Peh said:
But that's not my definition. I didn't make it. It's the definition for atheists /atheism. Your academic paper is a complete different issue. Here is the thing. Atheists is usually applied to humans with a more complex thought process and awareness of its environment. Animals, plants and human babies don't belong in them, because they don't understand the question nor the concept. So, you won't get an answer out of them, ever. And thus, actually no one really cares. But as the definition of atheism /atheist currently is, it can be also applied to them. Simply, because they all lack the believe in any god. That's it. They fit the definition. If you really want to write an academic paper then of course you start with the history of the word, the change of meaning / definitions, genetic fallacies, requirements and so on. And if I logically follow it, you will reach the moment where you test the definition on babies and pigs. But if the conclusion is: " Babies and pigs don't actively believe in any god. This also applies to a lot of adults. But one are called atheists and the others nothing while both apply to the same definition", then this results in special pleading. A baby can't be a monotheists as much as they can't be a president (Despite Trump proves it otherwise). But they can be (not a theist) and (not a president.) Whereas for this first we got the word atheist which equals to (not a theist). Also, the atheistic default position is a counter argument to apologist who claim that babies are theists. |
I understand that based on the definition you are using, babies fit. But, I'd say that makes it a bad definition.
There is not an official definition for atheist. The definition is whatever we (we meaning the people who are using the term) agree on. That's why the definition changes over the year as you mentioned. We notice "hey this definition doesn't quite capture what we mean" and then they propose a different one. That's what I'm doing.
That being said, it's not like I'm making up a new definition. From Merriam Webster: "one who subscribes to or advocates atheism". I don't think this one is perfect either, but I'd say it's much better at getting to what we really mean.
You said that when we are talking about atheists, what we are actually interested in is humans with complex thought processes that can evaluate the question, and no one cares about babies. So then, wouldn't it be better to have a definition that includes only humans with complex thought processes, and excludes babies? Isn't a definition that applies to what we actually care about better than one that includes things we don't actually care about?
As for it being a counter to theists, it's not really a good one. I think that claiming babies for either group is just leaning into their method of thought. You could say they're not theists, which is different from saying they're atheists. I prefer Dawkin's counter-argument. To paraphrase it's something like "There is no such thing as a Muslim child or a Christian child. There are only children born to Muslim or Christian families." I think this is a much better response. I think "child born to a Christian family" is a much more apt label than atheist, and it also subtly conveys the idea of indoctrination.
| Peh said: Did you just messed up the quote? Are you answering for Zoombael? |
No, he messed up the quote.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 September 2018
