Exactly! Can you see the inconsistency in your own argument? (Nowhere do you state that 90% of the world "believes in a religion," as you put it. However, rather arbitrarily, you now require 90% of the world to believe in the blessed Flying Unicorn in order to be convinced of His celestial majesty. If no single belief is better than another, then why must my new found belief meet a higher standard to pass muster and convince you of it veracity? If you are going to keep disagreeing with all that which is holy, then at least make an effort to keep up with your own logic.)
Most atheists do not take anything in faith without proof. This is a concept very hard to understand for people who live their entire life within a religious environment. They cannot imagine how to think without the guidance of a religion. So they invent such twisted logic as believing in "non belief." They don't even realize how laughable this is.
I keep forgetting that you have been chosen to deliver us "the message." How forgetful of me. If I may suggest, in order that this fine message of yours may endure and stand the test of time, perhaps you should store it in a place of safekeeping where it will be clear of all the sun's harmful rays. No doubt, as the chosen one, you have already surmised that ideal location where it will always be within your reach for ready reference.
Yes, it's difficult to know where to begin when you a hear statements about 'belief in non-belief'. The problem is, as you mentioned, that within the confines of a religious environment, faith trumps reason (usually, I'm sure that there are conspicuous exceptions). We can't appeal to reason to show that simply asserting that your opponent's position is conceptually akin to one's own faith-based belief system does not amount to an argument. In fact... if you think about it, this is simply a variation on Z's favourite rebuttal - 'I know you are but what am I'?
It only stands to reason, since Z is Pee Wee Herman's protégé. If I'm not mistaken, they first met and became acquainted in a movie theater in the early 90s. http://www.rosswalker.co.uk/movie_sounds/pee-wees_big_adventure.htm
I never thought or said a human is born with a religion/theism. But what is plain is that humans are born with the propensity or predisposition to either conjure up a theism or readily accept one. Is it a survival instinct that this occurs? You bet. Socio-biologists, empericists, et al peg it as so. Theologogists on the other hand disagree and think that this predisposition comes via some transedental means. Point is, both opposing groups have this one thing in common: they both realize that the predispositon is there - at birth. It's just irresponsible word use on your and those who subscribe to this idea's part that atheism can be extended to babies. It is a semantic ploy used with the intention of gaining acceptance for the worldview. It overreaches the bounds of what atheism actually is and its history. Atheism is a worldview. (Hence the suffix "ism.") And an atheist is someone who subscribes to that worldview. Plain and simple. Why? Because atheism must invariably address the ultimate questions. Because of this, it cannot on any reasonable level simply mean "without religion" as if being "without religion" is a "blank slate." In order for atheism to intimate a "blank slate", it cannot on any level even attempt to answer the ultimate questions. Ever. Because a baby wouldn't nor would it know how to address these questions. Remember, while it may not be immediately helpful towards mere survival (as in eat/poop/repeat), the human's hard-wired predisposition towards either conjuring up a religion or proto-religion or more readily accept one has been proven to be an essential survival trait for a long time. Granted that may be waning given the new dynamics of social evolution which may one day find its way into the human genome. But here's the thing. Language is often used irresponsibly. It is one of the ways language evolves over time. We have many colloquialisms, expressions, and terms that are so far away from their original meaning or intent, it's sometimes a wonder why we even use those words or expressions to refer to something to which one wouldn't readily think would be appropriate given a word's etymology. Bottom line: I can't "stop" you from using the term to label babies. I can only question why you would, examine it, and perhaps counter it with what would hopefully be reasonable discourse. On the other hand: If a prefix or qualifying word were added before the word "atheist," perhaps it would then be fitting. For instance: If I say, "She's an American." Given the common use of the word, you would automatically assume I'm talking about a citizen of the United States. What if I used that term to describe an citizen of Panama? Or Brazil? That would be wrong on my part. SO then I'd have to add a qualifier. "She's a Central American" or "she's a South American." That's why qualifiers such as "strong" or "weak" have been added to atheist. Weak would be the more inclusive term to include agnostics and in some cases those of the Eastern philosophies. Perhaps "non-cognitive atheist" would be somewhat appropriate for babies. But I'd still suggest a qualifier word between "non-cog" and "atheist" so as not to confuse it with subjectivism or emotivism - something which would more aptly apply to the stage of a human's development post infant.
I pity you... no, ......... I pity the world in which you have ultimate say. james_bond_3rd: "faith == irrational" ..... worship the beaker........ "THE BEAKER IS LIFE!!!!!!!"
Sure , and god is a man with white robes and a santa claus beard. Answer this-when you think "god"or pray to "god", what pops into your head?