Are newborn babies atheist?

Are babies atheists, no, they have a god and it is called MOM. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Solus said:
Are animals atheists? I think that would be a valid question to ask as well.

Edit: Non-human animals before someone overly pedantic corrects me.
Click to expand...

Are rocks atheists?
  • they don't believe in God.
  • they don't believe
  • they don't think
  • actually, come to think of it, they don't do anything very much :(
 
My doggy is the cutest, fluffiest atheist! Yes you are :) !

Ahem. Sorry, got distracted. He's as much of an atheist as that fugly thing at the top of the thread.
 
CFLarsen said:
What is the difference between a non-theist, and an atheist?
Click to expand...
As I said before, I would say a non-theist has never considered the question of god(s) whereas an atheist has considered them and chosen to not to believe.

I do not claim these terms are standard.

CFLarsen said:
On the contrary: It emphasizes the meaning of atheist: That you simply lack a belief in god.
Click to expand...
I still disagree. It means that you are aware of the concept of god and also lack belief.

CFLarsen said:
How can lacking something be active?
Click to expand...
Then you agree that rocks are atheists?
 
Dictionary.com gives the following definitions for the noun 'atheist' :

1) a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
2) one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
3) someone who denies the existence of god.
4) a person who does not believe in god.

Using definitions 1, 2 and 3 for the word 'atheist', the baby is not an atheist.

Using definition 4, the baby is an atheist.

If we take the cerebral route rather than the literal route and apply a little common sense to the question, then the baby is not an atheist. I think that being an atheist requires the subject to be capable of conscious thought and to know what the concept of atheism is.

Ergo, the baby is not an atheist.

Using these criteria we can now use the term correctly about any number of things:

A rock. Not an atheist.
A dog. Not an atheist.
Dave Rogers. An atheist.
The Pope. Not an atheist. Although I think we may be surprised exactly which Supreme Being(s) this person believes in, but that's another story altogether......
 
Apathetic means non-caring.
Apolitical means not participating in the politicial process.
Amoral means having no morals.

But atheist does not mean having no religious belief? It means actively denying the existence of a God?

That doesn't follow from the etymology.
 
Paulhoff said:
Are babies atheists, no, they have a god and it is called MOM. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Seconded.

What is a God besides a creator and sustainer of the known universe?
To an infant, how does this not precisely describe its grownup caretakers?
 
EGarrett said:
1. That's not my baby.
Click to expand...

That's what they all say...

Tricky said:
As I said before, I would say a non-theist has never considered the question of god(s) whereas an atheist has considered them and chosen to not to believe.

I do not claim these terms are standard.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Tricky said:
I still disagree. It means that you are aware of the concept of god and also lack belief.

Then you agree that rocks are atheists?
Click to expand...

Of course not. That makes no sense. We are talking about humans.

EGarrett said:
Apathetic means non-caring.
Apolitical means not participating in the politicial process.
Amoral means having no morals.

But atheist does not mean having no religious belief? It means actively denying the existence of a God?

That doesn't follow from the etymology.
Click to expand...

Precisely. AntiTheist would better describe someone who has actively denied the existence of a god.
 
Isn't this kind of thing exactly what the strong/weak distinction is about?

Strong atheism = "I believe there is no god"
Weak atheism = "I do not have a belief in god"

The baby sure isn't a strong atheist. obviously. But he is a weak atheist. And so are dogs and trees and rocks.
 
This is an interesting thread. I find myself sympathetic to the notion CFLarsen promotes but I'm rejecting it anyway because I fear it claims territory the Christian agreeably concedes; that ignorance is the realm of atheism.

Ignorance is a scourge of humanity. I consider it the equivalent of the Christian notion of Original Sin. It is the darkness we are all born into and struggle to overcome, instinctively reaching for the fruit of the tree of knowledge from which we learn knowledge is good or knowledge is evil.

And regardless of any nice things Christians and other religionists say about knowledge and reason, it is faith that is their salvation. Knowledge leads only toward hubris and perdition unless it kneels gracefully before the objects of faith. It is in that sense only that I say that the religionist learns that knowledge is evil. For knowledge can never banish ignorance completely, it can only push back the frontier. The promise of faith, on the other hand, is communion with the All-Knowing.

For the newborn, like Adam and Eve, the instinctive reach for knowledge from ignorance has the look of innocence - but of a kind that sometimes needs to be punished, so we slap down their reaching hands.
 
Atlas said:
Ignorance is a scourge of humanity.
Click to expand...
I would not go that far. Ignorance just means not knowing something, like not knowing how to do brain surgery. We all are ignorant about many things.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Could we meet in the middle? How about, "Ignorance in the form of Paris Hilton is a scourge of humanity."
 
Atlas said:
Could we meet in the middle? How about, "Ignorance in the form of Paris Hilton is a scourge of humanity."
Click to expand...
She is just dumb and lazy of mind, ignorance is her job.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
EGarrett said:
But atheist does not mean having no religious belief? It means actively denying the existence of a God?
Click to expand...
In it's standard usage, I would say that's the case, yes. If by actively you mean consciously, not simply by default.

Claus said:
Precisely. AntiTheist would better describe someone who has actively denied the existence of a god.
Click to expand...
No, an antitheist would be someone who thinks belief in god is a bad thing.

Seismo said:
The baby sure isn't a strong atheist. obviously. But he is a weak atheist. And so are dogs and trees and rocks.
Click to expand...
That's fair.

Hey, this isn't another one of those philosophical conversations that boils down to word definitions, is it?

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom