Are newborn babies atheist?

What do the Maori do with it?

They do eat them. Conger, stingray, doesn't matter. If it comes from the sea, chances are Maori will eat it - just cultural diet from having obtained most of their protein from the sea for a few hundred years.

Tastes like boiled auto tyres.
 
They do eat them. Conger, stingray, doesn't matter. If it comes from the sea, chances are Maori will eat it - just cultural diet from having obtained most of their protein from the sea for a few hundred years.
Inedible, yet the Maori eat them? Well, this dovetails nicely into the discussion (provided you understand I'm just using this as an example, not actually making such assertions.)

Conger eels are a-edible. Ask almost anyone. Well, anyone but a Maori. To a certain small group, it is incorrect to describe them as a-edible. However, if you told the public at large that they were edible, you would be certain to confuse and mislead them. So in your earlier post, you may not have been technically correct to call them "a-edible", but for the sake of common communication, it would be silly to call them "edible". It might cause rancor among people who had more conventional understanding of what "edible" means. Their rancor might result in the application of a fast-moving skillet to your cranium.

Tricky, you can count my nomination for that for July Pith Awards.
You still have to nominate it. I will not remember it come August.

***
ETA. I've had stingray. It is delicious. Tastes like Steve Irwin.
 
Last edited:
And, for the last time: It is not the absence of a considered position. It is the absence of belief, period.
Agree that it's about belief instead of a considered position.

Disagree that the belief is absent.

A baby's knowledge of the universe is so small that people like its parents qualify to be "gods of the gaps". And the baby has evidence of these gods.

But then, that's what I've been saying all along.
 
We are born with a lack of belief in god. We are born atheists.
Wrong.

We are born with the notion of a totally unquestionable and absolute trust/belief in an omnipotent Deity.

Adults might identify a certain Dualty in our baby-belief and call the Gods "Mother" and "Father". The baby itself cannot differentiate whatsoever since it doesnt even have a notion of "self" or "outside of self". We might therefore judge the babies belief as monotheistic.

One might as well reason that babies are absolute pantheists since God is their complete Universe. Babies have no evidence for the existence of that Universe, since they dont have a clue what that means anyway. Thus it is justified to call it "God" for them per definition.

Thus we are born with a completely unreflected belief in God within the framework of our very simple belief system.

What do you prefer? Are we born monotheists or pantheists?

Herzblut
 
Last edited:
No, I used that as an example of the kind of rancor that can occur if you attempt to force a confusing meaning of a word onto a person who might resent your implications.
No, you did not use it that way...
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.
Moving on...
Okay, it is not meaningless. It has meaning, but so very little that it is doesn't justify the potential confusion it causes. I did say your position was more consistant that Claus', since he changes between "silly" and "non-silly" for labeling unthinking things as "atheist".

I still say that calling a rock atheist is silly and would confuse, and possibly insult people.
The term has the same amount of meaning as asexual, apathetic, apolitial etc. And, as I said when I first answered this question, you can call a rock atheist in the same way that you can call a rock asexual, apathetic, and apolitical. It is not standard usage, as the terms usually apply to things that do have the option to participate and choose not to...but the terms DO accurately describe it.

I also feel that the term, used this way, more accurately describes the way I feel about religion in general. I'm not on a soapbox screaming that there is no God. I don't even think about it outside of these types of discussions. It is entirely useless and meaningless to me, it is separate from my thinking.

Yes, it is one thing to point it out. It is another entirely to start using non-standard definitions.
I'm not inventing a new menaing. The definition I'm using is still found in many dictionaries...and if one definition has more merit then the others, then I feel it is better to use that definition.
 
You still have to nominate it. I will not remember it come August.

Well, it's about time we automated it, or incorporated them into TLA noms with a note to the effect that they're pith nominations to ensure nobody endth up taking the pith.

ETA. I've had stingray. It is delicious. Tastes like Steve Irwin.

:dl:

Cruel , but very funny!

(Actually, lots of people have unwittingly eaten stingray when they've thought they were eating scallops.)
 
I'm wondering what the causal arrow is.

Do babies believe like atheists, or do atheists have the mind of babies?

What did the original poster intend?
Neither. Note that the word atheist is used as an adjective, not a noun.
 
And, for the last time: It is not the absence of a considered position. It is the absence of belief, period.
Your incompetence is annoying. Total faith is the only survival strategy for a baby.

Faith has two general implications which can be implied either exclusively or mutually:Faith as the basis for human knowledge

One illustration of this concept is in the development of knowledge in children. A child typically holds parental teaching as credible, in spite of the child's lack of sufficient research to establish such credibility empirically. That parental teaching, however fallible, becomes a foundation upon which future knowledge is built.[citation needed] The child’s faith in his/her parents teaching is based on a belief in their credibility. Unless/until the child’s belief in their parents’ credibility is superseded by a stronger belief, the parental teaching will serve as a filter through which other teaching must be processed and/or evaluated. Following this line of reasoning, and assuming that children have finite or limited empirical knowledge at birth, it follows that faith is the fundamental basis of all knowledge one has. Even adults attribute the basis for some of their knowledge to so called "authorities" in a given field of study. This is true because one simply does not have the time or resources to evaluate all of his/her knowledge empirically and exhaustively. "Faith" is used instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

These empirical evidences erode your case - which is weak anyways - into non-existence.

Not just that. They support exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Your position is indefensible.

Herzblut
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering what the causal arrow is.

Do babies believe like atheists, or do atheists have the mind of babies?

What did the original poster intend?

Oh, dear. Cheap shots at atheists now? Coming out as a full-blown believer?

Agree that it's about belief instead of a considered position.

Disagree that the belief is absent.

Fine with me.

A baby's knowledge of the universe is so small that people like its parents qualify to be "gods of the gaps". And the baby has evidence of these gods.

But then, that's what I've been saying all along.

Wrong.

We are born with the notion of a totally unquestionable and absolute trust/belief in an omnipotent Deity.

Your incompetence is annoying. Total faith is the only survival strategy for a baby.

That comes later. Does a newborn baby have religious beliefs?

Your position is indefensible.

Wanna try again?
 
CFLarsen said:
Wanna try again?

He did well enough the first time.

Your arse has been thoroughly kicked throughout this thread, Larsen. Just give up and stop fooling yourself.
 
He did well enough the first time.

Your arse has been thoroughly kicked throughout this thread, Larsen. Just give up and stop fooling yourself.

You seem to have missed the difference between a newborn baby, and a baby at a later stage.
 
:bgrin:
... Parts of Europe are further down the track as well, in terms of spurning christianity.

Yeah, I've heard so, but I still think you guys are ahead: Geee, A prime Minister, this is one gigantic step put forth. No doubt about it, plus what you said in regard to the general feeling about people's religious vs. non-religious stances.


Frankly, because they're idiots.They are so full of pride in their accomplishment at being one of Jesus' personal friends that they just have to shout it out and be damned.
LMAO, it feels good to know that the wheels are turning in certain areas of the world:cool: .

Personally, I think it's great because it's easier to weed out the zealots and I do have a number of customers who genuinely do not employ "devout" christians. Highly illegal of course, which is why they pay me to hide it for them.

Their business, their prerogative. I perfectly undestand them. at the Dawkins site, there is a thread about a group of australians who tricked him into agreeing to give them an interview (he doesn't the zelots). Once they asked him the first question, I don't remember what it was, he realized they were bunch of woos, of course being filmed, he stopped to think about what he should do next, to make a long story short, they took the "pause" and extendended it, then showed him answering a different question that was cut out of the vid to make it look like he didn't have an anwer to the first question and that he was trying to evade it by covering a different one. It was just sooo rotten, I couldn't believe it.
 
Ah, you must have missed these posts:


I have to agree with tkingdoll and Tricky here. Besides, the dictionary definition of atheist involves denial or disbelief, both sort of active positions there.

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......

I agree with both of these. If "atheism" is simply the default of lacking a belief in a god, what is the duly and well considered rejection of a particular god concept?

I think they definition of "atheism" has to be directly based on it's root word "theism": belief in the existence of a god or gods.

The question here is whether the "a-" in atheism means "dis-" or "lack of-" (literally, of course, it means "not-" but that doesn't help). If it simply means "lack of-", then Claus would be right and even rocks are atheists*. If it means "disbelief", then it becomes an active rather than a passive quality. The dictionary defines atheism using the active "disbelief".


* Even if Claus's "lack of-" definition were correct, I still think there should be a third category for "incapable of-" on the theism/atheism spectrum.

No, as I said previously, it means "not-". (source, no direct link, click second entry.)


In case you didn't read the rest of my post either, I also pointed out that atheism is defined as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" and disbelief means "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue".

None of which includes a passive default "lack of belief".

My god!!* How intellectually dishonest can you be?

I'm not "wrong". It says "not" right there in the definition. I have yet to find a definition** of atheism that doesn't describe it as active quality, yet you continue to assert your claim despite any evidence.

eta: **any currently used definition.






Try reading a little about the entymology of atheism before forming an opinion:

Or do you only except evidence that supports your position rather than taking all the evidence into account?






* no pun intended

Then you can point out where I was, as you said, "Wrong" when I said that "a-" means "not-".

(I won't hold my breath.)



Okay, fine. Let's look at the dictionary (again):

Atheism



Disbelief



Act



Need I go on, or will you simply ignore the evidence?




Ignore the evidence it is, then....

OK...

Atheism, defined.

"a + theos, denying god"
- Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

"Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being"
- Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion

Whilst researching this, I've noticed that although 'A-' can mean either 'NO/NOT-' or 'WITHOUT-' the weight of scholarly etymological opinion is that it only makes sense in the context of 'atheos' when read as 'NO-'. If this is the case, then every argument that starts with 'a-theism literally mean without-theism' is utterly moot.

However, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is the current meaning, and that is hard to dispute;

"the theory or belief that God does not exist"
- The Concise Oxford Dictionary

"rejection of Gods or belief in Gods"
- Collins English Dictionary

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".
- American Heritage Dictionary

"The atheist disbelieves the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call 'creation' is the result of natural laws."
- Brewer's [rather long winded] Dictionary of Phrase and Fable


Disbelief, defined:

"Refusal or reluctance to believe."


Atheistic philosopher Ernest Nagel has this to say on the matter:

"...a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist-for he is not denying any theistic claims."

I'm not being selective. There are plenty more, but life's too short.

So, it would seem that the original term *probably* means 'no god' and the current understanding *definitely* means 'disbelief in God'. This simply cannot be a default. It is a philsophical opinion, and requires knowledge of the idea of God.

We are not born this way.

for example.


And because is not immediately quoted in any of the above, here is the etymology of the word again:
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist." Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God." Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as the "absence of belief in deities," rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.
 
I admit I've only skimmed through this thread, but has anyone tried this:

If the baby is NOT an atheist, doesn't that mean it IS a theist?

I realize that some people reserve the word "atheist" only for those who have considered and rejected theism, but then don't we need another word for people who never thought about it one bit, but nevertheless are not believers in a deity?
 
I admit I've only skimmed through this thread, but has anyone tried this:

If the baby is NOT an atheist, doesn't that mean it IS a theist?

I realize that some people reserve the word "atheist" only for those who have considered and rejected theism, but then don't we need another word for people who never thought about it one bit, but nevertheless are not believers in a deity?

I have suggested "declared atheist" for those who have thought about it, and "undeclared atheist" for those who have never thought about it.
 
That comes later.


But it does, indeed, come.

Does a newborn baby have religious beliefs?


If something can't have beliefs, it can't have religious beliefs. Beliefs are the result of experiences filtered through reason, and one of the first beliefs a baby can have would be (if the baby were able to describe it) of things who match the description of gods.

I admit I've only skimmed through this thread, but has anyone tried this:

If the baby is NOT an atheist, doesn't that mean it IS a theist?


Not necessarily.

There are certain classes of objects to which neither "theist" nor "atheist" apply, the same way there are objects which are neither "alive" nor "dead". To use Tricky's example, a turd is one of these "neither theistic nor atheistic" objects. What we're discussing now is whether a baby's first beliefs are of a theistic or atheistic nature, and it is clear that they are theistic.
 
I have suggested "declared atheist" for those who have thought about it, and "undeclared atheist" for those who have never thought about it.
You have still totally failed to give any good reason as to why we should start using two words instead of one word.

Why should we start playing around with the definition of "atheist", when the current majority public one works so well?

IOW, is there at all any point to all of this?

You've simply dismissed out of hand both my and Upchurch's contributions on this; odd. And unproductive for you. Any old how, back to the question: do you see any real concrete benefits in your suggestions here or not? If so, what are they?
 
But it does, indeed, come.

That's an entirely different discussion.

If something can't have beliefs, it can't have religious beliefs. Beliefs are the result of experiences filtered through reason, and one of the first beliefs a baby can have would be (if the baby were able to describe it) of things who match the description of gods.

The question is: Are newborn babies atheist?

The answer is: Yes.
 

Back
Top Bottom