It wouldn’t necessarily be a human if two different senses of the word “human” were used: for in that case, a human in the one sense would not necessarily be a human in the other sense. For example: a human in the sense of “a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens” would not necessarily be a human in the sense of “a person”. I contend that a newborn baby human is not a person, even as a fertilized human ovum is not a person (though relatively more).
I’ve linked a couple of times to studies that show that babies have a tendency to develope the belief in God. Newborns do not have beliefs per se. At least not beliefs that are word based. (they do have heuristics such as faces are more important than walls and this is a form of belief or knowledge. And they have an inherent tendency toward animism: much more seems alive to them than to the modern, cut off, ‘rational’ adult)
You seem to want to make atheism as the default state, but that is 1) not the case, given the tendency above and 2) confused, since for someone to be an atheist they would need to at least in some way indicate this. Newborns cannot.
Rocks are not atheists. Nor are trees. Do you see how silly those sentences sound?
The reason it sounds silly to me - a panpsychist - is not because I think there is no consciousness in these things, but that they do not have word based beliefs or beliefs at all in the case of rocks.
For the modern cut off rational, the universe is mostly dead atoms kind of minds, those sentences should sound silly
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ROCKS AND TRESS ARE NOT THEISTS.
And the truth is this whole issue is just a distraction. Every atheist who participates in these discussions has a good solid set of beliefs that are in a batch with their atheism. The atheism is a product of this set of beliefs.
Sure, somewhere, living in a cabin in the woods, there is an atheist whose simply lacks a belief in God.
But he sure as shit is not participating in online philosophy forums.
That this topic comes up again and again is one big disingenuous distraction.
[size=109]UTTER NONSENSE ![/size]
Did anybody say that "newborn humans are no humans? Besides you yourself, Mutcer, and Sauwelios, no one else!
Your nonsensical question also shows that you are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
Your “statement” that “a newborn human is not a human” is a contradiction, absolute nonsense. Of course. And: Your “statement” that a newborn human is like an adult human" is also a contradiction, absolute nonsense. In addition: These two contradictory “statements” also contradict each other, so that the conclusion of this absolutely contradictory “statements” is: “A human is a human and not a human” - which is a typically contradictory “statement” of nihilistic debutants.
No. The burden of proof is upon you, dear magic Mutcer, to show that “newborns are capable of holding a belief that a god exists”, because in order (a) to believe that a god exists and/or (b) to believe that a god does not exist one has to be capable of holding a belief that a god exists, as I said and showed several times, and newborn humans are not capabe of holding a belief that a god exists, as I also said and showed several times - again and again.
Stop ignoring everything, Mutcer!
In addition:
You are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
Ignorant. :shrug:
You have actual knowledge that a god exists?
Doh!
operator error.
Sorry, Late to the party. Twas just a response to the op. I did not intend to imply that you personally or anyone, but the babe, was ignorant. :center of the universe?:
I don’t think I have “actual knowledge” whether I exist. I’m in good company.
Do your sources indicate that newborn babies have the cognitive abilities to believe that a supreme being exists?
Atheism is the lack of belief that a god exists. It doesn’t require that the atheist be aware of what a god is.
Rocks and trees aren’t atheists because they aren’t people. An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.
The people discussing atheism in this forum are explicit atheists. A newborn baby is an implicit atheist.
Can you show why it is utter nonsense?
An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.
A newborn baby human is a person
A newborn baby human doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists
Therefore a newborn baby human is an atheist
I’m not positing that newborn babies do hold a belief. As the default position is one of non-belief - whether it be UFOs, aliens, the tooth fairy, Bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - it is assumed newborn babies don’t hold a belief until it is shown otherwise. So the burden of proof is upon you to show that newborn babies do hold the belief that a god exists.
All your posts imply the false premise that “newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists”. This utter nonsense is what you are implicitly saying, again and again, by ignoring anything else. In order to be an atheist one has to be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. This is what I said to you again and again. If one is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, then (and only then!) this one is capable of becoming a theist, an antitheist, or even an atheist.
I said this again and again, Mutcer, so please stop ignoring it.
Arminius and Mutcer, do you agree with the following definition, which is based on the definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno, but edited to incorporate what Arminius has been saying? “An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.”
A newborn is a person, but a newborn is not a person capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
A newborn is incapable of holding the belief that a god exists… hence not an atheist.
Person and newborn are not synonyms.
That depends on your definition. To me, a person is by definition an entity capable of holding such beliefs–in the sense of “capable” I subscribe to. In my view, a person is an entity that understands what a person is (compare Heidegger’s concept of “dasein”). All natural gods are personal gods; belief in impersonal gods is already a kind of atheism.
Agreed.
“An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists” - this is already my defintion! So there is nothing to “edit” or to “incorporate”. In addition: Mutcer’s “definitions” are false.
A “definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno”? That can only be a false definition.
Which one do you mean?
Suggestions:
This “definition” is false. “Atheism” is the “lack of theism” (“a-theism” = “non-theism”, “lack of theism”). The “lack of a belief” is an “a-belief” (= “non-belief”, “lack of belief”), so “lack of the belief that a god exists” is merely “a-belief-that-a-god-exists” (= “non-belief-that-a-god-exists”, “lack lack of a belief that a god exists”). The word “theism” does not mean “belief” but “god + ism”. Theism and its successors (not ancestors, Mutcer!) antitheism and atheism imply the belief in god, but these words do not mean “belief” or “religion” but “god and ism” (and not more, Mutcer!).
This “definition” is false, because it lacks the capability of holding the belief that a god exists.
This “statement” is false. A “newborn baby” can be any mammalian newborn baby. But the main point is that any newborn baby has nothing to do with atheism. So the the definition of “atheist” is not possible without mentioning the capability of holding the belief that a god exists. Theists, antitheists, and atheist must be capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and all newborns are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
If you were a “newborn baby” and an “implicit atheist” (???), what would you “intellctually say” (???) about god or even about theism? Theism is a precondition of antitheism and atheism. Both antitheism and atheism are impossible without godbelief and especially theism. If you want to be an atheist you have to know what “godbelief” and “theism” exactly mean before you can overcome them and become an antitheists or an atheist.
What Mutcer and his friends do is also comparable with what the egalitarian(ist)s have been doing since the so-called “french revolution”: confusing the future with the past and saying “back to nature (!), because the real humans are those who live in natural state (!), have no power (!), and do not believe in god (!) but in those humans who know what is good for them” (???). Who is really meant by the word “them”? What “is good for »them«”? What? For whom?
Exactly, so I edited it:
“An atheist is a person [who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but] who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists.”
Not a single post I have made suggests or implies that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists.
It’s utter nonsense to you because for reasons you won’t make clear, you seem to think that a newborn baby isn’t an atheist and isn’t capable of NOT holding the belief that a god exists.
An atheist is a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists. Whether or not they are capable of holding the belief is immaterial with respect to whether or not they are an atheist. Please learn the difference between implicit atheist and explicit atheist.