Are newborn babies atheist?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yes. Atheism is the default position.

Being afraid of the dark and dreaming about dead people is the default position.

If atheism were the default position, the most primitive groups would be atheists.

 

[blutoski]

What would you call someone who hasn't considered the possibility of deities?

Lucky.

 

[CFLarsen]

Being afraid of the dark and dreaming about dead people is the default position.

If atheism were the default position, the most primitive groups would be atheists.

Nope: We become superstitious because we try to find meaning in phenomena we don't understand.

Lucky.

Or "blessed"?

 

[Paulhoff]

Nope: We become superstitious because we try to find meaning in phenomena we don't understand.



Or "blessed"?

Maybe if we understood ourselves, as being animals, superstitions about phenomena would go away. Knowing ourselves would explain why we see and feel the way we do.

Paul



Paul gets another beer

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Think about what Dawkins said about children and religion: It doesn't make sense to talk about Muslim children or Christian children. They are children of Muslims/Christians.

According to Muslims, all children are born in submission to the Divine will, and are therefore Muslims until they stray by imitating their infidel elders.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

In my opinion, It is ridiculous to call someone an atheist unless they have considered the possibility of God or gods. Even if technically correct, it renders the word useless.

Thank you.

This pins it down.

 

[Tricky]

The baby sure isn't a strong atheist. obviously. But he is a weak atheist. And so are dogs and trees and rocks.

Which means that the term "weak atheist" is totally useless for describing any sort of philosophical position since it applies to things which have no philosophy at all. I would resist making that term useless.

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?

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

At the risk of spiralling this off into the same sort of discussion that bogs down any discussion of abortion, just exactly what is a human?

Is a human embryo at 8 months an atheist? Is a fertilized human egg an atheist? Do we have atheist human sperm?

You see, at some point, you must bring into the definition of atheist, the ability to recognize the question of God. You choose to do so at birth (I am guessing). I think that is far too early.

 

[CFLarsen]

At the risk of spiralling this off into the same sort of discussion that bogs down any discussion of abortion, just exactly what is a human?

Is a human embryo at 8 months an atheist? Is a fertilized human egg an atheist? Do we have atheist human sperm?

You can't ask that question without having a discussion on abortion.

You see, at some point, you must bring into the definition of atheist, the ability to recognize the question of God. You choose to do so at birth (I am guessing). I think that is far too early.

I don't. I don't see why we need the ability to recognize the question of God.

 

[Paulhoff]

I don't. I don't see why we need the ability to recognize the question of God.

Then how can you determine anything about the baby without recognizing how it could question anything let along a so-called god.

Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

Then how can you determine anything about the baby without recognizing how it could question anything let along a so-called god.

Because babies are simply not capable of constructing so advanced thoughts.

Babies. They eat, **** and cry. That's it.

 

[Paulhoff]

Because babies are simply not capable of constructing so advanced thoughts.

Babies. They eat, **** and cry. That's it.

Never had any babies did you.

Paul

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Whether the distinction between unbelief and disbelief is useful or useless depends on context, doesn't it?

For example, Christians will sometimes take the line that a propensity to believe in God is inborn in humans ( except us atheists, who are either sports of nature or shocking fibbers ). The atheist may point to infant unbelief as a counterexample, since nothing that infants can do counts as a sign of religious belief.

The believer may then confine his thesis to humans who have attained the age of reason, or something of that sort. Or he may say that the propensity is present in the infant but cannot yet show itself...

But, however that discussion may go, it's unlikely that either party will make anything of the the similarity between infants and rocks, dogs and what not. The atheist has his human counterexample, and doesn't need to bring rocks and dogs into it. And the believer can't use them, since they won't help him establish his thesis.

 

[EGarrett]

No, an antitheist would be someone who thinks belief in god is a bad thing.

I have to say no. Theism refers to the status of your religious belief, not your OPINION of others' religious belief. For example, polytheism means believing in more then one God, not believing that it's a good idea to believe in more then one God, or that you have more then one opinion about God. This is the way I see the etymology...

Theist - Believing in God.
(Polytheist - Believing in more then one God.)
Atheist - Having no belief in any God.
(Apathy - Not caring about someone or something.)
Antitheist - Actively denying the existence of God.
(Antipathy -Actively disliking something)
Antireligious - Believing that the concept of belief in God is a bad thing.

Apathy is to Antipathy as Atheism is to Antitheism.

Where's the problem with the analogy? It seems proper giving the form of the words.

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

~~ Paul

If that's one aspect of the conversation, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[EGarrett]

Then you agree that rocks are atheists?

To the extent that they are also asexual, apolitical, apathetic, and amoral...yes...they are atheist.

But I would add also, that I'm actively antitheist, which a rock is not. (see the thread titled "Maybe we can disprove God...")

Is a human embryo at 8 months an atheist? Is a fertilized human egg an atheist? Do we have atheist human sperm?

You see, at some point, you must bring into the definition of atheist, the ability to recognize the question of God. You choose to do so at birth (I am guessing). I think that is far too early.

You have defined precisely your own problem, not mine. Because a non-living thing is atheist...so at all points in it's development...whether it is conscious or not...it is atheist. It only becomes theist or antitheist when it is capable of understanding and forming an opinion.

 

[EGarrett]

I should also add that part of the problem is the practice of using the form "an atheist"...that implies that it refers to a specific thing or person, rather than a specific condition. Overall, it might help to use "atheist" without an article, in the same that you use apolitical etc. without an article.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Went hunting for cacotheism. Got more than I expected.

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Talk:-ism

 

[Gurdur]

...That doesn't follow from the etymology.

Meaning does not directly result from etymology.

That is why "villain" today does not mean "peasant", and why today "chimpanzee" does not mean "Little Old Man Of The Woods". Both originally meant other than what they mean today ("chimpanzee" from a northern Mozambiquan Bantu language).

Sheeesh. Meaning is determined mostly by the majority consensus of language-users. That means "atheist" is the tag applied to a human who consciously (and often vocally) denies the existence of gods.

Sheeeesh. The movement among a tiny minority to redefine the word is doomed to failure, and is an utterly useless exercise to begin with; trying to ram a "default position" stance through by redefining vocabulary, while of course remaining a small minority, without any real need to and without any real reward for doing so, is bloody silly.

As for "weak" vs "strong" atheism; IMHO, more time-consuming nonsense. We do have perfectly good labels already, and no-one actually needs to justify their atheism by claiming it as a default position; in fact, such attempts smack of moral cowardice. Simply be an atheist and simply stand up for it, but for heaven's sakes don't give the appearence of whininess by trying these cheap tricks.

 

[EGarrett]

Meaning does not directly result from etymology.

Then that makes that meaning of atheist simply a misunderstanding that caught on. If that is the case, fine, but I am still entitled to point out that it is based on a misunderstanding.

That is why "villain" today does not mean "peasant", and why today "chimpanzee" does not mean "Little Old Man Of The Woods". Both originally meant other than what they mean today ("chimpanzee" from a northern Mozambiquan Bantu language).

Atheist is a not an original noun though, is a combination of a noun and a prefix with a specific meaning, which suggests a specific state. Again, it is a misunderstanding that caught on, which I am entitled to point out.

Sheeeesh. The movement among a tiny minority to redefine the word is doomed to failure, and is an utterly useless exercise to begin with; trying to ram a "default position" stance through by redefining vocabulary, while of course remaining a small minority, without any real need to and without any real reward for doing so, is bloody silly.

No, it's not. Unless you define whether something is correct by whether or not it succeeds on a large scale? That would be "bloody silly."

and no-one actually needs to justify their atheism by claiming it as a default position; in fact, such attempts smack of moral cowardice.

What you're doing smacks of ad hominem.

Simply be an atheist and simply stand up for it, but for heaven's sakes don't give the appearence of whininess by trying these cheap tricks.

...and now you're just showing your immaturity and undisciplined thinking. If your point holds water, and someone else's doesn't, you should be able to demonstrate it with clear reasoning.

 

[Michael C]

Went hunting for cacotheism. Got more than I expected.

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Talk:-ism

That's a fascinating list. I guess that babies might be Mastotheists (people who believe that God is a breast). There are so many interesting theisms, it seems a shame to stick with boring old Monotheism and Christianity. Why not bring up our children to be Praseotheists (believers in a green God) or Pachytheists (believers in a thick God)?

 

[Tricky]

You can't ask that question without having a discussion on abortion.

You can, and I'm trying to. But you declined to answer any of my questions. Which of the following is an atheist: An embryo? A zygote? A sperm?

I don't. I don't see why we need the ability to recognize the question of God.

Then if this is true, atheism is not a word used to describe thinking humans. I find that this reduces the word to meaninglessness.

Because babies are simply not capable of constructing so advanced thoughts.

Babies. They eat, **** and cry. That's it.

Precicely. It is simply ludicrous to describe things that are not capable of constructing advanced thoughts as "atheists". I find it degrading to have atheism considered to require a lower intellectual level than theism. Example:

Atheist: I am an atheist.
Theist: Yeah, well so is a turd.