₦airaland Forum

FRANCISTOWN:
Babies can't be born indifferent and they can't be born neutral. Babies are born fully equipped with all the necessary senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.

Since they are not born with any belief, they only make sense of their environment using their senses. And that's how they build their understanding right from small, a kind of believe.

When a child cries and you put a mother's nipple in the baby's mouth, at that time . The baby believes anything that comes into the mouth should quench the feeling of hunger.

To say babies are born neutral or indifferent is a total error. I might agree with "babies are born innocent".

I've told you. It's in your dictionary. I can't be sorry because you refuse to read it.


Anyone or anything that doesn't have even the littlest form of belief in the existence of deities is an atheist.

A baby is non-religious or Igtheist at best. Therefore, an atheist by proximity.

Lemme ask a question .

If you raised a child in an environment where no one mentions anything about deities. By that time the child is 20. When anyone tells him anything about God.

What will be the response of the child?


Now back to the point. If tzizi was a word and people who understand tzizi are called theists.
What will be called of people who don't understand the word "tzizi"?

•Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of deities.
•Babies do not have the ability to believe in the existence of deities.
Therefore,
•Babies are atheists.

That is abductive reasoning in critical thinking.
It's a very intriguing topic in psychology and philosophy.

You talk to much without making sense

FRANCISTOWN:
I guess it can't be helped, It's now very obvious that you are with the single digit IQ crew.

No wonder you can't understand simple things.
I'm sorry but I can no longer engage someone who doesn't understand something as simple as pronouns.

You are a complete waste of my time.

Just look at you. What of the "anything" you mentioned?

FRANCISTOWN:
Nwanne, everyone is born an atheist.
I already gave you an explanation and this should not even be debatable topic.

I don't know why we always need to break things down to our christian brothers especially.

Atheism is anyone that doesn't have the ability to believe, not just anyone who has the ability to disbelieve. Whether as a child or as an adult.

If I said p1 = Δp + p2 , you prolly do not understand that formula or If I spoke in a foreign tongue, you simply do not understand. Your brain cannot process what it doesn't understand.

There are adults in China that if you prolly talked anything about God to 'em, they'll prolly just look at you like you are sick.
Their brain just lack the ability to understand how such things can ever work.

And I've told you that. If babies were raised in environments where they've never heard about deities. By the time they are grown, if anyone asked them about deities. They'd just go blank, the same way you'll go blank if I presented a strange formula to you.

There are no such persons anywhere in the world without a knowledge of what a god is. Knowing about something is not the same as believing in it. They must have read books , listen to stories,or watch movies where deities are depicted.

You just brought up an impossible situation to defend you false claim . There are no such persons anywhere ,not even in China.

This is the problem with defending a lie. You have to use other lies to defend it and don't know when to stop.

It's a lie that babies are born atheist. There are parallels to such lies in religion and in the business world The purpose is the same; To get people acting without thinking so they embrace an idea or product as the only one worthy of embracing or buying.

Muslims. All babies are born Muslims.

Christians. All babies are born sinners.

Atheist. All Babies are born atheists.

. The same rhetoric all of them. None of them is telling the truth.

The same way Muslims and Christians can't see the lie in such claims about babies is the same way you can't see it.

FRANCISTOWN:
I understand that animals do have some sorta believes, if you noticed the way some dogs act around their owners.

But i don't know for sure what those believes are. I'm not sure whether anyone really knows what those believes are. That's the reason I'm silent about it.

But what I'm saying is. I don't know whether animals practice atheism or not, but judging from the definition of an atheist.

An atheist is a person... And since animals are not persons. Animals can never be atheists. Maybe there's gotta be some other word for animals that practice atheism(if there's any)

But you declared on this same thread that anyone or anything that lacks belief in deities is an atheist .

Now , you want to deny it . SMH

FRANCISTOWN:
Your argument is flawed and your point is dead on arrival.
I already responded to this, so lemme avoid redundancy.

It's your own that's very flawed.
The premise upon which you based your argument is that anyone who lacks belief in deities is automatically an atheist. But that's simply not true.

We have those who don't believe in deities but are not atheist . Those ones practice other forms of spirituality. They believe in spirits, reincarnation and practice witchcraft, juju voodoo etc without acknowledging the existence of any deity. An atheist doesn't believe or practice any of those.

We also have deist who can't be regarded as theist or atheist . A deist has not accepted that religious gods exist .

So, you can see you're not making any sense with your explanations. Your atheism is founded on the two major abrahamic religion of Christianity and Islam. That's only thing you know and have been using it to arrive at conclusions that are not supported by any evidence.

There's no evidence that babies are born atheist. If that were true we would be seeing the evidence everywhere. Most people in the society would be atheist, but the reverse is the case.

In fact , the evidences that we have supports the idea that babies are born more spiritually aware than adults. By the time they start using language very well, they usually shock us with some of the things they claim to have seen or experienced. Some of them see ghosts and other disembodied entities regularly ,and also even inform us of how they have lived before in a previous life which some adults dismissed as baby talk. But not all can be dismissed as such

Some reincarnation reports given by children before the age of 6 have been confirmed to be true after investigation.

So going by the evidence ,if we're going to accept that babies are born as anything at all, we shouldn't not be looking at theist atheist , but something else, which is , they're born as spiritually aware beings.

If you insist otherwise, then please provide evidence like I just did, and not baseless explanations of, "if one is not a theist then must be atheist. Such talk is evidence of someone thinking in black and white only

[quote author=FRANCISTOWN post=129771902]The post was supposed to be for KnownUnknown but since you are here. Enchanté.

If you don't get it now, then I'm sorry. Peace and love.

Just make use of your dictionary for once and we are ait.

Atheism is simply the lack of believe in the existence of deities, period.

It doesn't say anything about why(reasons)/when you do not believe in the existence of deities. (Why you do not believe is your own cup of tea, it doesn't concern atheism. The same way why anyone would follow Jesus is not a concern of christianity)
Just don't believe in deities, that's all you need to be an atheist.

Again! Atheism is not about the reason you are an atheist. Just don't believe in the existence of deities. Then you are an atheist. Once we understand this English grammar, life is easy and sweet.

Babies do not understand the concept of deities(which is a reason atheism isn't concerned about), but as long as we can't rule out the fact that they do not believe in the existence of deities(Non-thiest) . They are simply atheists.

Atheism is what you are and not why you are what you are.

I don't know where many of you get this misinformed opinion that atheism has to be a kind of choice being made. Religious indoctrination has eaten deep into most of you. But that is not how reality operates.

Sometimes atheism is basically what you are not. And not what you are. I guess many of you don't really understand what atheism is. That's the reason you argue unnecessarily.

Lemme school you a lil bit.

In a probability event of a coin.

When a coin is tossed, There are only two possible outcomes.

It's either it's the Head or the Tail.

The outcome can only be a Tail if it is not a Head. i.e T= not H
And the outcome can only be a Head if it is not a Tail. i.e not Tail.

It's the same in digital circuits for the Truth Table NOT Gate, that uses 0 and 1, for ON and OFF respectively.

Your power outlet socket at home is either Off or On. For whatever reason your socket doesn't have power, it is off. Even if the switch is on.

Even in BOOLEAN Algebra and programming.

It is 1, when it is not 0. And it is 0, when it is not 1.

Also with one of Aristotle's Laws of Logic known as:
•The Law of Noncontradiction
Either x or not x is true and there is no other possibility. There is no third ground.

Either Thiests or Non-Thiests.

In electricity, it's either the electrons are flowing or not.

Lemme use something you can take with.
Here in naija. When there is H.E.P, whether the voltage is good or bad. We say there is light. The opposite of that is No Light.


That's how reality works. If you are not a good person, then you are a bad person. There is no middle ground.

Whether you know it's an offense or not. Once you commit and the law gets it's grip on you. You are a goner. (ignorance is not an excuse)

Using the law of Logic.

•The Law of Identity
Two entities x and y are identical if they share the same properties.

Babies do not believe in the existence of deities. Atheists do not believe in the existence of deities.

•The Law of Noncontradiction
Either x or not x is true and there is no other possibility.

Either you are a theists or Non-Thiests (atheists).
Babies are not theists. Therefore, atheists.

•The Law of the Excluded Middle
An entity x has or does not have a property P

Atheism has nothin in common with theism likewise theism doesn't have any property of atheism.

Babies show no features of theism, therefore atheism.

I just explained a concept of the Logic table in statistics. You should pay me for the free lecture.

Also I'm less concerned about your religion or "non religion". It's non' my business. It's not like my name is on your will.
guardian.

By the way. I've been an atheist prolly since when you were still being dressed up for school by your guardian.

You're obviously a kid who is not aware that the person he's talking to is someone old enough to be his grandfather. You don't know anything about me offline yet, you believe you became something, when?

You're a new atheist hence the reason for your behaviour. You will calm down very soon like others before you. It's just a matter of time. If you don't calm down then you're a fanatical atheist needing urgent treatment . A fanatic is a fanatic anywhere. . They're highly intolerant and want to eliminate others who don't share in their delusional claims . After this I'm avoiding you as I don't want to be engaging a fanatical atheist. .


Just Provide a scientific backing for your claim. That's all

All that you have up there is your own opinion. It will be a waste of time responding. They're the effects of what you have been brainwashed with.

A new born baby has not developed the level of consciousness needed to have or lack believe in anything. If you insist they have , show the science , not conjectures

I'm not interested in ,if a baby is not this then it's that. That's not scientific thinking.

BTW , You were born an American. Every baby is.

FRANCISTOWN:
Please show me and this honourable forum.

Please use Google

FRANCISTOWN:
Lol! You dey mind those ones wey no know anything 😂

And you know something by regurgitating Hawking's vomit?, Babies are born atheist.


Nairaland has become a jungle no thanks to people like you who are quick to make caustic remarks about others without much provocation .

If you won't respect me when I haven't disrespected you by insulting you, then stay on your own please.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism

kkins25:
What do you mean, triplechoice, when you say "babies aren't born atheist"?

I was responding to your friend's nonsensical claim that babies who are just begining to form their minds are born atheist.

I don't see what should stop him from also declaring that everyone is born an American or British. Its the same kind of reasoning

Yes, Francistown was born lacking "Nigerianese" He's not a Nigerian. His default birth status is American.
Even though he was born in Nigeria he lacked "Nigerianese" at birth. Someone who lacks"Nigerianese" is an American

If was taken immediately to America as a baby, he would have grown up to become what he was born with, an American, speaking the language effortlessly and acting true to his default birth


Unfortunately for him, he grew up in Nigeria where he was "indoctrinated" to be a Nigerian.

It's even possible that every baby in the world was born an American, but grew up in places where they became something else, Chinese, Indians, Nigerians, and so on

FRANCISTOWN:
All there is that is sure is that. Mathiastelins with six heads, the true God created you.

Exactly what a believer would say
If you're not a theist you must be atheist. Black and white thinking

Since I'm challenging your claims, the only that comes to your head is theist. SMH

FRANCISTOWN:
Lol! Same estimation from different sources yet you claim injustice.
Nwanne, have you ever been to China?

what do you know about me to think I haven't or have Chinese friends.
The reboot was rejected in China since it didn't reflect the truth



Why framing the question to get people there giving you the answer you want to hear and then claim majority are of a particular belief?

FRANCISTOWN:
Just so you know, Budaatum was the one who used that phrase in this thread. I defended It because i agree to it.

Remember to take something warm before bed. Don't take coffee though and be sure to close your mouth while sleeping.

People wey go good school don understand me. Who says it's an offense to lack understanding? We are thankful for life bro.

Have a good evening.

Please take responsibility for your own actions. I have responded to Buda and that's settled between the two of us. And I just responded to your replies. Why should I not?

Just learn to respect people you engaged with. It won't take anything from you.

Up there, you were telling your friend," you don't know anything" what's that supposed to mean?

You skip your medications or smoke something?

FRANCISTOWN:
Babies can't be born indifferent and they can't be born neutral. Babies are born fully equipped with all the necessary senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.

Since they are not born with any belief, they only make sense of their environment using their senses. And that's how they build their understanding right from small, a kind of believe.

When a child cries and you put a mother's nipple in the baby's mouth, at that time . The baby believes anything that comes into the mouth should quench the feeling of hunger.

To say babies are born neutral or indifferent is a total error. I might agree with "babies are born innocent".

I've told you. It's in your dictionary. I can't be sorry because you refuse to read it.

Anyone or anything that doesn't have even the littlest form of belief in the existence of deities is an atheist.
A baby is non-religious or Igtheist at best. Therefore, an atheist by proximity.

Lemme ask a question .

If you raised a child in an environment where no one mentions anything about deities. By that time the child is 20. When anyone tells him anything about God.

What will be the response of the child?


Now back to the point. If tzizi was a word and people who understand tzizi are called theists.
What will be called of people who don't understand the word "tzizi"?

•Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of deities.
•Babies do not have the ability to believe in the existence of deities.
Therefore,
•Babies are atheists.

That is abductive reasoning in critical thinking.
It's a very intriguing topic in psychology and philosophy.

Babies can never be born atheist or anything else..The reason is very simple. A new born is yet to display the kind of brain activity needed to hold or lack any kind of believe.

Saying that babies are born atheist is as silly as saying that they can also be born with common sense or without it. A new born baby not developed the neural development to have or lack common. And who is that fool that would accuse a new born baby of lacking common sense or having it?

So my friend , your claim that babies are born atheist doesn't find any scientific support. .

I already told you that such talk of babies being born this or that is psychological gimmick to brainwash the gullible into accepting as true something that's not true.

Christians are claiming that babies are born sinners, while Muslims are also claiming that every baby is born a Muslim, why? The answer should be obvious to anyone who can really think with their brains.

It's the same tactics hawkings wanted to employ to get people into accepting atheism as the default position. When he came up with silly idea, some atheist even mocked him by labelling him an atheist crusader trying to convert the whole world into atheism.

You not aware of this if not you won't be here mentioning it or even trying to defend it. It's very clear to me you became an atheist just yesterday. You will learn very soon and calm down.

You unfortunately allowed yourself to be brainwashed by something that's not true and because of that can't see how you're not making sense defending it.

A brainwashed person is never aware of their brainswashing and that's a proven psychological fact. The only way to know you're not brainwashed by something is when you're not afraid or unwilling to question it.

You're not questioning what hawkings claimed but defending it because you believe he's above deception

Please understand I'm not judging you as a brainwashed, but saying that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed .

Visit the site " Psychology Today" and learn more about what hawkings wanted to do with that very silly claim of his. This is the third time I have asked you to research it , but you're not listening. It's your cup of tea .

Good evening. I'm done with you for now.

FRANCISTOWN:
I no dey chat too much these days. Enjoy the below.

Thank you very much.But you noticed that one of the synonyms for irreligious is freethinker? How would you know if I'm that?

Are atheist or theist freethinkers? No way !
Please use your brain and learn to Judge people by what they do and say and not what you assume about them.


Your wrong assumption about my person is why you're doing all of these.


Before now, you assumed, like an average religious person who doesn't think, I was a Christian and wanted to put the blame on me for your inability to prove how exactly babies are atheist.

This time around, you're clutching at straws to stay afloat.

Just focus on the discussion at hand,and quite trying to cast me in a mould of your choice to help you win an argument. You don't know anything about me . Nothing at all.

The claim that babies are atheist is not your idea. It's Hawking's. But you're here regurgitating it is if you thought it out yourself. . Because he said so ,he must be correct. Not so ?

FRANCISTOWN:
This is one of the phrases I hate the most in my life. If not that my eagle just landed, I would have said some really abrasive stuff to you.

Are you saying you can't think for yourself with your head, but you rely on what other people think as a blueprint for living your life?

Do you think everyone is dumb that other people can make them believe whatever?
Are you that kinna person?

Please I beseech you. Moving forward, never use that statement when chatting to me.



Check your dictionary. What does it say? You and that other guy are birds of feather.

Atheists are critical thinkers, a skill non-atheists will never possess .

You/someone said sometime ago that some people became atheists due to disappointments or emotional consequences. Can these people be also categorized under people who became atheists due to the absence of verifiable evidences for God?

People turn atheists for different reasons.
Whatever you have added is only a figment of your own imagination to give you sweet dreams. That's not atheism in the grand scheme of things





This was what I said:


Now, how is this tantamount to "There are adults who have never heard about God in China"?
I'm a Nigerian and I always see christians especially, as people who are mentally ill whenever they are on about that Jesus thing. Does that mean I've never heard about God?

You really need to hone your comprehensive skills.

Do you know why nobody can gainsay me in a debate? It's because I always know what I talk about, and not just knowing. I have a deep understanding of them.
If you wanted to defeat me. You need to find a way to drag me into what I know but do not understand. That's how you can have anything on me.


Lol😂😂😂 Comedian. See the way you are sweating.

https://www.wionews.com/web-stories/world/top-10-most-atheist-countries-1689591277515


I no dey like talk too much these days. I go just attach a screenshot from Gallup's poll as seen on Wikipedia. And a report from other survey


I got questions for ya . What is a person who does not believe in the existence of deities called?
Do babies believe in the existence of deities?

BTW, you no be atheist?
Wetin you come dey do o? You dey worship water?😂😂😂

I will respond later. I dey watch football

https://www.chinasource.org/resource-library/blog-entries/are-most-chinese-really-atheists/

The Pew review doesn't give an accurate description of things. Read why from the above or meet up with Chinese people here in Nigeria to tell you the truth.

FRANCISTOWN:
Now lemme give you a smack down. I want to win flawlessly. 100% fatality. Emi ika.


Of which religion are you?

Life is not black and white only. I'm irreligious.

Biglittlelois:
He is wrong, it is an ambiguous expression that can go both ways that's why I gave possible instances to that sentence.

Where's the ambiguity in the sentence?

HALCYON44:
A mother is the subject
Beats up is the verb( concord)
Her daughter ( object)
Because she was drunk( adverb of reason) modifies the verb phrase "beats up"
Definitely the daughter is the one that is drunk. If it's the mother that is drunk. The sentence will be the "drunk mother "beats up her daughter

You got it very wrong
Look at sentence below with the same structure and tell me who was drunk?

"A Father beat up his daughter because he was drunk "

Hillarie:
No, sir. Semantics doesn't work that way. It's an ambiguous sentence. That is to say that it can mean different things.
While you're very correct about the adverbial clause modifying the verbal phrase "beat up", (even though it was erroneously written as "beats up" ) it still doesn't explain whether it's the mother who was drunk or the daughter. Read up on ambiguity in language.

My dear ,each of the constituent parts of the sentence have their function . If you know what they're ,you won't argue this with me.

The adverbial clause, "because she was drunk" is performing the function of an adverb, and adverbs can only modify verbs, adjectives, and another adverb, not nouns.

The clause is modifying the action, "beats up" and not describing the daughter as drunk.
Please read up grammatical function to understand this better.

"A father beat up his daughter because he was drunk " ,is the same kind of sentence.

You cannot argue in the above that it's the daughter that was drunk.

It's the mother who was drunk, not the daughter.

The adverbial clause of reason, "because she was drunk" functions to modify the phrasal verb, "beats up" in the main clause, "A mother beats up her daughter" to tell us the reason for the action of beating up.

"because she was drunk" is modifying the phrasal verb, "beats up", and not describing the daughter as drunk.

If the daughter is the drunk, then the correct sentence will be,

A mother beats up her daughter who was drunk.

FRANCISTOWN:
Nwanne, everyone is born an atheist.
I already gave you an explanation and this should not even be debatable topic.

I don't know why we always need to break things down to our christian brothers especially.

Atheism is anyone that doesn't have the ability to believe, not just anyone who has the ability to disbelieve. Whether as a child or as an adult.

If I said p1 = Δp + p2 , you prolly do not understand that formula or If I spoke in a foreign tongue, you simply do not understand. Your brain cannot process what it doesn't understand.

There are adults in China that if you prolly talked anything about God to 'em, they'll prolly just look at you like you are sick.
Their brain just lack the ability to understand how such things can ever work.

And I've told you that. If babies were raised in environments where they've never heard about deities. By the time they are grown, if anyone asked them about deities. They'd just go blank, the same way you'll go blank if I presented a strange formula to you.

@ the bolded, I'm not a Christian please.

Babies are not born atheist. It's what you have been made to believe by other atheist before you.

You're relying on an incomplete definition for atheism to label babies as atheist. You're defining it as a lack of belief in gods,and ending it there. What of the "due to the absence of verifiable evidences for gods" Include the other part and see if you make sense

Modified. 1. You lied about China. There are no such adults in China who haven't heard the word god or what's called god in Chinese. Because you hear that China is a predominate atheist country, you just assume the majority there are atheist
Not true.

To put it a proper context, predominate atheist country means, China is a country where we have more atheist than anywhere else in the world. It doesn't mean the majority are atheist. They have their own traditional religion which most of them subscribe to
It's atheist propaganda talk to declare China an atheist country. It's the government that's atheist,not everyone or majority Only a few are atheist when you consider the entire population


2. Not knowing about deities shouldn't translate into atheism
You're saying that because that's the only thing you know or can think of
You can describe them as indifferent or neutral. That's better

FRANCISTOWN:
You already answered your own question. Tizizist, is not a concept of believe or a non believe.
It basically just a word.
And I simply did not understand, therefore I have a non-understanding of the word. I lack the understanding of the word.

Theism is a believe in deities, and babies simply do not understand deities., they have a "non-believe" of that believe . They lack the believes in what they do not understand. Simply atheism.

I'm afraid you're only willing to see things through the lens of your atheistic position.

Why not born neutral, agnostic , irreligious or even indifferent?

Why are atheists the only ones making such claim about babies?

Remember I said talk like yours are psychological gimmick to get people into accepting something as true without questioning it. Calling it a psychological gimmick is putting it euphemistically. It's actually a lie,a brainwashing tool used by cult groups to control the thinking of their followers.


If you do a little research on this, by visiting the site , " Psychology Today" you will find different variants of it so you know what you're actually doing without you being fully aware . Other atheist are making the same claim everywhere,and because of that you think it's the correct thing to say.



Nothing wrong if you choose non belief, atheism,but to label every baby as atheist is wrong. Nothing substantial to support your claim.


The adult atheist lack of belief is founded on something, the absence of any verifiable evidences for gods and the supernatural. Babies have no such considerations. They have not considered any evidence for or against anything to lack belief or disbelieve.


Babies are born neutral, neither believing or disbelieving anything.atheism.

They shouldn't be labeled as atheist just because of the presence of theist . It's casting them in a particular mould even before they're ready to form their own minds on anything.

No one is born an atheist. If that were true we would be seeing evidences of babies of certain age everywhere displaying strong apathy for anything God or the spiritual once the topic is introduced to them for the first time.

FRANCISTOWN:
When a baby boy is born and raised within an environment where no one says anything about God and prolly doesn't hear anything about God. By the time the child is 20.

If anyone walked up to the guy and says anything about God to him.

To the guy, the question doesn't make any sense to him, and it's not his fault. The question just doesn't make sense to him.
That is called Igtheism, a sub category of atheism.

The guy won't suddenly become an Igtheist, he will only be maintaining his position from infantry.

It's not even a topic worthy of debate. Every child is born non-theist

It will not also make sense to him if you walk up to him and talk about "Igtheism" or the other non theism

Atheism is an active position and not a passive one. The term, atheist, is used to describe a particular kind of behaviour displayed by those who are convinced about something, the non existence of God. It's not just non belief in a God alone due to not knowing it..It's a position one has taken against theism.

And in fact, you cannot declare lack of absence of belief in something you once believed in before.
Because you now know the truth,you can only disbelieve it and not lack a belief in it .

It's even hilarious listening to former theist , now atheist,declaring they now lack a belief in God. How is that even possible?

For that to happen,the person"s brain would have been " formated" to the extent that every trace of God beliefs are removed.

A former theist, now atheist, still has some residual of their past beliefs about gods or God firing in their brains at the background to make it impossible to completely lack a belief in gods. They can only disbelieve.

It's only those born in non religious homes that may claim a lack of belief because they don't know what it means to belief in a God. It's not what they have experienced before.

FRANCISTOWN:
That you don't know of it already makes you a none -believer,a Non-thiest, therefore an atheist.
Do you believe/disbelieve whether 3 rings can be shared amongst 2 fathers and 2 sons?

Then how come you're talking about what you don't know and taking a position against it?

If you don't know it you won't talk about it, reject it or be aware of your stance against it.

There's something that's common with statements such as, " everyone is born in sin" , "people are born gay" and people are born atheist" . It's to postulate people into accepting something as true without questioning it

It's a well known psychological gimmick which I thought you should be aware of. It takes away ones free will and denies one the freedom to choose the kind of life they want to live and learn from it.

We are all unique creatures and so ,it's not scientifically possible for everyone to be bom with the same tendencies.

FRANCISTOWN:
You cannot believe in what you do not have an idea of. Babies do not have an idea of the concept of a God. Therefore, they are not theists. And atheist simply means "Not-a-thiest"

Can you disbelieve what you don't know of?

FRANCISTOWN:
Wait, in what context did you ask the question?
I might be failing to understand your question.

You said everyone is born atheist. I disagree with that. A baby is born neutral and that's what's generally accepted to be true.

There's no evidence anywhere that babies are born atheist or any of the labels you have used.

One's behaviour is largely influenced by what they have made from the impression they have received from their environment.


Babies cannot make much from their immediate environment to be labeled as an atheist who actively rejects the idea of a god .

FRANCISTOWN:
It's not about labels it's not about behaviours. It's about what makes sense to an individual.

Who's this individual? The new born?

FRANCISTOWN:
budaatum was actually right when she said the below.



Anyone who has no idea about the concept of gods/deities is also an atheist.

There are different categories under atheism.
There is igtheism,
Apatheism,
Agnostic atheism, just like budaatum and yourself.
There is antitheist atheism. e.tc.

Therefore, everyone is born an atheist.

Is atheism all about the label or the behaviour itself?

budaatum:
Was born an atheist, and was not indoctrinated into believing in gods at an early age, and was taught about them instead, starting with ancient English, Greek and Roman gods in school, and Egyptian gods at home (dad was learning about them).

Only got to understand people believe in gods when I met Nigerians in their environment, and it was absurd to me considering they also believed oyinbo rats spoke.

I think, the correct thing, from what you explained up there, is that you were born without any knowledge of what a god is, and not that you were born an atheist.

Babies lack the neural development to actively believe or disbelieve a god. So they cannot be born atheist, instead they're born neutral, not believing or disbelieving anything.

NairaLTQ:
The Question was simple:
Is the Software WITHIN the memory of a HDD Tangible or not tangible?

Of course we know that the Software is REAL but the problem was you and some others decided that the Software was Tangible solely BECAUSE of the EFFECTS we observe it has on the Machine. This was the ONLY evidence you had about the SOftware being tangible. Does it even matter if the name we call "Software" is "Dogon": consistency demands that "Dogon" is Tangible because it has Effects on the Hardware.

I only ask, can you be consistent in saying that ANY Nomenclature that has Effects on the Physical Hardware is Tangible?

Your last question makes no sense. Read and read till you understand why I say so.

Tangibility or intangibility is a broad term . Everything can't have the same kind of tangibility or intangibility So insisting one use it to mean the same thing in all situation is unhelpful for anyone.

We can refer to a software as intangible,but it's not the same intangible as when talking of spirit.

Another thing is that, you're the only one defining a software as intangible part of a computer that's not measurable. It's never defined that way anywhere.

NairaLTQ:
Of course for the same context, no difference.
So, you will be consistent with your definition.

You're very vague here. Which " for the same context" are you talking about?

First, confirm again if the position 1 represents your definition of Tangible


[b]Position 1:
If we insist on using Tangible to mean ANY EXISTENCE or REALITY that produces EFFECTS on matter, then we must be CONSISTENT with our definition as Gravity, Electric Field, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Software, Logic, Information, Consciousness, Mathematics will be Tangible. But note that other than these Effects there is NO EVIDENCE for them. Whatever we have is a NOMENCLATURE that describes the cause of the Effects we observe

. You're clowing yourself. If you have no hidden agenda, which has been exposed in your conversation with Jessica ,why should you bother yourself with ,the consistency of the word, tangible or intangible when discussing software? A software ,when defined in some dictionaries is described as intangible, but not the same intangible as spirit.


This was why I said the meaning of word is determined by the context in which it's used. You haven't created any real context yet you're looking for consistency.

Are you discussing spirit or a computer software?