I think its just using a meaning of atheist and semantically applying it
I'm determining that a sixteen year old is not a child due to their ability to reason. A sixteen year old can generally say "Phooey, Santa doesn't exist". A child however will at first explanation believe Santa exists because there's no reason as of yet not to.
Calling a baby an atheist rests on the incorrect definition of atheist as "without belief". But without belief in what?A god or gods.ethang it's very simple:"Do babies believe in god?"Unless the answer is "yes" they are atheists.
It doesn’t mean atheists get to draw another tally mark on the big board.
Oh, okay, now I see why this topic exists, you seem concerned that atheists are 'claiming' babies as part of our 'big board.' Atheists don't actually have a big board, and I doubt any atheist would really care about 'claiming' a baby, and none of us, not one, think a baby is someone who has reasoned or otherwise 'arrived' at a conclusion that there isn't any god or gods to believe in. I really don't care about anyone's baby's religious beliefs, frankly.The fact remains that babies don't believe in god or gods. That makes them atheists by default, and I'd certainly say that's far different than someone who arrives at the conclusions I have. But they're still atheists when they're born, as they aren't capable of the kind of thought pattern required to form beliefs, and the word 'atheist' just means 'no belief in god.'
How about we just call them babies, knowing that there's no way they have any idea about any religion at all? No atheist sees a baby and thinks "ANOTHER MEMBER OF OUR CABAL IS BORN! HAIL YE PHYSICS AND SCIENCE!" It's just a baby.
Is the leaning tower of Pisa atheist? By your logic, it is!
1. You disagree that theism is a kind of superstition.
I don't doubt that you do. Nevertheless, it is.
2. You don't like the definition of "atheist" because you think it applies to non-humans.
Post #83 - The name "a-theist" literally means "not a theist." Atheism is the logical negation of theism. if you aren't a theist, then you are an atheist. Awareness or knowledge is not required by any definition I am aware of. (Bolding mine)
ethang it's very simple:"Do babies believe in god?"Unless the answer is "yes" they are atheists.
The implicit scope of any "-ism" is humanity. It is only within this implicit scope that I have been speaking. Anything non-human is out of scope.
To restate my primary objection:
1. The definition of atheism requires only a lack of belief in a god or gods. (Don't forget the implicit scope of humans).
No, because the OD is giving a definition in the "scope" of our society, where thinking people either choose, or reject the IDEA of God or gods. If there isn't even an IDEA of God or gods, then a person cannot be said to be atheist. Babies are just that. A-THEIST makes no sense if there aren't THEISTS.
As for rejecting the idea that an atheist would ever become a theist, or that no one would have originally thought up a concept of primitive gods due to superstition and a tendency to anthropomorphism. Is there a reason this is an unreasonable assumption?
Let's just say for the sake of argument, there were common ancestors. With which common ancestor would the superstition, and God concept begin with?
The only concern in the animal kingdom is food, sex, and sleep. Some animal infants are lucky if their parents nurture them instead of eat them.So logically the further we would go back in the alleged evolutionary chain, the less likely of any concern outside of basic needs and pleasure.
If God didn't exist, I would say the earliest humans would have less thought of a creator than a john in Amsterdam
A more concise answer for why trees aren't atheists. An atheist isA person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Trees aren't people.
