and a lack of clarity in the Bible, in addition to disagreeing with the philosophy and mindset, and that is why I'm not a Christian, so that point doesn't really apply to me.

Let's be clear: no one has a monopoly on rationality. Religion can and does have logic and rational thought behind it.

I would like to make one point that you may find interesting. When Christianity was gaining momentum in the late Roman Empire, the polytheists' greatest concern was that the Christians shunned logic and truth as a matter of principle, and refused to engage in intelligent discussion. The polytheists thought the Christians relied solely on faith, and had no rational thinking. You may want to remember that the polytheists included the Greek philosophies, perhaps the most logical schools of thought in the Western world. That argument is almost identical to your own, so I think that the type of belief is the problem, not religious belief itself.

Back to the point. Atheism does have certain beliefs on the subject of divinity. I refer you to my first paragraph.

[sui generis]

152. I don't care about or believe in divinity

that's YOUR topic, not mine. I have no beliefs on the subject at all. I have historical knowledge of other people's beliefs on the subject of divinity, just as I understand that Aztecs chopped the beating hearts out of their devoted subjects - but I have no "beliefs" on the subject of their religion or their version of "divinity" either.

I have opinions about it, certainly - but those aren't systematized or exclusive to atheists.

[manic expression]

154. However,

If you conclude that there is no divinity (as you have yourself said), then you must have made opinions and developed viewpoints on the concept. This constitutes certain beliefs on the subject, which is all I am saying.

Again, people believe that evolution is a fact. "Belief" itself does not undermine the validity of a viewpoint.

[arwalden]

157. The Way That Theists Use The Word "Belief" Usually Implies "Faith"

... that's based on little, no, unconvincing, or questionable "evidence".

I think you'll soon discover that when you attempt to ascribe that notion to atheists, you'll be met with resistance. You've already been told that this is insulting, yet you continue without regard to anyone but yourself. (I'm beginning to think that this is your intention and that you're doing it on purpose to entertain yourself and to see how much you can get away with.)

When I flip a light switch on, I don't "believe" the light will come on, I *know* the light will come on. Do you consider my confidence that the light will come on to be "faith", or is that "knowledge"?

I don't "believe" that evolution is a fact. I *know* that it's a fact.

It also seems to me that you want to blur the lines between "opinion" and "belief". You want to use the words interchangably... particularly when it comes to painting the atheist as someone who "believes" that a deity doesn't exist. Why? (As if I really needed to ask.)

[manic expression]

160. That is not

the way it is always used, nor is it the way all theists use it.

I discovered that a long time ago, but that resistance has consistently failed to make a real argument against my points, or at least be convincing in the slightest.

You do believe that the light will come on. The light does not have to come on, for there may be a power shortage, a broken bulb or many other circumstances. Therefore, one expects something to happen, but does not concretely know.

People who "know" evolution is a fact do believe that the concept is correct. The important thing is that those beliefs are proven and true (in addition to this, someone who knows evolution is a fact possesses beliefs on the subject of evolution). The line between belief and knowledge is non-existent in this situation, but in regards to divinity, it is very much present.

Opinions can lead to beliefs, which is what I was sometimes alluding to. Also, a belief is an opinion with more conviction, more resistance to change and modification and other differences. I would readily say that my beliefs could be described as opinions, only stronger. I sometimes used "opinion" to avoid complete repetition.

[arwalden]

163. You're Playing Games... A Juvenile Series Of Contradictions.

Clearly you're just ascribing random nebulous definitions to words that suit your needs at any given moment.

You definitely demonstrate that precise language skills are the enemy of the theist and something that should be avoided at all costs.

Do you also "believe" that 2+2=4? Do you "believe" that the earth is not flat?

This game you're playing is really tiresome and repetitive. You need a new shtick. I've had more stimulating conversations with my 12 year old niece.

[manic expression]

175. In the cases you mention,

there is ample evidence to prove these things true. In the realm of religion, that is not the case. However, I do believe 2+2=4, and I do believe the earth is not flat, but it just so happens that it is obvious and known that these are correct.

Denial must be tiresome.

[arwalden]

177. Clearly Words Mean Different Things In Your World...

... than they do for most everyone else. I prefer more precise language to the nebulous, fuzzy, imprecise language used by many theists.

<< Denial must be tiresome. >>

I wouldn't know about that. But I can tell you, with great deal of certainty and conviction, that this exchange with you certainly has been.

[manic expression]

181. I have been precise

while you have refused to answer my points or address the topic. Like I said, denial must be tiresome, and perhaps that is why this "discussion" seems tiring to you.

[arwalden]

183. You've Made No Points. You've Only Told Me That I Have A "Belief".

If you were to say "Hey, Allen... you like fried liver." I'd respond by telling you "No I don't."

Would you be satisfied with my answer? Or would you want something more? Would you demand arguments to help convince you that I don't like fried liver?

Would you continue to tell me that I actually "do" like fried liver? Would you continue to argue that I can't be telling you the truth because EVERYONE likes fried liver? Would you continue to imply that I'm lying to you because I deny liking fried liver?

Would you continue to play word games and trying to twist logic on its head by arguing that I only "believe I don't like liver"? :crazy: Or would you be more mature about it and simply take me at my word when I tell you that I don't like fried liver?

<< Like I said, denial must be tiresome, >>

See what I mean... repetition.


<< and perhaps that is why this "discussion" seems tiring to you. >>

Of all the idiotic arguments I've ever had with people on DU... this exchange with you certainly ranks among the top three. It's like I'm arguing with a child who cannot comprehend simple facts or concepts.

I'm done babysitting and spoon-feeding you.

You may now have the last word in THIS sub-thread too.

[manic expression]

184. No, and this

only further demonstrates how you do not grasp the issue at hand.

I have made points, and if you would be so kind as to scroll up and look at them, it might help our discussion (although I'm not holding my breath).

Using your comparison, I say that you have an opinion on fried liver, which is my point from the start. You are trying to say that Allen (as well as all those who have the same taste as Allen) has no opinion on fried liver whatsoever, which is obviously false.

I am repeating myself because none of my points have been addressed in any way. I am also repeating myself because you have been incapable of comprehending those same points. You only continue to make blind claims of denial without any support or logic. You have also tried to avoid the issue altogether, as your most recent post only shows even more.

I've been having the only word this entire discussion.

[salvorhardin]

188. There's a difference between having an opinion on something

And having a belief in something.

Atheists sometimes have opinions on the subject of belief in gods, but they do not have the belief.

[manic expression]

189. His/her comparison

not mine.

I would not disagree with you, but there is also a difference between having a belief IN something and having certain beliefs on the subject of something. The latter is what I am saying.

Would you agree that atheists have beliefs that have to do with the concept of divinity/deities?

[salvorhardin]

192. Stick the word 'some' in there

And I'd certainly agree.

Some atheists have beliefs about deities, but no atheist has a belief in any deity.

It's a more generalized form of what I was saying. A belief about belief is a type or class of belief. It is a metabelief.

I think this whole eternal argument in R&T is centered around a misunderstanding of sociology, as well as sloppy thinking (sometimes by both parties in the argument). Durkheim defined religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things. In sociology, the term 'sacred' is usually applied to objects that are beyond everyday experience that inspire a sense of awe, respect and fear. I do not believe that atheists as a whole have any sacred objects. Some atheists have supernaturalistic beleifs and might have sacred objects in relation to those beliefs, and may even have a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to those objects and in that instance those atheists might be said to have a religion, but atheism itself is not a religious belief and disbelief in religion is not religion.

[manic expression]

194. Well,

I agree that no atheist has a belief in any deity. However, if someone reaches a conclusion that something is x, s/he must form beliefs on the subject itself for that conclusion to be reached. Would you agree with that? Even if you substitute "beliefs" with "opinions", when a conclusion is formed and backed with conviction, those opinions become beliefs.

That's my reasoning, at least.

I would say that a "metabelief" would be a big part of it, but that would only apply to the beliefs an atheist would have on the beliefs theists hold. Again, that is a big aspect of the viewpoint, but I would venture further (this is the point of disagreement, in my view) and say that atheists do hold beliefs that pertain to the concept of a deity/divinity, but only on the concept and nothing more.

This problem may partly be due to definitions. Many people define religion as many things. For some, it must be organized; for others, it must include a deity; for others, it can simply be a philosophy. However, I would agree with your last sentence. In my view, atheism is not a religious belief, but a belief on the concept of divinity (and sometimes on religion itself). On whether it is a "religion" or not, it is certainly not dogmatic or anything like that, and it can't be considered a philosophy, either. I think that atheism can accurately be considered a way of looking at the world. Would you object to that?

[salvorhardin]

195. I'm afraid I would

You're all lumping together all atheists when you say that atheism is a worldview. It isn't. It's simply a lack of belief in at least one deity. To say that atheism is a worldview, or a philosophy, or a religion is to confound any individual atheist or group of atheists with all atheists.

Atheism in and of itself is not a worldview. It can't be. Let's look at this another way. Say you have the set of all beliefs B. Further, let's say there is the subset T (for theistic) consisting of all beliefs that posit the existence of at least one deity. Then by definition, the atheistic set A is B - T, the complement of the theistic set. So while the theistic set pins down one specific type of belief, the atheistic set says nothing about the beliefs contained therein.

Any individual atheist, or group of atheists, is free to choose their own set of beliefs from any belief that is not in T. What will they choose? Some atheists believe in astrology while others do not choose that belief. Some atheists believe that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are best when the bread is lightly toasted (the TPBJ belief) while others do not hold that belief. Some atheists hold the belief that religion is mental disorder. Still other atheists believe that religion is a quaint superstition. However, there is no unified set of beliefs held by all atheists. Thus atheism can not be a worldview. It is simply the lack of any theistic belief.

Can you enumerate any unified set of beliefs held by all atheists?

[manic expression]

200. I wouldn't totally disagree with you

as I said before, atheism cannot be considered a religion or a philosophy. When I say "worldview", it means more like a way of looking at one aspect of the world. A "specified worldview", if you will, the specific topic being divinity.

OK, I'll try to use your model. However, we seem to disagree from the start, because whereas you would catagorize atheists outside of any subset altogether, I would not. I would say that atheists could be considered within set B (all opinions/beliefs/thoughts on the concept of divinity), and perhaps in a subset of their own, which would have further specific groups (strong atheists, etc...). I get what you're saying, but when atheists conclude x, doesn't that qualify as something that would fall under set B (a "belief" on the concept of divinity)?

A unified "belief" held by all atheists is that they do not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that divinity exists. This general statement applies to all atheists, strong, weak or otherwise (I could be mistaken, but I don't think that statement is incorrect).

I hope I'm not getting repetitive, as I sometimes can become. I think all of your points are very valid and I agree with most of them.

[arwalden]

190. Save Yourself Some Trouble...

... you may as well be talking to an electric toaster. She uses the words "belief" and "knowledge" interchangeably. People who do that generally have an agenda that's pretty hostile to anyone who thinks differently than they do. That hostility from theists is certainly evident in this thread (among others).

Fuzzy language, fuzzy logic. There are no precise words in her world. Keep in mind that she only "believes" that 2+2=4. Even when someone tries to assure her that they really and truly do not have any "beliefs" about deities, she'll insist that they are lying and ask for more proof.

She wants to make a universal statement about atheist having "beliefs" on deities. Perhaps some do, but I'm one that doesn't. Therefore, her universal statement about ALL atheists is not true. And she refuses to accept that simple fact. She can't deal with reality. Her mind rejects it and she just denies the facts that stare her in the face.

[sui generis]

167. lack of evidence undermines validity of a viewpoint

so I suppose I'm agreeing.

Beliefs and conclusions upon observation of evidence are not the same thing at all.

I completely get that somebody can believe in an "idea", and that belief, by choice is irrational, and yet should be respected. I "believe" in the golden rule. I don't have a compelling scientific reason to do so, in fact if I quote game theory it could be said there are compelling reasons in the short term to control all resources, so I would conclude that I am being irrational in that belief.

However, believing that this guy did parlor tricks and walked on water and that we're supposed to burn gays and witches and people who eat shrimp, or conversely that we're supposed to cherry pick scripture, or worse that WE and not somebody else are the "chosen" people, or that anybody is "chosen" - all of that is crossing from irrationality into heeby geeby for me.

I recognize and respect other people's choices about their beliefs until they try to legislate their beliefs into my life, and that's where I draw the line. There is zero amount of religion in any form that should be tolerated in government if we want to have a government based upon rational principles and fair to everyone.

[manic expression]

174. It's from the same evidence

theists (the ones that use rational thinking) reach their conclusions using the same evidence that atheists do, and visa-versa.

It is not irrational to make the conclusion that divinity exists, and it is actually irrational to state as much. It is not about logic vs. religion, because they go hand-in-hand many times. There is a great amount of logic and rational thought in religion, and to deny that is decidedly mistaken.

"all of that is crossing from irrationality into heeby geeby for me."

All of that "heeby geeby" stuff doesn't apply to me, nor do they apply to many religious and spiritual beliefs and paths. You're talking to the wrong person here, because I would stand with you in opposing such insanity (intolerance, etc...) at every turn. Also, I see little wrong with people who take scripture a certain way if they are tolerant and reasonable, because it is the fundamentalist delusion I worry about.

Government needs to deal with government. Period. Your line isn't being infringed here, and I completely agree with you.

[sui generis]

178. I don't follow your evidence or logic argument

"evidence" follows from observation.

Nobody alive observed the parting of the red sea, or people walking on water or rising from the dead. Neither the father, the son, nor the holy whatsit have spoken to anybody in any way that is even remotely verifiable, and at any rate don't have a thing to say about all the evil that's been done in their names and in the name of "goodness".

I have to conclude from the lack of irrefutable evidence of any kind of a higher being of any kind that they don't exist. I can conclude with a reasonable amount of reliability that life on other planets may exist based on a number of premises I might make about habitable planets arising in a habitable zone of a solar system in a habitable zone of a galaxy of the correct age and the average number of such stars in an average number of such galaxies to come up with a ballpark number for how many planets might host alien life, but I certainly even with those assumptions could not presume to guess in how many of those intelligent life might have developed, much less construct a complex belief system around them that involved what I construed their "desires" for me and my life to be.

It may be logic to some to say that "we have no explanation, ergo god" but that's not logic. It's just the absence of an explanation.

[manic expression]

182. Again,

I'm not a Christian. If you want to criticize something I don't believe in, be my guest, but it is a waste of time because there is no reason why I would defend something I disagree with. I'll give you a hint: if you want to criticize something I actually believe in, try something other than Judeo-Christian religions.

Evidence is objective, so it is not exclusive to one conclusion.

Just because there is not 100% evidence of divinity does not mean one can conclude it does not exist, and it is irrational to conclude as much.

The lack of irrefutable evidence either way makes many conclusions that reside on opposite ends of the spectrum (atheist, theist) NOT irrational. Many religious beliefs have quite a bit of rationality, logic and evidence, as do those of atheism. However, to label one or the other irrational is more than incorrect and myopic.

Notice how I said "many religious beliefs" instead of "all religious beliefs". I did this specifically because I regard some religious beliefs as irrational, a central example being that of fundamentalism.

[manic expression]

26. I agree

atheists reject the thought of divinity, and one cannot do that as a child. Religious people accept the thought of divinity (or a dogma or otherwise), and one cannot do that as a child.

Also, atheism is a belief system, since there are common beliefs to it.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Incorrect. I am now and always have been an atheist.

So much for your beliefs about my atheism.

[manic expression]

35. Always?

as in before birth?

Anyway, atheism is still a belief system, because it has certain views inherent in it. Moreover, one cannot seriously consider a baby an atheist in any way. I would accept you looking back and saying that you've "always been an atheist", but to say that all babies are atheists is nothing short of ridiculous.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Since atheism is the absence of religious belief, babies are most likely

atheists.


What beliefs does atheism have?


Are you forgetting the absence of belief is not belief, just like the absence of disease is not disease?

[manic expression]

37. What beliefs?

atheists believe that:

a.) There is no divinity.

b.) There is not enough evidence to prove divinity.

That is some of it.

Disease is a condition of a person's body just as health is a condition of a person's body.

Also:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

[beam me up scottie]

43. Really reaching, aren't you?

I work with people who stubbornly refuse to believe atheists don't reject their god.

I pity them.

[manic expression]

48. No, I'm not

this is made quite obvious by the fact that you have offered no real response to my points. Will you actually make an argument against what I have said? If not, that is truly pitiful.

[beam me up scottie]

51. You don't have the right to tell others what they believe.

Or don't.

The fact that you continue to do so and arrogantly disregard the strenuous objections of DU atheists, proves you have no argument.

Just an agenda.

Grind your ax elsewhere.

I'm done with you.

[manic expression]

56. You never started with anyone

because you did not make any counterarguments. You say I have no argument, but I have put forth many points that you have failed to address. That means that you have no argument and that you refuse to recognize my own.

Oh, and enjoy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=53084&mesg_id=53113

[beam me up scottie]

57. I pointed out the contradiction for that poster as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=53084&mesg_id=53131

Think about it.


Take your time.


Because your belief about me is as irrelevant as it is intolerant.


And like I said, I'm done with you.

[manic expression]

58. A contradiction I didn't make

Nice try. You still have not refuted any of my points.

My position is not about you at all, it is about atheism (to be general), and you have provided no counterargument to that position.

Like I said, you never started.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Yes, yes.

I know...

[manic expression]

60. Again,

please make an attempt to address my arguments. Your refusal to do so indicates the fact that you have no argument to make.

[arwalden]

74. We Do? I Do? --- Wow! Thanks Ever So...

... I must have missed that sermon at Atheist Church. Nobody has ever told me WHAT is is that I "believe". Thank you for telling me WHAT I believe. (You're awfully smart and clever to be able to know these things about me. How did you know? Really... come on... tell me! How did you know these things about me? How did you get inside my head and figure out that I merely "believe there is no deity"?)

And to think... all this time, I just assumed that I simply had NO BELIEF IN DEITIES AT ALL WHATSOEVER.

:eyes:

[manic expression]

137. Spare me

the sarcasm. To say that atheists do not believe ANYTHING about the subject of divinity is patently wrong. Atheism constitutes certain beliefs on the subject of religion, and believe certain things ABOUT the subject. You may not believe IN deities (no one should be saying that), but you still hold beliefs that pertain to that topic.

[arwalden]

140. OMG... Too Funny!

<<Spare me the sarcasm.>>

:rofl: I wasn't aware that you were so, uh... delicate. When you think about it... it's pretty hysterical!

<< To say that atheists do not believe ANYTHING about the subject of divinity is patently wrong. >>

Thanks again for telling me what I believe. You really should take this mentalist act of yours on-the-road. Seriously!

<< Atheism constitutes certain beliefs on the subject of religion, and believe certain things ABOUT the subject. >>

Wow. Huh? It does? Says who? You? And all this time I thought that atheism was nothing more than the simple state of being without theism.

I was unaware that having "certain beliefs on the subject of religion" was a requisite to atheism. While it can certainly be true that an atheist might have an opinion about religion, I'm unaware of any *requirement* that atheists must have such opinions.

Why would you suggest such an absurd thing?

Frankly, I'm having difficulty in following your logic trail. How is it that someone having no belief in deities must therefore have "certain beliefs" about religion before they can have no belief in a deity?

Oh wait... I understand... this is just another way of getting back around to making that tired old argument about atheism being a "belief system".

Oh mary, please! Give it a rest, will ya?

[manic expression]

143. Again,

your meaningless drivel does not substitute for an actual argument.

I didn't tell you what you believe, only that an atheist viewpoint, like any other, contains certain beliefs.

Atheism does not recognize any deities. Atheism rejects arguments of divinity. To do this, one must have certain beliefs on the subject.

Having certain beliefs on the subject of divinity is a requisite to atheism, because without that, the opinion/viewpoint/conclusion that there is not divinity cannot be reached.

[arwalden]

145. "Meaningless Drivel"?

<< I didn't tell you what you believe, only that an atheist viewpoint, like any other, contains certain beliefs. >>

So... in other words, what you're saying is: "I didn't tell you what you believe... but here's what you believe." :spray: :rofl:

Oh you of undeclared gender... did you even bother to read what you wrote before you clicked the "submit" button? Do you realize how nonsensical that sounds? Do you realize how arrogant and offensive it is? Do you even care?

Atheism isn't a "viewpoint" and it isn't an "opinion" (although people who do not believe in deities do have viewpoints and opinions about things, such things are not a requirement to not have a belief in deities).

<< Atheism rejects arguments of divinity. >>

So it's like a church? Atheists must follow certain Atheist-Rules?

<< To do this, one must have certain beliefs on the subject. >>

Why can't one just not have ANY beliefs on the subject? I am without a belief. Do you know what a theist is? Well... I am an a-theist. An atheist. Atheist.

<< Having certain beliefs on the subject of divinity is a requisite to atheism, because without that, the opinion/viewpoint/conclusion that there is not divinity cannot be reached. >>

Surely you're smarter in real life than you're pretending to be right now. The perspective you're trying to very desperately to get me to agree with is very naive and uninformed.

[manic expression]

146. In other words

I am telling you that atheism does have certain beliefs. I have never speculated on the content of them.

Atheists do have common views. That much is obvious. That does not equal "Atheist-Rules" or anything of the sort.

A person who has never: considered divinity, heard of the concept of divinity or concluded that there is no divinity (there may be others) AND is atheist has beliefs on the subject.

[arwalden]

153. Repeating Yourself And Talking In Circles...

... accomplishes nothing.

<< I am telling you that atheism does have certain beliefs. >>

And that's a damned arrogant and insulting thing to do. Clearly you only care about being right (even if being right only exists in your own mind, and to the exclusion of the most obvious truth) and you care nothing about learning anything that challenges your myopic little worldview.

<< A person who has never: considered divinity, heard of the concept of divinity or concluded that there is no divinity (there may be others) AND is atheist has beliefs on the subject. >>

How can you presume to speak for others? Why do you insist on saying that something is universally true when people you're trying to speak for, the people who know their OWN MIND THE BEST, repeatedly tell you that you're mistaken?

The absolute zenith of arrogance.

[manic expression]

155. Repeating myself

makes sure the discussion keeps on topic. I have seen no real counterargument so far, so there is nothing to talk around.

It may be insulting to you, but that does little to undermine my argument. I care about making an intelligent discussion, and it is unfortunate that others care so little about this.

I am not speaking for others. The statement I made (the second quote) is not inaccurate. The person who is presently telling me that I'm mistaken has provided nothing to back up their claims or to refute my own.

[arwalden]

156. You're Repeating Yourself Because That's All You've Got...

... one trick. "Here's what you believe Mr. Atheist, because I SAID SO!"

Your sincere wish for something to be true doesn't make it so. Your global statements that atheists "believe" something is also untrue. You refuse to take me at my word when I tell you that I have NO BELIEF in deities. --- I do NOT "believe-in" no deities.

What more do you want? What if I said I really really really really really have no belief in deities. Cross my heart and hope to die stick a needle in my eye. Would that help you to believe me?

Other than my telling you that I do not have "atheist beliefs" and other than repeating (yet again) that I have NO BELIEF in deities, I'm at a loss to give you the proof you're seeking. You'll just have to swallow hard and take me at my word when I tell you that these things are true.

Basically, when you refuse to accept that what I tell you about me is true, then you're calling me a liar.

That's a very rude thing to do. You're being rude. Stop being rude.

<< It may be insulting to you, but that does little to undermine my argument. >>

You've made no "argument"... all you're doing is contradicting me. That's not an argument. It's game playing. You're playing games. Silly.

[manic expression]

158. It seems

that unsupported claims is the only argument I am facing.

You have shown me not one shred of reason to say that I am incorrect.

You continue to miss the point. Atheists have certain views and beliefs on the subject of deities. That does not mean any belief IN deities.

To lie, one must know that what they say is untrue. That means that you are not a liar.

Your misperception of rudeness doesn't help your position.

"You've made no 'argument'... all you're doing is contradicting me."

That is false. I have made many valid points. Here is but one example from a previous post:

"A person who has never: considered divinity, heard of the concept of divinity or concluded that there is no divinity (there may be others) AND is atheist has beliefs on the subject."

You have not yet amounted any sort of refutation.

[arwalden]

159. You Are Incorrect.

I am telling you, as an atheist, that I do not have "beliefs on the subject". I do not "believe" there is no deity. I simply have NO BELIEF in deities. --- You have now been refuted.

Either you believe me when I tell you that, or you're calling me a liar. Which is it? (If history is any indication, you'll continue to insinuate that I'm a liar. That's pretty damn pathetic.)

[manic expression]

161. Your insistence

on something you refuse to support does not help your position.

So no, I have not been refuted, contrary to your incorrect claims.

And no, I'm not calling you a liar. It is pathetic that you continue to wrongly claim that I am when I am not.

[arwalden]

162. You Presume To Speak For Me When You Categorically State...

... that all atheists have "beliefs" about religion. Perhaps some do, but I do not. The fact that I'm telling you that I do not have "beliefs" is the refutation that you seek.

When you insist that I have "beliefs" after I've told you that I do not have "beliefs" is the equivalent of calling me a liar.

Stop insulting me. Stop calling me a liar.

[manic expression]

173. No, I don't

I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. I am simply stating that some people are talking.

Your insistence on something that has little rational support is not a refutation whatsoever.

Again, I'm not calling you a liar. By definition, you could not possibly be lying.

[arwalden]

176. Proofreading Is Your Friend...

I may as well be talking to a toaster.

<< I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. >>

No... it's more like mind-reading. You're trying to tell me what it is that I think.

<< I am simply stating that some people are talking. >>

No clue what you meant by that.

<< Your insistence on something that has little rational support is not a refutation whatsoever. >>

How much more support do you desire? Is it not enough for you to hear me tell you that something you say about me is not true? Is it not enough for you when I tell you that you're wrong and that I do NOT "believe" as you continue to claim.

<< Again, I'm not calling you a liar. >>

Certainly you are. And you're playing childish games.

<< By definition, you could not possibly be lying. >>

By definition, you could not possibly be listening to what I say (or reading what I type.) It seems that you're only interested in engaging in an endless series of contradictions.

As I pointed out in another post elsewhere in this thread... you're starting to repeat yourself and go around-and-around in circles. The game you're playing no longer interest me.

Barring some credible evidence of you having a breakthrough revelation and demonstrating that you want to do more than contradict, this will be my last post to you on this matter.

Here's your chance to shine, poster.... you may now have the last word.

[manic expression]

180. Logic is not yours

"You're trying to tell me what it is that I think."

The phrase "putting words in a person's mouth" applies to this. Furthermore, I am not telling you what you think, as I have not speculated on the content of your views are in the slightest.

"No clue what you meant by that."

Excuse me for using an expression that takes some thought to digest. It was an allusion to the previous sentence, where I said I had not put words in anyone's mouth. In relation to this, the statement meant that I was not telling anyone what their views were, but only saying that they held beliefs.

What more support? You have offered none whatsoever. A real argument would consist of actual points that had to do with the topic. Your constant claims that I am incorrect and that you are carry no value, as they are only your blind claims and nothing more. Try making a point to support your position instead of saying "that's not true!".

Coincidentally, your arguments are very reminiscent of a child's.

I am listening for some type of refutation, and I have heard nothing of the sort. I am only repeating what you have not responded to.

You have not made a worthwhile post so far, so I doubt this discussion will miss the one half of it that never was part of it in the first place.

[Evoman]

198. example of what your doing

If I told you that you believe that whales are a fish, what would you say?

You would tell me, "No, I do not believe whales are fish"

And then I would say, "Yes, you do believe it"

Then you, "Why are you telling me what I believe"

Me: "I'm not telling you what you believe. Prove to me you don't believe whales are fish"

You: "But I just told you it? How can I argue with you?"

Me: "You can't argue with me? Thats because you do believe whales are fish"


DO YOU GET IT YET

[manic expression]

201. Obviously,

you are incapable of grasping a simple argument.

An accurate comparison would be:

1st person: "I would say that whales are animals"

2nd person: "So, you have thoughts about whales"

1: "No, I would SAY that whales are animals"

2: "Which means that you think about whales"

1: "No, I have no thoughts about whales"

2: "But if you say something about them, you think about them as well, so you have thoughts about whales"

and so on and so on.

[arwalden]

202. Evoman... You're Wasting Your Time.

I'm sure you've already figured it out by now, but essentially what she's doing is demanding that you prove a negative. She makes a declaration about what an atheist "believes". When the atheist assures her that indeed that he has no belief at all, she rejects the statement (essentially calling the atheist a liar) because the atheist hasn't provided her with "proof" that he genuinely has NO BELIEF in deities.

Keep in mind that she's approaching this (ahem) "debate" with a rather warped perspective that many theists have. It's a very myopic and simple-minded worldview that begins with the unshakable premise that deities exist, and that everyone believes in deities... it's just in her world, some of the bad apples (in this case, the atheists) only pretend to not believe. What they're really doing (in her view) is merely "rejecting" the deity by refusing to acknowledge that the deity is real.

You're wasting your time. People like that are provocateurs. They are not interested in intelligent conversations. That type of person comes to DU only to bait atheists. Don't let her get under your skin.

[sui generis]

107. oy - that's the problem with irrational believers

you accept being described as irrational only on the condition that everyone is irrational in their beliefs, or their lack of faith.

Children don't know god or divinity from a hole in the ground. That's taught, and it wasn't taught in my family. From my perspective as a child people who went to church and prayed and swayed were all a little tetched. I didn't have to have faith first to reject it - it was never there, truly never there.

[manic expression]

144. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough

I never said atheists were irrational. That is not part of my argument.

You don't need faith to reject it. However, would you agree that your lack of faith does not constitute a lack of beliefs on the subject of divinity?

[BurtWorm]

7. They're Teatists

They worship the Great Giver of Milk.

;)

[FSogol]

8. Hey, me too.

;-)

[arwalden]

13. Ooph!

:rofl:

[sui generis]

9. I'm on autopilot too. Eat, sleep, . . .

:evilgrin:

True animism and deism are artifacts of the learning process - seeking to explain the apparently inexplicable.

Didn't Asimov say in a famous quote that any technology, sufficiently advanced, would seem like magic to us?

In the natural world we like to associate events to intent - and so there must be an "intender" doing things like lightning and luck and growing trees and making babies.

I think it's actually more natural that a baby would grow up finding "intent" in inanimate objects and natural events, and would eventually construct what seems to be a reasonable "story" or back story to explain it all.

The thing is, as long as we're willing to revise our knowledge, no one story is good enough. A very smart young human would begin to reject literal "stories" pretty early with critical thinking, but might choose to retain the "ideas" of those stories in such a way that he or she could be an "atheist" and still be "spiritual" at the same time (NOT in the christian sense).

But the longer we believe something, the harder it is to let go of that belief, and we even go so far as to try to perpetuate that belief by imposing it upon others. That's when you know they're not babies any more.

[Staph]

19. The quote is from Arthur C. Clarke.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." from Profiles of the Future, 1961

[sui generis]

20. Thanks!

My gray matter needs some Just For Men.

;)

[Sticky]

10. I'm looking at my 3 day old foster baby

and wondering if perhaps she is the biggest believer of all. After all, she just came from a place that none of us can remember and she too will eventually forget, but if there is a GOD, and a fetus is with him till he/she floats down through the birth canal, she may have the definitive answer to your question.

[FSogol]

14. Congratulations. n/t

[madrchsod]

16. good question

from a my christian point of view ,babies are born without sin and babies ain`t supposed to grow up to be cowboys! i guess that`s about it!

[InaneAnanity]

18. Yup

They have yet to be corrupted by religion. That makes them atheists.

[kwassa]

21. No, they believe in the God that is their mother ....

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. I would say no

Any kind of theological or philosphical system requires the ability to make a choice. Infants and small children are unable to make that kind of a choice. I will go so far as to say that no one can be considered an atheist, Christian, Jew (in a religious sense), Buddhist, Wiccan, Humanist, pacifist, Marxist, whatever-ist until he or she has become capable of consciously examining that worldview and make a deliberate decision to accept it and live by it's tenets. Some people are able to do that at a young age, some adults live to see their great-great-grandchildren and never manage it.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Wrong.

Atheism is NOT a "theological or philosphical system".

It is the absence of religious beliefs.

I made no "choice".

I didn't consciously examine any "worldview and make a deliberate decision to accept it and live by it's tenets".

I am and always have been, an atheist.





Yes, Allen, babies are atheists.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. If you have chosen to reject theism, then you have made a choice

If you have reflected on your lack of theist beliefs and nonetheless continued with that lack of belief, then I would consider your atheism to be a theological or philosophical system as I used the expression in my post above. If you have never, ever made a decision to continue with your lack of belief, then I would not consider you to be an atheist, any more than I would consider a three year old child to be a Christian.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Ridiculous.

I was born an atheist, and I continue to be an atheist.

I made no conscious decisions to reject anything.

I simply continued as I always was.

Atheism is the default position, religion is added to the formula.

[InaneAnanity]

39. definitions

theism is the belief in a god.

atheism= a- theism. athiesm, thus, is the LACK of belief in a god.

Certainly, babies lack a belief in a god.

Thus, they are atheistic.

[kwassa]

42. There are several definitions of atheism

you and other atheists here choose to express only one of them.

Frankly, no one fights hard over a lack of belief, or anything they don't believe in. I think you and many others here have a very strong affirmitive belief that there is no God, judging simply by your behavior in this group.

And that is another definition of atheism.

[beam me up scottie]

44. I just love the arrogance required to tell others what they believe.

Or don't.

You're truly special.

[kwassa]

101. Hey, I am only judging by actions, not words, just like the Christians

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, its a duck. Some atheists here act like the truest of true believers.

There are a million things I have a lack of belief in. I don't spend one second identifying myself by what I don't believe in, but by what I do believe in.

The fairly militant atheists here continually fight for a void, if I was to believe their stance. They fight for a "lack", whatever that is.

[trotsky]

103. You're confused, kwassa.

We don't fight for a "lack," we don't fight for atheism, we don't post in here because we're dedicated to the cause of non-belief.

1) We post in here to participate in theological discussions. Many of us atheists were religious at one time, and want to share our perspective. When I was struggling with religious beliefs, I would have given my right arm to have a place like this where I could see questions I had being hashed out, with perspectives I certainly had never heard in church.

2) We post in here to counter theistic bigotry. If your non-belief in something encountered significant resistance from others, not only in the real world but right here on DU, and people felt that your non-belief made it impossible for you to be moral, you'd be a little more active about it too.

Try looking at things from another perspective, kwassa. You'll find it to be quite informative. You might even learn a little bit of respect.

[kwassa]

124. a response

trotsky:

"We don't fight for a "lack," we don't fight for atheism, we don't post in here because we're dedicated to the cause of non-belief."

I disagree, I think it is precisely what several posters do. Exactimundo.

"1) We post in here to participate in theological discussions. Many of us atheists were religious at one time, and want to share our perspective. When I was struggling with religious beliefs, I would have given my right arm to have a place like this where I could see questions I had being hashed out, with perspectives I certainly had never heard in church."

And that is what this group should be.

"2) We post in here to counter theistic bigotry. If your non-belief in something encountered significant resistance from others, not only in the real world but right here on DU, and people felt that your non-belief made it impossible for you to be moral, you'd be a little more active about it too."

Personally, I never made any connection between atheism and immorality. At the same time, when I encounter resistance to my non-belief in something, I shrug my shoulders and walk away. I usually don't encounter that resistance, though, because as a non-believer, I don't hang around with believers. Little in common, you know.

"You might even learn a little bit of respect."

I have plenty of respect, for some, and it is not based on religious beliefs.

[trotsky]

127. The other side

I disagree, I think it is precisely what several posters do. Exactimundo.

Well, I think you're wrong. Because you don't understand what life is like for atheists, you can't truly relate to living your life and having to walk on eggshells about religious beliefs, even in general, around your coworkers, your friends, even the closest members of your family. I think what you see as a dedication to the "cause" of non-belief is more of a cathartic release of this frustration in a forum where we can be free of repercussions in our jobs or friendships. Especially when we encounter the same kinds of attitudes and behaviors here that we do in real life - such as attempts to label or define us in ways that we don't feel are accurate.

(regarding my comment about the purpose of R&T)
And that is what this group should be.

Good. We finally agree on something. I'll alert the media.

Personally, I never made any connection between atheism and immorality.

That's good for you. Not many theists can honestly say that.

At the same time, when I encounter resistance to my non-belief in something, I shrug my shoulders and walk away.

But non-belief in religion or gods is a rather special case, isn't it? Perhaps you don't remember the thread about the person who ran over Cindy Sheehan's crosses. Someone on that thread made the statement that the culprit "obviously wasn't a Christian." I'm just supposed to shrug my shoulders and walk away to that? How is that any different than if the person had said the vandal "obviously wasn't white"? Bigotry requires confrontation, and that same kind of bigotry rears its ugly head right here in this forum too.

I usually don't encounter that resistance, though, because as a non-believer, I don't hang around with believers. Little in common, you know.

That's why DU is a little different in that regard. In general, we share liberal political beliefs. We congregate and discuss issues here because of that. But then the intensity of discussion and variety of topics has a tendency to bring out areas where we disagree. If we weren't liberals, we'd be scared of that. But because we are liberal, we want to engage others, especially where we feel personally slighted.

Do you think gay people are "dedicated to the cause of homosexuality" when they confront bigoted heterosexuals? Or are they just being themselves, and confronting disrespectful attitudes and beliefs?

[kwassa]

134. well

trotsky:

"Well, I think you're wrong. Because you don't understand what life is like for atheists, you can't truly relate to living your life and having to walk on eggshells about religious beliefs, even in general, around your coworkers, your friends, even the closest members of your family."

You're right, I don't. No one in my family ever discusses religion at all, no one in any work environment I have ever been in, and I've been in many, where religion is discussed, and I've only discussed religion, except online, with friends who are into it. No harm, no foul, for me.

"I think what you see as a dedication to the "cause" of non-belief is more of a cathartic release of this frustration in a forum where we can be free of repercussions in our jobs or friendships. Especially when we encounter the same kinds of attitudes and behaviors here that we do in real life - such as attempts to label or define us in ways that we don't feel are accurate."

I understand that you don't like being mislabled. At the same time, I still don't see "lack of belief" going on. It sure looks and feels like not only true belief, but a cause.

"But non-belief in religion or gods is a rather special case, isn't it?"

I don't think so.

"Do you think gay people are "dedicated to the cause of homosexuality" when they confront bigoted heterosexuals? Or are they just being themselves, and confronting disrespectful attitudes and beliefs?"

I assume you are making a comparison to the situation of gays and the situation of atheists. I don't really understand this comparison.

I will say that I experience some of the athiests here as being very disrespectful to the theists.

[trotsky]

135. *sigh*

I understand that you don't like being mislabled.

Then why do you continue to treat people in a way you KNOW they don't like to be treated?

At the same time, I still don't see "lack of belief" going on. It sure looks and feels like not only true belief, but a cause.

Oh, this is why. Because you still think you know better than they do. Did you pay any attention whatsoever to what I said?

I assume you are making a comparison to the situation of gays and the situation of atheists. I don't really understand this comparison.

Yes, I was. And the comparison is quite valid - a group is generally maligned by a significant portion of the population, and then encounters some of the same attitudes right here on DU. Now I don't think I have it as bad as homosexuals, at least I can "hide" my atheism. But the parallels are there. Homophobes insist there is a homosexual "lifestyle," that homosexuals by simply being homosexual or standing up for themselves and their rights are somehow actively trying to convert people - or in other words, taking up a "cause."

When I see you insisting atheists have a "belief system" or "cause," the comparison screams to be made.

Your attitude toward atheists seems to be that if they were truly "non-believers," then they would just keep it to themselves and get atheism out of your face. Much like some homophobes say that people can be gay, they just need to hide it from public view.

I'm sorry, kwassa, but we are at a stalemate once again. Until you can discard your prejudices about atheism and atheists, I don't see how this can go any further.

[kwassa]

136. well to me homosexuality is not a choice and atheism is ...

as belief always involves choice, so I really don't see the parallel.

You are right, we are at an impasse.

trotsky:
"Your attitude toward atheists seems to be that if they were truly "non-believers," then they would just keep it to themselves and get atheism out of your face."

No, I think that if they were truly non-believers that they just wouldn't care enough to talk about it much. There is a distinction here.

And I don't think I am the slightest bit prejudiced, simply because the word "prejudice" means to pre-judge, and I made no judgment at all until I had observed the atheism assertion here for quite some time, and watched the action taking place. It is my considered judgment that what I am seeing is belief, not lack of belief. This is simply my honest opinion.

[trotsky]

141. Whether it's a choice is irrelevant.

And besides, many atheists who have never had religious beliefs would disagree with you. They never "chose" to be atheists, they just always were. Parallels again.

I think that if they were truly non-believers that they just wouldn't care enough to talk about it much.

Says you! Since you've never been a non-believer, why do you think you have any idea what a non-believer would "care enough" to do???

The problem is that bigoted religious attitudes permeate nearly EVERY aspect of our society, forcing us to confront them if we want to have any hope of squashing them. But most of us don't get the luxury of being able to do that in real life, unless we wish to risk relationships and careers.

I made no judgment at all until I had observed the atheism assertion here for quite some time

Baloney. You had already pre-judged that non-believers should have nothing to talk about, and once you saw atheists actually having opinions on religious matters, your prejudice kicked in and you had to label them. And continue to do so, even when they spoke out can told you that you were wrong and insulting them.

Why continue this crusade, kwassa? It's causing so much animosity simply because you continue to insist that atheists must fit YOUR labels. Can't you just drop it? Let atheists speak for themselves, and not have to endure being called a "belief system" simply because we're speaking up?

[kwassa]

166. It is all about choice

Trotksy:

"Since you've never been a non-believer, why do you think you have any idea what a non-believer would "care enough" to do???"

I grew up a non-believing Unitarian atheist, and became a believer later on. I would describe my family as atheists, or at least agnostic. It is my heritage.

"The problem is that bigoted religious attitudes permeate nearly EVERY aspect of our society"

I disagree. I think the vast majority of Americans are completely indifferent to religion. There is a loud minority of conservative religious people that is getting lots of media attention, but they really are a minority. The majority of Americans would rather spend Sunday morning in bed or at the shopping mall. Materialism is really the true American religion.

"You had already pre-judged that non-believers should have nothing to talk about,"

I never said anything like this ever.

"and once you saw atheists actually having opinions on religious matters, your prejudice kicked in and you had to label them."

No. I have no problems with anyone having opinions, atheist or religious. I have opinions, too, which is what this forum is all about. I have no prejudice, but I do have judgment. You are now labelling my judgment as prejudice, in an attempt to invalidate it. That's fine, but don't expect me to pay attention.

"And continue to do so, even when they spoke out can told you that you were wrong and insulting them."

What exactly is the insult in being told that one believes there is no God, if one is an atheist?

"Why continue this crusade, kwassa? It's causing so much animosity simply because you continue to insist that atheists must fit YOUR labels. Can't you just drop it? Let atheists speak for themselves, and not have to endure being called a "belief system" simply because we're speaking up?"

The reason I don't drop it is the same reason Inland doesn't drop it. Atheism is being waved at us as a form of moral superiority, not as a neutral position. Certain ideas come from the atheists over and over again that constitute beliefs and positions, such as "babies are born atheists", whose subtext is that atheism is natural and religion is unnatural.

To me, the position that atheists take that it is a "lack of belief" is simply a logic trick to avoid having to defend their belief position, while they still can attack others. As I think beliefs are revealed more by actions rather than words, the behavior of many atheists here leads me to believe that they have an active belief that there is no God.

[trotsky]

168. Too bad.

I thought we might be getting somewhere, but I see we won't.

You know, I gave some more thought to your idea that atheism is a "choice," and I realize that you couldn't be more wrong. Going over my life experiences, I didn't "choose" atheism, it was the only conclusion I could make. If I had remained religious, THAT would have been a choice, because I would have chosen to discard the evidence against it.

But the bottom line is, you insist that you know better than someone else what it is that they think. You wouldn't do this with any other group, I suspect. Minorities, homosexuals, religions, etc. Atheists, though, they're fair game, to you. We're OK to prejudge, to second-guess, to accuse and stereotype. Eh, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, most Americans feel that way. Even supposedly tolerant Democrats.

Really, though, it's no different than me telling you that you believe in a fairy tale. Because using your same logic, what's the insult? I'm merely making an observation based on the behavior of many theists!

I think you're reading far too much into why atheists post here. You and Inland are both adding this subtext, that somehow we're pushing for atheism being "natural" and religion "unnatural." That's a crock of shit, but that's what you choose to see, and it taints your view of atheists and what they really think.

As I said, that's really too bad.

[kwassa]

169. Can you explain it to me, then?

"I think you're reading far too much into why atheists post here. You and Inland are both adding this subtext, that somehow we're pushing for atheism being "natural" and religion "unnatural." That's a crock of shit, but that's what you choose to see, and it taints your view of atheists and what they really think."

Can you explain to me the often-repeated idea of "babies being born athiests"? What is the point of this expression,if not to imply that atheism is the natural state of things?

[trotsky]

172. Well, since I didn't post the question, I can only give my opinion.

I think it's simply to get believers thinking about how religion is taught, not innate. Lots of other things are taught, too, and that's not to say they are inferior to the state of not being taught about them. Language, literature, science, all of these. But it's important from a non-believer's standpoint, especially one who was never a believer, to try and make sure people realize we're not consciously rejecting a god that we know but don't like, but instead that we just aren't convinced. And for the lifetime atheists, never were.

[sui generis]

151. oh well darwinism and believing that you can finish a crossword

puzzle is faith too by that standard.

"Belief" is getting semantically blurred here. I KNOW that Darwinism works, and can prove it. I KNOW that I can finish a crossword puzzle because there are a finite number of choices involved in crafting the solution.

I do not KNOW (believe without doubt) that there is a god because I cannot ever prove it and reliably repeat those results. In fact at the point where I "believe" in something that can't be proven, it is a choice to believe in an irrational concept or idea.

In my life, I avoid "belief" in irrational and unprovable concepts and ideas because they waste my heartbeats in the here-and-now.

So much reality, so little time. Not judging at all - I absolutely love good science fiction and fantasy. I would dearly love to see some magical hijacking of the rules of the universe, alternate realities, afterlives, psychic phenomena, even demons and vampires and Buffies, for what it's worth.

I just can't believe in those things until I see they're for real.

[Inland]

54. No, you are wrong about what the affirmative belief is.

That there is no god is not an affirmative belief. That they are better than believers, more rational, more scientific, and even more moral: THAT'S the strong affirmative belief of those few atheists you are thinking of and that's what they are fighting for.

[beam me up scottie]

55. I guess you skipped my post about arrogance.

Thank you for demonstrating the intolerance we have come to expect in this forum.

[arwalden]

71. It Would Appear So....

There are many people here who see only what they want to see, and read only what they want to read. The rest... anything that challenges their brains, or that does not fit into their myopic worldview is immediately discarded.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Baiters.

They're here for a reason, and their agenda becomes more apparent with each post.

If they did the same to GLBT, brown skinned folks or women, they'd be in trouble.

Not that they still don't expose their intolerance toward other groups, they're just not as obvious about it as they are in this forum.

[arwalden]

76. Remember All The Fire That Was Spewed By Them (That Type)...

... when someone had the nerve (the NERVE I tell ya) to dare to make the suggestion that belief in deities was a disconnect with reality and therefore it could be considered a form of psychosis.

MAN-O-MAN... their heads absolutely EXPLODED on that one. How DARE we suggest that believers were psychotic... OMG!

Yet... here they are again... telling atheists that we choose to "defy" the deity and that we merely "believe" it doesn't exist. (I assume they think we're ignoring some overwhelming evidence to the contrary... hence their arrogant over-use of the phrase "belief-system". It's truly laughable.)

[beam me up scottie]

80. Yep, them dang anti-gawd commie atheists.

I need a bedtime story, Allen.

Tell me again how the religious left doesn't make the same mistakes as the religious right.

Oh, and how we can TRUST them to just use religion as a tool to win elections without using it against us.

That and a bottle of Ambien should send me on my way.

[Inland]

115. The DU conceit that atheists are rocking believer's worlds

A forthright declaration of atheism is supposed to just baffle believers. But because they've heard it before, it has to be ratcheted up to the level of, well, made up shit.

Like the psychosis assertion. Meant to be insulting and provocative, some were insulted and provoked. Mission accomplished.

I object because, aside from being insulting and provocative, it's not true. But amazingly enough, the same people who pretend to rationality and evidence will also assert psychosis. The same people who argue that the fundamentalist christians are intolerant will simply make up something for the purpose of insulting people who disagree. Huh.

[sui generis]

125. well I agree with you on this one

the real reason we don't get along (the bigger "us") is because we each have an open judgement about the other.

Atheists see faith as a choice - and as irrational. Why would anyone choose to be irrational?

People of faith see atheists as lost and in denial . . . by choice. Why would anyone choose to be lost?

You cannot "collaberate" in conversation on polar opinions and polar thinking. All you can do is show and tell.

At the end of the day Inland, it's not about the inevitable judging or hurting of anyone's feelings. We both sides need to learn to say, "hmm. that's nice", have another sip of beer, and find something else meaningful to talk about.

[Inland]

191. I don't disagree, but the "open judgment" isn't the real problem

In fact, it's a dead end discussion. If the very statment of atheism is rocking the DU world, nobody would be going out of their way to, er, now I have to be very careful because I can ascribe mental illness (and more) to an entire social group as long as it's christianity but the rules don't allow me to characterize the person who says such a thing knowing it isn't true.

The fact is that these people know that the debate over belief is a dead end, shown by the amazing lack of anyone convinced to one or the other. It wears itself out in one post. Then its largely making shit up, excuse me, having a theory regarding the innate characteristics assigned to one or the other, in a way that is calculated to provoke, I mean, be topical. Then it's a round of posts to the teammates in what I like to call "the kumbaya moment" where they congratulate themselves on being superior. It's atheists here, and christians out there, but it's all wrong.

SO, "it" is about judging and hurting feelings. It shouldn't be, but it is, intentionally so. And someone is going to wonder why we keep losing Kansas again and again and again. The fundy atheists will have an answer, of course: those stupid christians, good riddance to the crazed dummies. My answer will be that people don't trust parties with vocal and tolerated bigots targeting them, and that while believing in god may not be rational, not believing in the dems would be.

[sui generis]

197. I think we mostly just said the same thing

Faith and anti-faith are non-starters for discussion. Just so long as government administers governance and not faith, nobody's private faith or lack of faith gets damaged.

Inland mostly when we have these dust-ups here, there is a "class" of believers who have a directive to proselytize (usually not DU'ers) who are the real boogieman.

Their worldview is that the government is a great opportunity to spread faith and be involved in faith or at least spread the values of their faith (no gays, no birth control, no porno, no unwed sex, etc.), and it is not enough to back away from governance because they really DON'T believe that faith is private and personal and doesn't belong in the system of resource administration that is our government.

So the other side of that are "militant" atheists who can be extraordinarily intolerant and distrustful of the objectives of any "faith". It's not just DU. As you said, we really have nothing to say. Even just stating our view of the world involves some form of judgement, as it has to, to account for the anomalies of atheists in a christian (or whatever) world, and vice versa. To an atheist, hearing a statement of world view from a christian always sounds like proselytizing (right or wrong, just a fact), and to a person of faith hearing an atheistic credo sounds like we're trying to dismantle the faith and identity of a person of faith, and that is never taken well either.

That's why I think both sides are probably better off not talking about our polar worldviews - it's not productive, and it's irrelevant to the political discussion; and of interest only to theologians and atheists congratulating themselves.

[arwalden]

66. Ooph!

:rofl: :rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

120. I will concede this much...

Infants can be described as atheistIC, meaning "having the characteristic or form of" (see Merriam-Webster Online, definition of -ic) without the belief in god(s). That is not the same as saying they are atheists, which was the question asked by the OP.

Also, please remember that atheism can be divided into a lack of belief in god(s) (so-called "weak atheism") and an assertion on the non-existence of god(s) (so-called "strong atheism".) Infants can be described as atheistic only in the weak sense, not in the strong sense.

[InaneAnanity]

131. What you are describing, then

Your assesment of babies is based on how the word "atheist" has been perverted in the public domain.

If a baby is "atheistic", then he/she is an atheist. Case closed.

The fact that this doesn't fit your definition of "atheist" only serves to show you, I think, that your commonly held definition of "atheist" is incorrect.

[TechBear_Seattle]

133. Babies are atheist only in the same way as a tree is atheist

Both lack the belief in god(s), right? So if a baby is an atheist, so too must be a tree, a dog, the lamp post and an inanimate carbon rod. All of those share the same lack of belief in god(s).

[greyl]

138. Natural Atheism vs Considered Atheism ? nt

[InaneAnanity]

142. Yup

They are all atheists. An atheist is anyone who doesn't have a belief in a god or gods.

Why this is the case doesn't change their atheism.

[madmark]

25. well my baby somewhat pissed and demanding when she was born;

religious affiliation was the last thing she was interested in.

[Inland]

45. If a believer incurs a drastic head wound, does he become an atheist?

After all, he then becomes like a baby, right?

Fact is, it doesn't make any sense to ask if babies, monkeys, comatose, are something that requires some sort of emotional or intellecutal awareness allowing them to form opinions or attitudes of that nature.

[beam me up scottie]

Dupe

[beam me up scottie]

47. You tell us.

I knew there had to be an explanation for your behaviour.

My apologies for thinking it was voluntary.

[trotsky]

65. For this we have to imagine a world where there is no concept of religion.

No ideas about gods, angels, demons, zip.

In such a world, children are born, taught to be literate, think & analyze the world around them, etc. But there just simply isn't the idea of gods existing. It has never even been given a thought.

Are the people in that world atheists?

Consider the analogy of alcohol. Before alcohol was discovered, would everyone in the world have been labeled a teetotaller? No, of course not. But from a functional and practical standpoint, before alcohol, people were stone-cold sober all the time. Same as a teetotaller. They didn't drink any alcohol. Again, same as a teetotaller. It was not until alcohol came about that the state of not imbibing got a label rather than being "just the way we are."

I think atheism is just like that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. I'd say babies are probably agnostics in that they have no opinion

either way.

Babies are also pre-speech (so you can't define what language they speak), and they don't focus their eyes too well, either.

No, you can't say that a newborn baby is a Christian just because its parents are, any more than you can say that a newborn baby speaks English just because it was born in the U.S.

However, the theology of baptism in the Catholic-Episcopal-Lutheran end of Christianity (as opposed to the Baptist-Pentecostal end) is that baptism is initiation into the Christian community, with the parents and sponsors answering in the baby's place, and confirmation is the individual's conscious acceptance of membership.

It's valid whether the baby is conscious of it or not, just as the college fund that my grandfather started for me when I was born was still valid, even though I was unaware of it.

[arwalden]

69. That Would Suggest To Me That The Baby Had Analyzed The Evidence...

... (or lack of) and had come to a conclusion that the existence of (or non-existence of) a deity could not be known or determined... and therefor he (or she) was a-gnostic... or agnostic.

On the other hand, if the baby is not a theist, then he is an a-theist (without-theism) or an atheist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. That's sort of like saying that they're anti-English because they don't

speak yet. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

77. Atheism is not anti-anything.

It is the absence of religious belief.

Many christians seem to have difficulty with that concept.

[arwalden]

79. "Anti"?? Is that how you view atheists? Do you think we're "anti-theists"?

Freudian slip of the keyboard?

<<That's sort of like saying that they're anti-English because they don't speak yet. >>

No... actually that would be like saying that the babies are a-verbal, or a-communicative... not that they were anti-verbal (suggesting an active opposition to being verbal) or anti-communicative (also suggesting an active opposition to being communicative.

To call someone anti-English sounds as though they are OPPOSED to English. I really don't think that babies are in a position to make those types of analytical decisions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. Okay, I'm probably going to get into trouble, because

I know that some of the atheists on this board are really touchy about being defined, but most atheists I've met have made a conscious self-identification. They'll say, "I am an atheist," whatever that means to them. It's a stronger statement than, "I don't follow any particular religion" or "I haven't given it much thought" or "I don't know enough about it."

Babies are pre-speech, as you said. They're also pre-philosophy.

Therefore, to ascribe any opinions about the existence or non-existence of a deity to a newborn baby is like ascribing a language to a newborn baby.

It's too early. The question is not yet relevant.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Anecdotal evidence does not change the definition of atheism.

So the question IS relevant.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. I knew I'd get into trouble...

We're on different wavelengths here.

I'm done for the evening.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Say what?

Is learning about atheism from atheists too much trouble for you, Lydia?

Do you just prefer the same old stereotypes?

So much for tolerance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. So basically, atheists can say anything they want about religious

people and religions on this board, accurate or not, and if the religious people try to correct their misinformation, then the atheists respond with more misinformation or anecdotal evidence or their own personal resentments, but if a theist says ANYTHING about atheism, it's somehow the wrong wording, or the wrong attitude, or the wrong typeface or the wrong something.

So you don't accept my definition of your beliefs. Or your non-beliefs. Or your demonstrable facts. Or whatever you choose to call them.

I constantly see atheists on this board telling theists that they're misunderstanding what atheism is, and yet no definition seems to be acceptable.

It has nothing to do with tolerance. I've never persecuted or belittled an atheist in my life, and that's with 19 years in Oregon where 17% of the population is self-identified atheists and 2/3 of the population claims no religious affiliation. In fact, in all those years of dealing with atheists face to face in a community where secularism is the default option, I never encountered the kind of snarky attitude I constantly see on this board.

[beam me up scottie]

90. So you have issues with posters on DU.

Who doesn't?

Does your dislike of the behaviour of atheists on DU excuse your intolerance towards all atheists?

Telling me what I believe against my objections is the DEFINITION of religious intolerance.

Attempting to redefine what I am in order to vilify atheism is bigoted and ugly and usually a tactic espoused by the "moral majority".


I would NEVER EVER presume to tell you what you do or don't believe, no matter how nasty this forum gets.



But the religious left is above that sort of thing.

Right, Lydia?

[kwassa]

122. There is what one says they believe, and there is one's behavior.

If someone says they believe one way, but behave much differently, are we obligated to take their beliefs at their word?

[InaneAnanity]

132. Yes you are n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

130. I really don't get it

I really don't get what you are so angry about.

I have not defined you in any way. I know better than to refer to atheism as a "belief system." I just gave my understanding of the difference between atheism and agnosticism, actually trying to avoid the no-no's that various people have put forth, and all of a sudden I'm "intolerant."

Okay, if that's how you feel...

I'd better get out of this thread before the mods start pulling posts. The mood is becoming decidedly pissy throughout.

[Inland]

117. There's a certain amount of wanting it both ways.

A definition of atheism as simply not believing in a diety is, often, put forth and agreed upon.

However, there is also a desire to hang attributes and characteristics on atheism, such as, atheists don't belive in god because they ascribe to rationality, atheists don't believe in god because they are not psychotic. In other words, in the same threads that atheism is being pared down to an absence, there's an effort to make it into a virtue or caused by virtuous characteristics that make the atheist, well, better than you guys.

It's a game, in the sense that when there's a desire to prevent anyone to have a target to attack, there's nothing there, just a non belief. But when there's a desire for a little self congratulation, there's all sorts of self evident attributes beyond a negative.

[sui generis]

149. both sides are arrogant

that's just human nature. Even if we weren't arrogant, each to the other, we would "appear" to be smug in our positions if only because they are polar.

If the problem is human arrogance and smugness then that has nothing to do with "belief" or "nonbelief". It's unproductive to try to associate the two.

[Inland]

185. And I agree with your reasoning but further define "both sides"

Most christians are able to function without acting morally superior and blaming the irreligious as the cause of all evil, and most atheists are able to function without pretending to a superior intellect and blaming religion as the cause of all evil. Most everybody understands human failings, and they neither define themselves nor the rest of the world as polar opposites. It doesn't make sense to refer to THOSE people has having "a side."

The remaining few consitute the fundamentalists. We don't get many fundamentalist christians, but fundamentalist atheists are DU approved.

[sui generis]

196. I'm going to have to bow out here

I couldn't disagree with you more.

I am arrogant. I own it. Humility is not a virtue I subscribe to, and not a value that I give a damn about. You will find both atheists and people of faith equally despise arrogance, but probably couldn't give you a compelling reason without using the phrase "should be", other than it's something to do to pass the time.

I accept other points of view only so far as they stay out of the way of my conduct of my personal and public life and don't try to legislate their fantasies about morality and decency and the afterlife into my life or the administration of government, because THAT is the ultimate arrogance, on their part. I have idle "fantasies" of my own, but atheism does not fall into the category of "fantasy".

If that comes across as "superior" or "supercilious", then so be it.

From the point of view of a "fundamentalist" atheist (that was pure unadulterated horseshit Inland), people who believe in things that aren't there are loony tunes, and that's putting it nicely. However we all have our own "color" - and a militant atheist can be just as obnoxious as a militant christian, whether fundamentalist or not.

I was merely pointing out that ordinary, non-fundie christians also have that opinion about atheists.

We can't talk. What's the point? I'm sure I know everything there is to know about your faith and faith in general, just as you are sure you know everything there is to know about atheism. That's what I mean by polar. There is nothing new you can tell me, or vice versa. There is no common ground. As long as we're agreeing that each of our worldviews are essentially private and unyielding, then who gives a damn?

That's why I say we need to each say to the other "that's nice", and move on. I'm not being mean or "superior" - just practical. I don't feel persecuted, and neither should you.

[kwassa]

102. It isn't anecdotal evidence, it is child development

Science, you know. You guys like science.

[NMMNG]

89. Yes they are

Babies are born without a belief in a deity, hence they are atheists. Atheism, after all, is lack of belief in a deity.

Why is it that a child brought up in a Christian home invariably believes in the Christian God, while a child brought up in a Muslim home believes in Allah? It can't be because the child in the Christian home has an inborn belief in God while the other child has an inborn belief in Allah. It is because each child has had a specific belief indoctrinated into him/her by the parents and/or the religious institutions they attend. No indoctrination, no belief in deities.

[Desertrose]

91. No....babies don't have either type of baggage...

Hey, is this deja vu?

....a burning question or just another flamewar....almost exactly a year later...makes ya go hmmmm....

Sure seems like a lot of DU atheists are eternally fascinated by those darn deity/ies that they keep saying they don't believe in. :evilgrin: ...or perhaps its something else...??

[beam me up scottie]

92. Like baiters who are pushing their own agenda,

say, in a PIg sty somewhere?

[Desertrose]

93. Gosh...still fuming over such old stuff?

...you seem as obsessed with that as you are with this forum.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Slow night bashing DUers at the farm, Rosie?

Figure you'd come over here and drum up some business?

I thought that PIgtopia would be enough to hold your interest.

[Desertrose]

112. Oh dear....

am I not allowed to post in more than one place? Are you so bored that you're following me all over the internets?

Gee, weren't you the one commenting upthread on the lack of *tolerance* around here?

You are very funny...well you make me laugh anyhow :evilgrin:

:shrug:

[arwalden]

100. Oh Give Me A Fucking Break, Rose...

... I think it's fair to say that more than HALF of the threads in TOPIC-SPECIFIC forums and groups deal with subjects and questions that have been discussed before.

By pointing out a similar thread, are you suggesting that THIS this thread should not have been started? Is it now an "off-limits" subject matter because it was previously discussed ALMOST A YEAR AGO??

If anyone is going "hmmmmmm", it's only the petty people with small minds. The rest of the folks will either be interested enough to participate in the discussion/argument, and others will ignore the thread or hide it... and then there's YOU. :eyes:

[Desertrose]

113. Are you calling me special??

Aww... I love you too, Allen.

[arwalden]

116. Oh, Brother!

:rofl: I'm not calling you anything, Rose. But if that's something that you want to believe, then go right ahead.

~Allen

PS: You love me "too"?? Actually, Rose, I don't love you *at all*, so exactly how is it that you can love me "too"? (To be honest with you, that's really not a word that I bandy about as freely as you seem to do. Of course, there's always the possibility that you're just doing it for effect, to be silly, or to creep me out, and in that case you're just making the word cheap and empty.) :eyes:

[Desertrose]

118. wow...lighten up...

You've never heard the term facetious?

fa·ce·tious (f-sshs)
adj.
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.

French facétieux, from facétie, jest, from Latin factia, from factus, witty.

Adj. 1. facetious - cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks";
bantering, tongue-in-cheek

I thought you had at least a slight sense of humor.
oops. sorry. my bad.

(And as for me bandying about the word "love" too freely... not even gonna go there.)

[arwalden]

126. Ooph!

:rofl:

Too hysterical! She can dish it out, but she can't take it.

[Desertrose]

165. ...nevermind

...been there, done that.....

[sui generis]

110. no, something else

fascinated by people who believe in them. I mean REALLY believe in them. It's just fucking weird.

If I were a deity I would sure as hell do something with more impact than grow a mold velvet elvis of my vulva in an underpass.

I'd cure male pattern baldness, or maybe fling a few lightning bolts whenever some irreverent DU'er got uppity, but no the only thing that ever happens is another church bus rolls over once a week here in Texas.

I mean, even the DEVIL who has no particular agreement to test anyone's faith by remaining invisible could at least have a freaking reality show or something, doncha think? Dunking for Souls!

just sayin' :shrug:

[FM Arouet666]

95. A few thoughts

Babies are atheists. True for spawn of atheist and believer. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, but there is a difference between a child too young to understand the concept and an adult who rationally declares atheism.

Is your pet an atheist? How about someone who is developmentally disabled? Plants are probably atheists, except for cauliflower which resembles grey matter and may opt for a creator. Silly vegetable.

So what is the difference? Is it out of arrogance that I support the notion that a rational adult's atheism is different from a minimally thinking entity? Culpability perhaps? A child or a cauliflower does not make a conscious decision to be atheist and cannot be held accountable by those seeking to condemn non-believers. Burn the heretical vegetable at the stake? Sure, with medallions of beef and chicken, and a nice spicy sauce.

I am an atheist and as long as I can remember I have always been an atheist. Yes, a conscious decision based on education and a rational assessment of facts. If, in the future, atheists are to be persecuted by believers, only sentient atheists will pursued. Perhaps that is the only difference.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Doc.

My blood chilled a little at that.

If, in the future, atheists are to be persecuted by believers, only sentient atheists will pursued. Perhaps that is the only difference.

[FM Arouet666]

97. What caused the chill?

My lack of acknowledgment that we are being persecuted every day by a fundie administration bent on propelling our nation into a christian theocracy?

Or, the thought that things will get worse. When we all arrive at Manzanar, or worse, Auschwitz, I will count on you for the atheist veggies. Fish are atheists? I'll bring the sushi. :evilfrown:

[beam me up scottie]

98. I'd rather laugh with the sinners...

Good old Billy Joel. Pissed off a few fundies in his day, eh?

Except it's not really funny, is it?

Not when so many on the religious left refuse to even acknowledge the issue, let alone speak out about it.

How many times have you read on DU that atheists aren't being discriminated against in this country?

Ignorance.

Willful, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not gay but I sure as hell scream bloody murder about the intolerance and injustices visited upon GLBT people.

[FM Arouet666]

99. Amen, er, I mean Bingo.

A favorite tactic of reichwing radio, especially Michael Medved. "How are you being persecuted?"

When the caller fails to provide an immediate answer, Medved concludes that atheists are merely alarmists, we are all living in peace.

What a crock.

Sexual orientation, race, religion, whatever the designation, we are all diminished when the government seeks to discriminate against the minority.

Discrimination against atheists?

If I declare my atheism, would I have a chance to run for office?
How would a public declaration of atheism effect my job?
Do I freely discuss topics of atheism with those I first come in contact with?

Discrimination of atheists is palpable under the current theocratic regime.

Time for bed, night........... ~D

[sui generis]

109. I think the world is split into two kinds of people

People who believe or don't believe in whatever they want, religious people, atheists, broccoli, whatever, but who are okay with their own lives and with applying their beliefs or lack of belief about these abstract ideas to their own lives

AND

Everyone else who think that the stipulations of their faith should apply to everyone universally, who believe they have a right to judge others based upon some relatively unknowable abstract such as what they do or don't do in the bedroom, or what they believe or don't believe about Ultimate Authority, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Father, the Son and the Holy Lesbian Sister of the Noodly Appendage Dude.

It's the people in the second camp who are really dangerous. They burn people at the stake for petty arguments over transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, fight centuries-long wars, persecute people for believing one way or not believing at all, or for having the temerity to claim exclusive right to do with our own bodies as we please, as if the society that doesn't pay our way nevertheless has some irrational claim of ownership over us in lieu of a social contract.

People who argue that lack of faith is itself a faith are not very observant, generally speaking. There is a reason they "believe" instead of conclude, and it pervades all of their thinking, and they presume, everyone else's as well.

[kwassa]

104. Is "babies are atheists" an orthodox belief of resident atheists?

It is certainly an idea that is repeated constantly as a truism by atheists in this forum.

The corollary idea would be, of course, is that atheism is the natural state of man and that religious belief is somehow unnatural and imposed upon people.

[Inland]

114. It would be the same as the tabula rasa fiction

That there is a natural state which is superior to later corruption. It SEEMS scientific.

[Skinner]

108. This is actually a pretty interesting question.

I guess it depends on how one defines "atheist". If atheism is simply the lack of religious belief, then I think it is fairly obvious that babies are atheists.

But if you feel that atheism requires a person to think about the issue, consider the question of God or religion, and then decide that they do not believe, I would say no, babies are not atheists.

Whether you think a baby is an atheist or not, I think everyone would agree that the baby most likely does not know or care.

I think this question is rather like asking whether a dog or cat or chimp is an atheist. Or whether an inanimate carbon rod is an atheist. (Apologies to The Simpsons.) If the dog/cat/chimp/inanimate carbon rod is not capable of even imagining the question, if they have no concept of god or religion or atheism, then can we say that they are atheists? I don't really know the answer. I'm curious to know what you all think.

Are dogs atheists?
Are inanimate carbon rods atheists?

[sui generis]

111. I don't believe in Skinner! I'm an askinnerist.

nyah.

:P

In other news, in an apparently freak accident, DU'er Sui Generis is fried by a lightning bolt at work. Witnesses claim it came right out of the monitor, struck him between the eyes and turned him into a pillar of inanimate carbon.

[TechBear_Seattle]

121. Thanks for the sanity check

Excellent points.

[trotsky]

123. It's tricky to make that comparison, though.

We know that dogs, cats, chimps, and even inanimate carbon rods will NEVER develop the capacity to even understand what is meant by the word "god."

Not so with an infant. Unless they are profoundly disabled, their brain will get to the point where it can evaluate claims and decide if they are true or not.

So the issue is, if someone has never even heard of a god, and therefore never formulated a position one way or the other, functionally they're the same as an atheist - lacking a belief in gods. It's only when theism is presented does atheism get a label. See my post #65 above.

[arwalden]

128. I Recall Several Instances Where DU Member "Az" Pointed That Out...

... using the example of being an asmurfist. Even though a person does not believe that Smurfs exist, that same person would not normally feel the need to identify themselves as being an asmurfist in the absence of a majority of people who DO believe that Smurfs exist. Only when the Smurf believers exist in such great numbers that the term asmurfist becomes a meaningful way to differentiate one's self from the believers in Smurfs.

Only... he explain it much better than that. Hopefully someone will recall his example, or hopefully someone will be able to make sense of my awkward retelling of it.

[Skinner]

129. I agree with this.

You are correct that the difference is that (most) babies will eventually develop the ability to evaluate the whole god question.

But for the purposes of the question presented in the OP, a baby is no different than an a dog or cat or chimp or inanimate carbon rod. The fact that a baby possesses the potential for future understanding does not (in my opinion) influence whether he can be labeled an atheist during the time of infancy.

I consider the issue here in this thread to be different from the one you present. But I do think the issue you raise is an interesting one. If an adult human has never heard of god and has not spontaneously made it up the idea on their own, does that person qualify as an atheist? I would say, in a very narrow sense, yes that person is an atheist. But I agree with you that the idea of atheism would not exist without the idea of theism, and would be utterly meaningless to that person. So maybe your hypothetical person has something in common with the baby.

[Beetwasher]

171. ICR Is an Athiest

I can vouch for him. Though he's an arrogant atheist. Actually, he's just arrogant. Or maybe he's just an asshole. Actually, it's really hard to tell because he keeps to himself so much. But I like him anyway. He's cool. I want to be just like him when I grow up.

[Nikia]

179. A different point of view, not based on your assumption

You assume that babies do not believe in a god. Is there anyway to really prove this since babies do not speak? Small children's language is limited and they often tell what is regarded as fantastic tales. For example,if a two year old claims that he speaks to angels, we usually don't believe him.
Some belief systems do believe that babies and small children have a belief in gods or are somehow more connected to the spiritual world than most adults. They believe this either because babies may remember their past physical or spiritual lives or because they have a spiritual capacity that is not corrupted by the physical world.
If your assumption is correct though, it does depend on the defininition of atheism. I have always considered atheists to be someone who has made a conscious choice about whether or not they believe in God, but you can believe or not believe what you want. I believe the same is true for any belief system or statement. Some people have tendencies towards certain beliefs perhaps from the beginning but I don't believe that you can really call a baby or young child anything (Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Environmentalist, Feminist, Pacifist, Nazi, Athesist, or member of any religion) until that child is able to affirm that they understand the question and subscribe to those beliefs or not.

[Inland]

187. Well, you're right. There's no way for a baby to communicate a position.

But to me, the same inability to communicate is tied to the inability to form an opinion and the futility of asking whether a baby, fountain pen, a comatose, or carbon rod are atheists.

[Inland]

193. Here's a timely article on a related question.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45814