Tired Runner

What I remember is that Christians are supposed to be child-like in faith--child-like as in, dependence. But on the other hand, we are supposed to know the Word of God.

Is that clear/understandable...? It is the heart that needs to be dependent, while the mind is mature and intelligent.

Um, and no, children aren't born with a concious knowledge of a "higher power". They wouldn't be able to explain it. (But you never know, eh? )

And I agree that in several cases (everyone knows about those) athiests are "purer" than theists. I find it quite sad, but my opinion is nothing. (At one point I asked a Jew if he was taught to swear, the reason being I heard a curse per three words. And his mom was quite drunk. Anyway, let's not go into the bad side of humans.)

I hope I helped...somewhat...

Mageth

Of course it is more accurate than that -- they would obviously be accurately classified as apolitical. Note that I don't think that the fact that we are born as atheists adds any weight to the atheist position, it just happens to be accurate. If you don't think it is an accurate classification, then perhaps you could point out how infants do not "lack belief in god(s)."

The Oxford Online Dictionary defines apolitical as "not interested or involved in politics." Another meaningless label to put on a newborn, one that has no meaning or usefulness in the context, any more than labeling a dog or a rock apolitical would. Such labels only have meaning when applied to someone who can make a determination one way or the other.

I don't claim infants do not "lack belief in god(s)." I claim that infants have no concept of god to be atheistic about. I claim that applying the label atheist to an infant is meaningless, just as applying the label atheist to a dog or a rock is meaningless. To the dog, rock, and infant, there is no concept of a theos to have any position on.

GrandDesigner

Well, I've often heard about this line about coming into Heaven in a child-like state or whatever. But there's only one way it makes sense to me.

And that is that children seem to have a greater sense of wonder. They want to learn things but everything is so wonderul at the same time. They are, some might say, easily amazed at things that once more grown up seem like childs play.

I can only imagine what it'd be like upon dying when the eyes reopen. I believe in the Force but I know I'll still be amazed. But I try and imagine what it'd be like for someone who truly doesn't believe there's anything more than what we see here. What happens when their eyes re-open? I tend to think they'd be excited. Like a kid in a candy store. Just as I would be. And it is with that same enthusiasm some people live their lives now. Some might call it child-like. But really it's just life. It's energy. But, in time, if there is this re-awakening, the moment will seem like childsplay. And the process will continue again until the next astounding point comes. Probably all the way around till being born into humanity is a re-awakening. A nice design.


Grand Ol Designer

tribalbeeyatch

We're going around in circles here. We agree that labeling infants as apolitical or atheist is trivial, but despite your protestations, those categorizations are perfectly accurate.

Mageth

Then it's also accurate to categorize a dog as an atheist?

Yggdrasill

If a dog lacks a belief in God, it is accurate to call it atheistic. However, I wouldn't say that it is accurate to call it an atheist, because an atheist is a person that lacks a belief in a God.

Anyway, I agree with you that it is pointless to call a dog atheistic, but it is accurate.

Mageth

Question, then: is a newborn a "person"? In other words, is a newborn fully human, not in the biological sense but in the sense of how we relate to other humans as persons? What makes one a person? The biological body or the ability to think, act and even view oneself as a person?

Perhaps this gets to the heart of my view; a newborn is not a person to which it would be correct to attach the label "atheist". In my opinion, one has to at least have the ability to conceive of the concept of god(s) and to make some kind of determination about them to be called an atheist. A newborn, like a dog, lacks these qualities.

That said, I would agree that it's possibly correct to categorize a dog or a newborn human atheistic (but not particularly meaningful or useful to do so), but not as atheists.

tribalbeeyatch

Of course it is. As I have made painfully clear by now, calling an infant an atheist is trivial but accurate, likewise a dog. Why is this so hard for you to understand? All you need to ask yourself is whether the thing in question lacks a belief in god(s). If so, then regardless of the reason, he/she/it is atheist. Narrowing the definition to exclude non-persons is fine, but then you're left with a non-standard definition and an obvious barrier to communication.

Yggdrasill

This is one of the more difficult questions. I tend to think that the biological body and the ability to think, act and view oneself as a person are all factors of what it is to be a person and a human being. So as you grow up, you become a more and more complete person, so newborns are, in effect, semi-people. I don't know if it is correct to call something that isn't quite a person an atheist, it is a grey zone.

I think it is you who is using a non-standard definition:

Atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods"*

Or maybe "One" does not refer to a person, but anything: dogs, trees, grass, rocks, etc.?


*I know, it doesn't use the phrase: "One who lacks a belief in a God or gods", but at least it doesn't say: "One who wants you dead and hates everything you love".

tribalbeeyatch

{sigh} I've pretty much run out of steam for this topic, but... Yggdrasill, yes, 'one' does not have to refer to a person, just as the term "atheistic" can be applied as an adjective to non-persons.