21 Jul 11
when babies are born they dont really distiguish the differnece between them selves others, and thier enivironment, they spend the firsrt few years of thier life learning this, sound a bit like what buddishts try to do what with becoming one with the universe, obviously not the same thing but an interesting simmilarity.
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastTechnically, but it would make no sense to call aardvarks and zebras atheists because they will never be able to conceptualize a god. A baby (most babies) eventually will. At some point in their lives they will most likely go from being implicit atheists to being either theists or explicit atheists. If, however, they were never introduced to the concept of god, then they would remain implicit atheists.
If babies are theists, then so are aardvarks and zebras.
Does not compute.
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettBut babies cant conceptualize a god as a baby (except maybe their mother), so you've blown your own ascertion up in the water a little.
Technically, but it would make no sense to call aardvarks and zebras atheists because they will never be able to conceptualize a god. A baby (most babies) eventually will. At some point in their lives they will most likely go from being implicit atheists to being either theists or explicit atheists. If, however, they were never introduced to the concept of god, then they would remain implicit atheists.
Seems to me that this is an unanswerable question, but some people seem so certain about it's answer...bad science that, if you ask me
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundDon't be a retard. A baby is a human being who will eventually be able to conceptualize of a god, as all normal human beings are capable of doing. The fact that he cannot do so as a baby is irrelevant. His implicit atheism will then give way to either theism or explicit atheism. I honestly fail to see what is so 'freaking' difficult to grasp about that point. A stupid aardvark will never be capable of conceptualizing a god, or of anything else.
But babies cant conceptualize a god as a baby (except maybe their mother), so you've blown your own ascertion up in the water a little.
Seems to me that this is an unanswerable question, but some people seem so certain about it's answer...bad science that, if you ask me
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettAs well as being an arrogant twat, you're obviously also incapable of comprehending the question...can you tie your shoe laces?
Don't be a retard. A baby is a human being who will eventually be able to conceptualize of a god, as all normal human beings are capable of doing. The fact that he cannot do so as a baby is irrelevant. His implicit atheism will then give way to either theism or explicit atheism. I honestly fail to see what is so 'freaking' difficult to grasp about that poin ...[text shortened]... A stupid aardvark will never be capable of conceptualizing a god, or of anything else.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettagain...nonsense. Your contention is: If, however, they were never introduced to the concept of god, then they would remain implicit atheists.
Technically, but it would make no sense to call aardvarks and zebras atheists because they will never be able to conceptualize a god. A baby (most babies) eventually will. At some point in their lives they will most likely go from being implicit atheists to being either theists or explicit atheists. If, however, they were never introduced to the concept of god, then they would remain implicit atheists.
where did the first thiest come from? If no concept existed then no conception can emerge. How then can you explain the nearly universal concept of theism found throughout every culture on every continent?
pure nonsense.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by DowardThe first humans were undoubtedly implicit atheists. They initially had no conception of god and only later invented it. The first hard evidence of religious belief in humans we have is of intentional burials, the earliest of which dates to about 80,000 to 100,000 years ago. It is difficult to parse religious thought out of the physical evidence, but it is almost certain that the first humans were implicit atheists.
again...nonsense. Your contention is:[b] If, however, they were never introduced to the concept of god, then they would remain implicit atheists.
where did the first thiest come from? If no concept existed then no conception can emerge. How then can you explain the nearly universal concept of theism found throughout every culture on every continent?
pure nonsense.[/b]
If you were to take a group of infants and raise them in isolation, they, too, would grow up as implicit atheists. Over the centuries they may re-invent the concept of god, but they would do so as thinking adults. Religious belief, then, would be something that is socially transmitted and not something you are born with.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettA table has no concept of God, a chair has no concept of God, a dog turd has no concept of God. By your rational these things are all atheist. A baby does not have the ability to form opinion, therefor it can not have an opinion...therefor it can not by definition have the disbelief in a deity.
The first humans were undoubtedly implicit atheists. They initially had no conception of god and only later invented it. The first hard evidence of religious belief in humans we have is of intentional burials, the earliest of which dates to about 80,000 to 100,000 years ago. It is difficult to parse religious thought out of the physical evidence, but it is ...[text shortened]... lief, then, would be something that is socially transmitted and not something you are born with.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettThis is a false dichotomy. A non-theist is not necessarily an atheist. An atheist is someone who denies or disbelieves in god. I'm not even sure you can call babies agnostic since I feel that that position requires a conscious decision not to accept either postulate.
Babies do not believe in god. They are not theists. Therefore they are atheists, albeit implicit atheists.