It would appear I stirred the pot and then walked away yesterday. My bad.

My exact words were, "...atheism is the response to theistic claim that a god or gods exist.

Without theism there would be no atheism."

I still stand by that statement. What I object to is your assertion that the response of atheism to theism is necessarily a personal, conscious position taken by an individual and not a default position.

Said differently, it's my opinion that nobody could lack a belief in a god or gods until the concept of god or gods was invented. At that point, once the concept of a god or gods was invented, atheism was simultaneously born as the default position on that question.

Now, take this universe and subtract the concept of theism from it: neither you, nor I, nor anyone else would have a position (default or otherwise) on the question of the existence of gods because the concept of the existence of gods wouldn't exist.

If, however, super intelligent beings outside our universe did have such a concept they would surely call us atheists because to them (knowing the concept) we lack belief. Does that mean we (ignorant of the concept) had to become familiar with it before we could take a position? No, that's the beauty of the word 'default.' To them we would be atheists.

As long as the concept exists a determination can be made about an individual's position on that concept. That determination is made BY those who understand the concept, but it can be made ABOUT both those who understand the concept and those who don't.

So, you and I understand the word theism. A baby does not. However, because you and I understand what theism entails we can easily say of the baby that it's an atheist without having to first teach the baby what theism is and asking it what it thinks. Until that baby learns the concept it will be in the default position. To us, the baby is an atheist.

At least that's how I understand it..

KOLOBIAN: "Without theism there would be no atheism."

COMMENT: I agree with this statement. However, this does not mean that once theism is raised as an issue, atheism then becomes the "default" position. That does not follow. Atheism, as a response to theism, is a substantive mental state of non-belief based upon a consideration and rejection of the idea that God exists.

KOLOBIAN: "What I object to is your assertion that the response of atheism to theism is necessarily a personal, conscious position taken by an individual and not a default position."

COMMENT: What do you mean by "default position." In other posts you have suggested that this means that one is an atheist who has never even considered the issue of God. Atheim, by definition, requires a consideration and rejection of God. As such, atheism is a "personal, conscious, position" and is not a default position. In other words, it is a substantive mental state that is acquired upon consideration of theism.

KOLOBIAN: "Said differently, it's my opinion that nobody could lack a belief in a god or gods until the concept of god or gods was invented. At that point, once the concept of a god or gods was invented, atheism was simultaneously born as the default position on that question."

COMMENT: But, again, what do you mean as a default position? A person is not an atheist until he or she considers theism. There is no such thing as an atheist "blank slate." Thus, a "default position" in this context is misplaced.

KOLOBIAN: "Now, take this universe and subtract the concept of theism from it: neither you, nor I, nor anyone else would have a position (default or otherwise) on the question of the existence of gods because the concept of the existence of gods wouldn't exist."

COMMENT: So what. All that means is that there are no beliefs about God, theistic or otherwise. Thus, no theists and no atheists. Note that the idea of theism might well be introduced by someone that does not and never could believe in such a being. Once introduced, and considered, substantive beliefs are formed, theist or atheist, neither being the "default position."

KOLOBIAN: "If, however, super intelligent beings outside our universe did have such a concept they would surely call us atheists because to them (knowing the concept) we lack belief. Does that mean we (ignorant of the concept) had to become familiar with it before we could take a position? No, that's the beauty of the word 'default.' To them we would be atheists."

COMMENT: No. If there was no concept of God on earth, aliens could not call us atheists, because the term atheist implies an understanding of language, including the word "theism" and further consideration and rejection of theism based upon that understanding. Again, no default position.

KOLOBIAN: "As long as the concept exists a determination can be made about an individual's position on that concept. That determination is made BY those who understand the concept, but it can be made ABOUT both those who understand the concept and those who don't."

COMMENT: Again, no. I cannot say, on the one hand, that you are an atheist, while on the other hand stating you do not know what that means. It is impossible. You cannot be against theism, or a non-theist, without knowing what these terms mean. You cannot have a mental state that denies God, without understanding what concept of God you deny or disbelieve.

KOLOBIAN: "So, you and I understand the word theism. A baby does not. However, because you and I understand what theism entails we can easily say of the baby that it's an atheist without having to first teach the baby what theism is and asking it what it thinks. Until that baby learns the concept it will be in the default position. To us, the baby is an atheist."

Again, absolutely NO. There are no atheistic babies!

HB

Would agnosticism be the default position?

No. When what is at issue is someone's beliefs, then what is at issue are mental states. Mental states encompassing beliefs require concepts. Absent concepts, the default position is ignorance. An agostic understands the issues, and remains in some sense neutral. As such, he or she is not in a default position.

The mistake is assuming that there must be a default position. There is not. I am not even sure what a "default position" means in the context of human psychology.

HB: I agree with this statement. However, this does not mean that once theism is raised as an issue, atheism then becomes the "default" position. That does not follow. Atheism, as a response to theism, is a substantive mental state of non-belief based upon a consideration and rejection of the idea that God exists... What do you mean by "default position." In other posts you have suggested that this means that one is an atheist who has never even considered the issue of God. Atheim, by definition, requires a consideration and rejection of God. As such, atheism is a "personal, conscious, position" and is not a default position. In other words, it is a substantive mental state that is acquired upon consideration of theism.

COMMENT: I disagree. The default position on the question of theism is, first & foremost, lack of belief. It does not require a consideration and rejection of the idea that a god exists. The consideration and rejection of the idea that a god exists can either result in moving away from the default position or staying on it. Once can be in the default position before consideration, and one can remain in the default position after consideration and rejection.

HB: No. If there was no concept of God on earth, aliens could not call us atheists, because the term atheist implies an understanding of language, including the word "theism" and further consideration and rejection of theism based upon that understanding. Again, no default position.

COMMENT: No, the point I'm making is that TO THE ALIENS we would be atheists because THE ALIENS have an understanding of the word theism and what it entails and THE ALIENS acknowledge that humans in this universe would lack a belief in any such beings so TO THE ALIENS we would be atheists. Again, I reject the assertion that someone must first consider and reject a proposition before they can be in the default position. That's silly and backwards. If action was required then it wouldn't be the "default," would it?

HB: Again, no. I cannot say, on the one hand, that you are an atheist, while on the other hand stating you do not know what that means. It is impossible. You cannot be against theism, or a non-theist, without knowing what these terms mean. You cannot have a mental state that denies God, without understanding what concept of God you deny or disbelieve.

COMMENT: Yes, you can. You can absolutely say that because I lack a belief in any gods that I am an atheist. You can say that even if I don't know what a god is. Atheism is not, as you say, "against" theism. It is simply not theism. So yes, I can be "not theist" even if I don't know what theism is. The point is that without theism there would be no "not theism."

HB: Again, absolutely NO. There are no atheistic babies!

COMMENT: Yes, there are. Every baby lacks a belief in any gods.

O.K. But by defining "atheism" negatively, as encompassing simply the absense of a theistic mental state, you are invoking logic by definition. That is not how we use the term in English. If we did, then any person in a coma--including the Pope, or the Mormon prophet--would be an atheist, notwithstanding their belief history and religious commitments. Moreover, amnesia could instantly create an atheist from a devote theist.

Finally, how would you differentiate between an ignorant atheist, someone without any beliefs one way or the other (a baby), and a cognitive atheist, someone who had reached the conclusion by deliberation? In our society, we use the term atheist in the cognitive sense of substantive beliefs. That implies the appropriate knowledge of the relevant concepts.

HB: O.K. But by defining "atheism" negatively, as encompassing simply the absense of a theistic mental state, you are invoking logic by definition. That is not how we use the term in English. If we did, then any person in a coma--including the Pope, or the Mormon prophet--would be an atheist, notwithstanding their belief history and religious commitments. Moreover, amnesia could instantly create an atheist from a devote theist.

COMMENT: Yes, yes, and yes. :)

HB: Finally, how would you differentiate between an ignorant atheist, someone without any beliefs one way or the other (a baby), and a cognitive atheist, someone who had reached the conclusion by deliberation? In our society, we use the term atheist in the cognitive sense of substantive beliefs. That implies the appropriate knowledge of the relevant concepts.

COMMENT: This is exactly what I'm hoping to combat. Society doesn't just use the term atheist in the cognitive sense of substantive beliefs. Instead, they use the term incorrectly to assert that atheism is a negative claim against the existence of a god or gods.

I don't care to distinguish between ignorant atheists like babies and cognitive atheists like Raptor Jesus. I want people to understand the word atheism as simply "lack of belief" which applies equally to both.

At that point we can figure out if it's worth it to create labels for atheists by default vs. atheists by reason.

"I want people to understand the word atheism as simply "lack of belief" which applies equally to both."

O.K. Go ahead with your insistance upon changing the use of the word. But, in the meantime, don't make arguments as if the word already has your preferred meaning. And also, if you want to change the meaning of a word, you have to live with the confusions and nonesense that results when using your preferred meaning in everyday speech acts.

Surely you realize that attempting to support an argument by invoking your own definitions is grossly fallacious.

> COMMENT: I agree with this statement. However, this does not mean that once theism is raised as an issue, atheism then becomes the "default" position. That does not follow. Atheism, as a response to theism, is a substantive mental state of non-belief based upon a consideration and rejection of the idea that God exists.

And this is where you have failed to understand what you're arguing. Atheism is NOT a rejection of anything by definition. It merely means "without God" or "no God".

The default position is atheism, because even though not knowing a myth is not the same as rejecting it, the result of non-belief can both be described as atheism.

Your limiting of the word to only apply to those rejecting theism is a false dichotomy. It isn't either/or it's either/and/or.

Living on the other side of the globe, I missed your response until the thread was almost filled, but thanks for replying. I'm happy, too, that most of the responses here are serious and not insulting. And sorry, I do seem to agree more with Henry Bemis.

In a similar sense you could label an infant "apolitical," or "politically apathetic," but I think those would be high-handed impositions which don't respect the infant's actual disengaged mental state. It is not simply acknowledging their "default position," but it is an attempt to count them within the atheist camp--(like the church counting dead members?)

As for alinguistic, as Koolman2 mentioned, Chomsky would disagree: in his theory of Universal Grammar, every newborn is hardwired to learn language.

I'm happy with the discussion here and don't think I have anything further to add now. It comes down to how people endow the word "atheist." And it was amusing to read someone rejecting a dictionary definition as a fallacious appeal to authority!

One of which would be religion.

Let's break down the word atheism:
a-(without)-theism-(belief in a god).

If you never told a baby that there is a god, he would not believe in a god! Thus he is an atheist. You don't need to understand the word to BE the word.

Imagine that I like to play music. One day, somebody calls me a musician. I ask, "what's a musician?" My friend tells me, "somebody who plays music". I reply, "ohhhhh! I never knew there was a word for that!"

I rest my case that babies are born atheist.

"Atheism" isn't a word that was coined in English by combining the English word "a" with the English word "theism" -- "atheism" doesn't mean "a theism" (you know, like Christianity, which is "a theism"). It comes from the Greek "atheos", "without God."

Before someone came up with the idea of a god or gods, a baby's position on the question of the existence of a god or gods would have been "none." After someone came up with the idea of a god or gods, a baby's position on the question of a god or gods would have been "none." At the _very moment_ that someone game up with the idea of a god or gods, every baby then living did not immediately change its position on the question of a god or gods from "none" to "default". Well, unless "default" simply means "none," but then the babies didn't really change their position.

But you are saying that the "default" is "none," right? And that an "atheist" is someone whose position on the question of the existence of god or gods is "none," yes?

I'm saying the default position on the question of the existence of a god or gods could not exist until the question of the existence of a god or gods was invented. Therefore, once theism was invented all babies could now be labeled atheists.

Nobody could labeled as an atheist until the word "atheist" was coined. Thereafter, whether someone was correctly labeled as an atheist depended, of course, on what the word "atheist" meant. And the meaning of the word "atheist" is not determined by individual assertions about its meaning, but by its actual use in the language.

That use has certainly shifted somewhat over time. The claim that babies fall under the most broadly accepted meaning of the word as it is used in the language is less a statement of fact than part of a project to change its meaning. Admittedly, it is a project that goes back at least as far as d'Holbach, who declared in 1772, "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." But such usage remains well outside the mainstream, and d'Holbach's little project to change the language had little traction until the last few decades -- and still doesn't have very much.

In my opinion, the attempt to change the meaning of "atheist" is confusing at best. If you call yourself an atheist, are you saying that "you have no idea of God"? Probably not. At worst, the claim that to be an "atheist" means to have "no idea of God," and nothing more, would leave us with no word for a person whose idea of God is that such a being does not exist -- that is, with no word for what most English-speakers currently understand by the word "atheist". What is the point of that?

Please understand: the question is not whether babies believe in God. They don't, any more than they believe in gay marriage. The question is whether there is anything to be gained by insisting that the word "atheist" properly applies to them. In my opinion there is no more to be gained from it than there is to be gained from insisting that every baby's hobby is (to coin a phrase) "not collecting stamps."

Yes. Thank you.

We simply do not use the word "atheist" in the English language to refer to babies, or others with no knowledge or understanding of the meaning of "theism." To redefine the word in order to create a "default position" is just a poorly guised, and falacious, attempt to somehow boot-strap atheism. Atheism, as a legitimate position does not need this kind of nonsense.

> We simply do not use the word "atheist" in the English language to refer to babies,

Well that is a fallacy. Just because you don't, doesn't mean other people don't. In fact, you're arguing about people calling them atheist right now! Do you not see how circular your reasoning is?

Which is it? People don't use atheist to describe babies or you don't want them to use atheist as a word to describe babies? Because clearly, I and many, many other people have described babies as atheists because that is what they are by definition.

Other Than Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is it? People don't use atheist to describe
> babies or you don't want them to use atheist as a
> word to describe babies? Because clearly, I and
> many, many other people have described babies as
> atheists because that is what they are by
> definition.

Unless, of course, that is not what they are "by definition". How do YOU determine what the definition is -- other, that is, by asserting "This is the definition..?." What makes your assertion of "the definition" a fact claim.

I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking Glass":

---

[Humpty]: "There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by "'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty smiled contemptuously."Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

"Would you tell me please," said Alice, "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

"Oh!" said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

"Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night," Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, "for to get their wages, you know."

---

You seem to be like Humpty Dumpty, paying extra wages to the word "atheist" on a Saturday night, to make it do a lot of work.

Arguments from popularity don't impress me.

Most people used to think the earth was flat. Now they don't.

Most people think atheism is a negative claim against the existence of a god. Now that's changing.

I imagine there were a lot of people, particularly within the church, who used your same argument that it was "confusing" to redefine the earth as globular instead of flat.

The claim that planets fall under the most broadly accepted meaning of the word "sphere" as it is used in the language is less a statement of fact than part of a project to change its meaning. Or so said the pope..

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Most people think atheism is a negative claim
> against the existence of a god. Now that's
> changing.

Suppose that everybody but you thought that "atheism" mean "a negative claim against the existence of a god." Are you saying that, even in that case, you would be right and everyone else would be wrong?

...et al are describing. Someone who is against theism could be called an antitheist.

The problem they're having is with the word itself; atheism has all kinds of negative connotations to it. Its bad. Babies aren't bad, therefore babies just couldnt be atheists.

Atheism and atheist are not dirty words.

But but but... What about all thos babies that athiests eat?

She began interrogating me, and was horrified when I told heri don't believe in any gods. Her mouth actually dropped open. I assured her that atheists don't eat chopped up baby kittens (or human either) on our morning cereal. (bedtime snack cereal may be another matter...)

This argument theists keep insisting on bringing up is beyond silly. They kep trying to make atheism a narrow definition that they are comfortable with, when the word encompasses more than they like.

Its like the word teacher. In orderto be called one, does a person haveto have a college degree in education? No. Of course a professional teacher should to be called such. At the opposite end of the spectrum is a child who knows how to skate teaching another how to skate. At that time, she/he is a teacher.

serena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This argument theists keep insisting on bringing
> up is beyond silly. They kep trying to make
> atheism a narrow definition that they are
> comfortable with, when the word encompasses more
> than they like.

I go to the Webster-Merriam online dictionary here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist. And it says:"one who believes there is no deity."

Are those darn theist lexicographers at Merriam-Webster just being silly?

>Are those darn theist lexicographers at Merriam-Webster just being silly?

Oh a dictionary said so! Well, argument over! Someone is appealing to the fallacy of authority! Game over, man! Game over!

I sure wish I could get complex philosophical positions from a dictionary like you. That would sure save me from critical thinking... It's such a burden.

Yes, game over. Thanks for playing -- better luck next time.

I'm glad you're not burdened by critical thought. Continue spreading your fallacy of authority. The world needs clowns too.

Are you defining "critical thought" here to mean "whatever it is you happen to think"?

Since you don't seem to even understand the fallacious arguments you are making, why should I bother explaining critical thought to you? What hope do you give anyone of understanding, let alone being able to reason?

Tell me why using a dictionary definition is fallacious and I'll engage you further. Until then, you just a fool flailing in the deep end of the pool.

Other Than Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me why using a dictionary definition is
> fallacious and I'll engage you further. Until
> then, you just a fool flailing in the deep end of
> the pool.

Because definitions in modern "descriptive" dictionaries represent expert opinions regarding the meanings of words as actually used in a language, by the vast majority of the speakers of the language.

As such, they are inherently more authoritative than people who tell you over the Internet that a word means "x" because, well, it ... it just means "x"! And if you point out to such a person that, no, it doesn't mean "x," and provide the evidence that it doesn't mean "x", some of those people become defensive to the point of hysteria, because, you know, IT MEANS "X" BECAUSE I SAY IT MEANS "X" AND I'LL KEEP SAYING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN LOUDER AND LOUDER BECAUSE IT'S FALLACIOUS FOR SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT TO DISAGREE WITH ME, AND ALSO YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!

What every definition of atheism in every dictionary has in common is that an atheist lacks belief in a god or gods.

Some dictionary definitions take it further than that and assert that atheism is in fact a claim that no gods exist. This is silly, but the fact remains that one cannot simultaneously believe in a god and assert that the god does not exist.

Therefore, underlying every dictionary definition of atheism is the basic "lack of belief" that atheists all agree on.

The bottom line is, you can't find an atheist who believes in god. You can, however, find plenty of atheists who don't assert that no gods exist. Your ability to ignore these facts is impressive.. ;)

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What every definition of atheism in every
> dictionary has in common is that an atheist lacks
> belief in a god or gods.

By similar reasoning, what every dictionary definition of "theism" in every dictionary has in common is that a theist lacks a belief in the non-existence of gods. Babies lack a belief in the non-existence of gods. Therefore, babies are theists. QED.

> The bottom line is, you can't find an atheist who
> believes in god. You can, however, find plenty of
> atheists who don't assert that no gods exist. Your
> ability to ignore these facts is impressive.. ;)

You can find plenty of people who don't assert that no gods exist. Indeed, you can find plenty of people who not only don't assert that, they don't believe it. But the question on the table is whether it is correct to call such people "atheists." Saying that they're atheists because they're, well, they're _atheists_, gol durn it, is question-begging of the first order. It's your inability to understand that is what is indeed impressive.

Wrong. Theism is a positive claim. It's the assertion that a god or gods exist. It is not lack of belief in the non-existence of a god or gods. I don't think you quite understand what you're arguing anymore.

Your example is frightfully illogical. You've managed to invent a word without inventing a word, shift the burden of proof, and misrepresent atheism all at the same time.

What every atheist has in common is that they lack belief in any gods. That is the lowest common denominator. That's the definition of atheist.

"She began interrogating me, and was horrified when I told heri don't believe in any gods. Her mouth actually dropped open. I assured her that atheists don't eat chopped up baby kittens (or human either) on our morning cereal. (bedtime snack cereal may be another matter...)"

People are silly. Your bedtime snack made me giggle. :)

Tortoise: Achilles, I owe you an apology. You were right. An atheist indeed is simply anyone who is a non-theist, that is anyone has no substantive belief in God.

Achilles: [Guardedly, noticing a twinkle in the Tortoise’s eye] That’s wonderful Tortoise. I am glad you are finally on the side of true atheism. Tell me, what did it for you.

Tortoise: It was actually quite easy. I just threw away all of my logic and reasoning, and went with my gut feelings, and, of course, putting my trust in the thoughts of the great atheist prophets, such as yourself.

Tortoise: But I do have a few questions?

Achilles: O.K.

Tortoise: So, just to get this straight, an atheist is simply a non-theist; anyone that does not have a belief in God. And a baby, for example, is an atheist until such time as he or she might be indoctrinated to theism. Thus, until becoming a theist, the person is in the natural state of atheism, and atheism is therefore the default position. Is that correct, Achilles?

Achilles: Yes, you are quite correct, Tortoise.

Tortoise: And later, if the theist can be persuaded to abandon his or her belief, and cease to believe in God, for example through the introduction of true facts and reason, the person then becomes a non-theist, and thus an atheist again. And, heaven forbid, if it so happens that the atheist comes to believe again, then for the second time, that person becomes a theist. Is that correct, Achilles?

Achilles: Quite right. Yes, Yes. Can we drop this now?

Tortoise: Well, you will be happy to know that I am taking this concept and using it to convert my theist friends and relatives to atheism. I want them to understand perfectly that they were all atheists until that insidious religion entered their minds, and that they can return to atheism, the true light of being.

Achilles: Go for it, Tortoise. Advise me of your progress.

Tortoise: Well, I already have something to report. The other day I met an old theist friend, a Dr. Zeus. Zeus was a devout Christian; a pastor of great Christian faith. Every week for 50 years he prepared his sermon and delivered a passionate address to his flock. And he said his prayers faithfully all these years, with full confidence that they would be answered. He has also been active all his life in Christian community service. He has paid his tithes and offerings without fail, and raised his children to be firm believers in the Christian faith. You can see, I had quite a challenge before me, Achilles.

Achilles: Indeed. How did it turn out.

Tortoise: It was marvelous. A site to behold. When we met on the street, and before I could utter a single word to Zeus, a lightning bolt descended from the sky seemingly out of nowhere, and zapped poor Zeus to the ground. For a moment he lost all consciousness. Then, a few minutes later he revived, but he had forgotten everything. He didn’t even know his own name. Naturally, my first thought was to inquire about his religious beliefs, and in particular his Christian faith. But he couldn’t remember anything. He was like a baby. And then it hit me. How fantastic! How wonderful! Zeus had become an atheist! At that point he was clearly a non-theist. He had no thoughts of theism, Achilles. It was a miraculous transformation. A great deconversion.

Tortoise: Of course I rushed him to the hospital, hoping against hope he would not regain his memory, and become a dreaded theist again. Imagine my delight when I checked him into the hospital and encountered the words, “Preferred religious affiliation.” Yep. In large letters I wrote “ATHEIST!”

Tortoise: But it gets better, Achilles. When lying in his hospital bed motionless, Zeus was visited by a large group of his religious friends. They wanted to give him sort of blessing; perform some nonsensical religious rites on him. Of course, I advised them all that such things are worthless and without effect, and that Zeus was a committed atheist, and from the opinion of the doctors, he might very well remain an atheist for the rest of his life.

Then the leader of the group argued with me vehemently. “This man,” he said, “is the most devoted and sincere Christian I have ever known. He is absolutely not an atheist. He has been a Christian all his life, and never in his life believed in atheism.” Wrong, I pointed out. When he was a baby, he had no theistic beliefs, and was therefore an atheist. And now he is an atheist again. And there is nothing either you, or he, can do about it.

Then, the old gentleman became completely flustered, and said: “That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard of.”

And I responded, proudly: “Yes, but it is a beautiful doctrine.”

Achilles: [Speechless]

Tortoise: [Laughing uncontrollably] Goodbye my friend.

[As the Tortoise was leaving Achilles chuckled. “What a joke upon poor ole Zeus and his former theist friends,” he thought. But then it occurred to him. Maybe that sly ole Tortoise was not laughing at Zeus after all.

<<Then, the old gentleman became completely flustered, and said: “That is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have ever heard of.”>>

This is the typical response of anyone who is confronted with airtight logic and has no counter-argument.

Babies are non-linguistic until they learn a language.
Babies are non-theistic until they learn a religion.

Not having a language means you are non-linguistic, or perhaps alinguistic.
Not having theistic beliefs means you are atheistic.

So, babies are atheistic in the same way they are alinguistic. You don't have to learn about language to not have one, just like you don't have to learn about theism to not be it.

Do I call babies atheists? No, and it's not really an appropriate use of the word. Typically, to be an atheist, you have rejected theism actively. Technically, babies are atheists, but they aren't *really*.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 01:40PM by koolman2.

I do not understand the theists need to add all kinds of meaning and definitions to something as simple as atheism.

Is it because it is impossible to argue with a word? One simple word that means what it means and that is all that it means?

Religions are easy to argue with. They have tacked on so much to the simple word theism that there is hardly time to address it all, examine all its facets and contradictions and hidden meanings and divine which of its merits are valuable and which are not.

But, atheism, a singular entity, a word by itself, unencumbered with further meaning, is hard to grasp for those looking for a Rubick's cube when all that is really being offered is a ping pong ball, just bouncing around to see what's happening.