I wanted to appear edgy as a teenager. It ended up becoming who I am. Reading some Nietzsche and meeting an atheist early on helped to get me to that point as well.

Quote:what should I base my belief on?

Apparently on what some old fart in a funny hat says.

(May 18, 2016 at 8:31 am)ignoramus Wrote: Yes and no. Technically, I'd say no. Because the baby's brain isn't evolved enough to comprehend the concept or the question. Ignostic?
That's like saying we're all born stupid because we don't know what 1+1 is? It's a non sequitur.

This is all that posted?   I lost my post.  Never happened to me before on this web site.  I'll try to redraft it later. 
I wasn't responding to you, ignoramus, but rather to someone responding to you.

Ah well yeah, it depends exactly how you define the words.

I'm comfortable saying a baby is an atheist. It lacks a belief in gods, by virtue of not even knowing what they are. I lack the belief of lots of things that I've never heard of. But then you could say it's ignostic because it doesn't understand the question, for sure.

Or if an atheist is a person who isn't a theist, then a baby is an atheist.

I tried to call it default atheism and cognitive atheism to separate the two, but it never caught on.

The same then will apply to all animals and plants!
It might be easier to just say they're all in their natural state, including babies.

I feel that belief of any sort requires cognition of some sort beyond the innate.

(May 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all.

Class I, Grade A unadulterated bullshit. The gawd typically espoused by believers is one that cares about his creation and interacts with it. No matter ho ineffable you wish to make this gawd, be it existing on a higher plane, existing outside our universe or any of the other white wash bullshit tactics many believers try, if it interacts with the material world there will be evidence of that interaction even if there's no direct evidence of the gawd.

Show us that evidence. It has to be there if a gawd that interacts with this world exists.

Wait, how is positivism so flawed as to be unsophisticated and thus inherently wrong (although I think most of us are postpositivists, if positivists at all), yet natural theology sophisticated and correct?

Steve, in the same breath, chastises the various atheists here for demanding that people take them at their word, yet expects everyone else to do just that when he announces his favorites in the philosophy dick waving contest.

Can't have it both ways, buddy.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen F. Roberts

(May 18, 2016 at 9:18 pm)ignoramus Wrote: The same then will apply to all animals and plants!
It might be easier to just say they're all in their natural state, including babies.

I feel that belief of any sort requires cognition of some sort beyond the innate.

Sure, yeah. I agree that an atheist and a plant both share a lack of belief in gods, but the "ist" part does clearly define a person too.

It is indeed the natural state, the default position of disbelief. But I agree it's a little redundant to say you don't believe something you've never heard of.

That's why theists give me the shits when they ask for evidence for our atheism! WTF!

I'd say most are the trolls.
I can just as easily answer by saying because the sky is blue! Why not? It works for them.

Fight stupid with stupid! It's not like logic works!