Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. One can believe gods exist and still be an agnostic: if one knows that one does not know whether those gods exist.
An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god, …
If a being has never considered beliefs in regards to God/god then they are incapable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god.
If a being is incapable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god (positive, negative or neutral) then discussing issues of God/god in relation to them is utter nonsense.
It becomes nonsensical wordplay… gibberish.
Right.
Why?
Fair enough.
The intent is to have a discussion regarding what the appropriate and proper religious label is for newborn babies. The conclusion is that while newborn babies are atheists, by calling them an atheist it doesn’t provide any useful information about the baby. But calling them atheist does tell us quite a bit about the word atheist.
Having a belief in the nonexistence of god isn’t the neutral or natural state. The proper way to word it is “not having a belief in a god”. That would be the default or natural state.
Agnostic and atheist aren’t the same thing. One could be an agnostic theist. Once again:
Atheist
- Agnostic atheist
does not believe any god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that no god exists - Gnostic atheist
believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Theist
3. Agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic theist
believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
You contradicted yourself.
[i][b]1) An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs, yet who does not hold the belief in at least one god.
- Now if he(/she/it) has never considered this belief, he is a negative atheist (a.k.a. weak or soft atheist).[/b][/i]
Unless “negative atheist” isn’t an atheist, then #1 is incorrect.
What same thing have I been saying for years?
If you are correct, then you should be able to point out what is flawed with the below logic.
Earlier, you stated that non-theist and atheist are the same thing. You also agreed that if one isn’t a theist, then they are a non-theist. And you agreed that newborn babies aren’t theists. Therefore, you would have to contend that newborn babies are atheists.
I’ll make this simpler for you:
- Atheist and non-theist are the same thing (from your claim)
- One who is not a theist is a non-theist (from your claim - and also by definition)
- Newborn babies aren’t theists (from your claim)
- Newborn babies are non-theists (from #2 and #3)
- Newborn babies are atheists (from #1 and #4)
Again:
Earlier, you stated that non-theist and atheist are the same thing. You also agreed that if one isn’t a theist, then they are a non-theist. And you agreed that newborn babies aren’t theists. Therefore, you would have to contend that newborn babies are atheists.
I’ll make this simpler for you:
- Atheist and non-theist are the same thing (from your claim)
- One who is not a theist is a non-theist (from your claim - and also by definition)
- Newborn babies aren’t theists (from your claim)
- Newborn babies are non-theists (from #2 and #3)
- Newborn babies are atheists (from #1 and #4)
Whether we ignore or don’t ignore the lack of capacity of a newborn to have a belief, it doesn’t change the fact that they don’t hold the belief that a god exists.
This thread isn’t about whether or not newborns have the capacity to believe a god exists, but about the appropriate term for their position with respect to belief in a god. I don’t disagree with you that newborns lack the capacity to believe that a god exists. But this isn’t sufficient to keep them from being atheists.
I don’t see how. If I have not considered a belief, I do not hold it (unless I’ve been indoctrinated with it, I suppose). So a negative atheist is a being who is capable of holding the belief in at least one god, but who has not considered that belief and does not hold it.
A newborn baby is not “one” (a human being).
Then it isn’t sufficient to keep kettles from being atheists, either.
It would be like asking an isolated Amazonian who has had no prior contact with any other civilization the following:
Has smart phone technology changed social interaction in Western Civilisation?
That person cannot hold beliefs about the question until they have considered smart phones, phones prior to smart phones, western civilization of past/present, social interaction of past/present.
It is a foolish question to ask an isolated Amazonian.
Set: Human Being:
Set A: Incapable of forming an opinion about God/god
Set B: Capable of forming an opinion about God/god
[list]Set X: theist
Set Y: atheist
Set Z: agnostic (a possible set depending on definitions)
[/list:u]
Not Set X does not equate to Set Y
I can understand why some view calling newborn babies atheists is nonsensical wordplay and/or gibberish. Some people probably think the purpose of calling newborn babies atheists is done to show what the baby believes or doesn’t believe. While it does that, the more useful purpose of calling a newborn baby an atheist is to provide an extreme example of who is an atheist. IOW, calling a newborn baby an atheist tells us more about the word atheist than about the baby.
Mutcer, it tells us more about the person using the label than it does the label.
If a negative atheist isn’t an atheist, then why call them a negative atheist? Why not call them “not an atheist”?
That’s just a misunderstanding of the word “capable”. “Capable” does not mean the same as “able”. When I’m lying in bed, I’m not able to jump, but I’m still capable of jumping.
A negative atheist is by definition an atheist. After all, it’s someone who does not hold the belief that at least one god exists.
So a newborn baby would be a negative atheist.
No, because a newborn baby is not someone.