Are newborn babies atheist?

[Tricky]

Why?

One obvious reason is that an instinct might be called an innate belief. In any semantic squabble like this, contextual definitions can lead to great fuzziness of lines. Surely you realize that.

If it is a semantic squabble, and you argue that babies only might think of their parents as gods, why do you keep saying that I am wrong?

I've said from the beginning (post #10) that you may be technically correct. Thanks to Mercutio, I now can say that your definition is correct in a "privative" sense. It should have been obvious from the very beginning that my objection to your definition was because it is unclear and misleading in normal conversation. Had you said from the beginning that your argument was based on context, we probably could have avoided much of this discussion. But you played games like "go look up post lebentysix" and refused to answer clearly asked questions. In short, you debate like a True Believer. I am disinclined to make it easy for you when you do this.

No, it clarifies. Atheists are not just someone opposing religious beliefs, people start as atheists.

It clarifies only if you are speaking in a specific context, a context that should be well defined. Since you tend to give short answers and decline to provide context, it is not clarified at all. I will maintain that it is usually silly or even misleading to call a baby "atheist". I will concede, though, that there are exceptions to this case. You have Mercutio to thank for this concession. He patiently explains what you arrogantly assert.

Who has said anything about throwing that meaning away?

As you have already indicated, the meaning of "atheist" is contextual. The "C & R" meaning of atheist is in wide use and is generally understood, even if it does not stand up to dissection by professors of philosophy. I find that "widely used and generally understood" are good enough reasons to keep the "C & R" meaning of "atheist", and indeed, to make it the meaning most commonly employed. Overwhelmingly.

 

[CFLarsen]

One obvious reason is that an instinct might be called an innate belief. In any semantic squabble like this, contextual definitions can lead to great fuzziness of lines. Surely you realize that.

Sure. But why choose to call it innate belief, when you have a natural explanation?

I've said from the beginning (post #10) that you may be technically correct. Thanks to Mercutio, I now can say that your definition is correct in a "privative" sense. It should have been obvious from the very beginning that my objection to your definition was because it is unclear and misleading in normal conversation. Had you said from the beginning that your argument was based on context, we probably could have avoided much of this discussion. But you played games like "go look up post lebentysix" and refused to answer clearly asked questions. In short, you debate like a True Believer. I am disinclined to make it easy for you when you do this.

I have not debated like a True Believer. I have made it crystal clear from the beginning that there are two meanings of atheist: One, where you made a conscious choice, and one where you simply didn't have a belief. If I have to repeatedly refer to my previous explanations, it is because you refuse to read and understand what I say.

It clarifies only if you are speaking in a specific context, a context that should be well defined. Since you tend to give short answers and decline to provide context, it is not clarified at all. I will maintain that it is usually silly or even misleading to call a baby "atheist". I will concede, though, that there are exceptions to this case. You have Mercutio to thank for this concession. He patiently explains what you arrogantly assert.

Bollocks. I have extensively explained what I meant, throughout the thread.

As you have already indicated, the meaning of "atheist" is contextual. The "C & R" meaning of atheist is in wide use and is generally understood, even if it does not stand up to dissection by professors of philosophy. I find that "widely used and generally understood" are good enough reasons to keep the "C & R" meaning of "atheist", and indeed, to make it the meaning most commonly employed. Overwhelmingly.

Perhaps. But who has said anything about throwing that meaning away?

 

[EGarrett]

You have chosen a religious framework, not me. Stick to it.

I rightfully insist that you accept given evidence above that a baby is a "believer". Full of faith, lack of knowledge. All this is btw self-evident.

A baby's behavior does not dictate belief, but instinct. A baby also drinks milk, but you wouldn't say that the baby BELIEVES the milk is healthy for it, it is just following instinct. So no, a baby does not necessarily hold any belief.

Provided evidence directly discourages the notion to call a baby "atheist".

Provided evidence is invalid.

 

[EGarrett]

And I've said that in certain contexts your point of view is technically correct. However, in normal conversation, it would be silly to call a baby "atheist" because it would requre... what is it now... seven days worth of explanation.

Actually, this is yet another argument you're trying to resort to. You've switched justifications several times, whereas I've been consistent from the beginning. Which isn't to mention that your original justification was that you were afraid of being degraded by being called a turd. Again, don't call other people silly, because your reasoning here is at about the 4th Grade level. (and I don't say that to insult you, but your justification is literally the same as a child who doesn't want to get called names)

But if you feel the need to withdraw respect from me, I will brush away a tear and carry on.

And your immature attitude continues to come through.

I strongly suggest you consider the fact that you're arguing EXACTLY like Lifegazer, Interesting Ian and the others by ignoring someone else's justification (not disputing it, but actually ignoring it and not replying to it) and continuing to try and take shots at them or call their point of view silly. If you're intellectually honest, you'll stop.

 

[Herzblut]

I am talking about scientific evidence that excludes the possibility of a god.

Yes, talking about in the sense of making false statements of facts.

Natural sciences research nature within the framework of nature. Transcendental entities are thus per definition excluded from serious research alltogether. If you dont comprehend this reality why dont you contact the physics department of the next University and ask if they could measure size, weight and color of god for you? Hmm?

I
What evidence did you think I was talking about?

Not evidence, Claus, evidence delusion!

Oh, Claus, I will not explain these basics to you again free of charge.

Herzblut

 

[EGarrett]

You are quite correct--my point was that "heathen" as a category includes both atheists and non-Abrahamic religions,

Correct, and understood.

so that at least in that eliminative sense they are seen as the same. In fact, that is a microcosm of the reason for the privative definition of atheism. If each religion has its "heathen-equivalent"--that is, a word that means "non-adherents to our religion" (as opposed to "members of that other religion over there"), "atheist" is the set of people who only fit in the "not us" categories, and not in the "us".

Well, to my knowledge, the other popular terms are infidel (one who doesn't believe Jesus was divine or was not baptised) and heretic (which I've seen used by Muslims on Al-Jazeera, and which apparently means one who holds any opinion that is at variance with the orthodoxy of the person using the word heretic).

All three of these terms cover other religions and atheists, but I don't think they're specialized enough to say that they consider other religions no different from atheism or atheists. The term "atheist" is so specific that I think it only covers the heathen/infidel/heretic sub-category that is people who have denied every God, and that's the only context in which I've seen the actual term atheist used.

Hopefully that comes out clear.

These particular groups most certainly should not be refering to one another as atheists--recall from the "heathen" definition that these three groups are one family (the Abrahamic religions), and so should of course recognize one another as religions.*

I believe they do recognize each other as religions. It would seem that calling someone a heathen does not mean that they don't hold a religion. It just means that they deny that specific God.

When Christian missionaries attempted to convert the heathens in new territories, was there a meaningful distinction between Atheism and Belief in a False God or Gods? In truth, I suspect the assumption was that there was no atheism, and that the only true distinction was between true and false religion.

"Simply not believing in any god" is a relatively recent idea, whereas "not believing in my god" has been important for much longer. In my opinion, this is yet one more example where the privative definition is more accurate and useful.

Well, the problem I see is that we're using the specific term "atheist," which has it's own specific (and indeed fairly recent) meaning. I think that meaning is separate enough from the meaning of heathen, infidel etc. that we can't count them as one in the same...especially because it's a fairly new idea compared to the others.

*true story--when discussing the "in god we trust" issue with my dad, he found to his surprise that, while he was amused but not offended by the possibility of "in Thor we trust", he was not amused and was a bit offended by the possibility of "in Allah we trust". When I pointed out to him that his own belief has a much closer tie to Islam than to Norse Polytheism, and that Allah and his God were both Abraham's god, he was a bit chastened.

Interesting anecdote, and interestingly enough, he's judging Allah by the human beings who do things in his name and not by what the "God" is supposed to be independently. Shows you what the real root of "God's" power always is...even if theists don't consciously realize it. (even if your Dad isn't theist, I'm sure millions of Christians would have his same reaction to "In Allah We Trust." And all because of what the people are saying and doing, not the supposedly separate deity.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, talking about in the sense of making false statements of facts.

Natural sciences research nature within the framework of nature. Transcendental entities are thus per definition excluded from serious research alltogether. If you dont comprehend this reality why dont you contact the physics department of the next University and ask if they could measure size, weight and color of god for you? Hmm?

I am not saying that science can detect deities at all. I am saying that with more scientific discoveries, the less need there is for divine explanations.

I am not making "false statements of facts".

Not evidence, Claus, evidence delusion!

Oh, Claus, I will not explain these basics to you again free of charge.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.

 

[Herzblut]

A baby's behavior does not dictate belief, but instinct.

Irrelevant. Cognitive aspects of babies are under discussion, not behavioral. ##yawn##

Provided evidence is invalid.

Wrong. Evidence is valid. #yawn#

Herzblut.

 

[Herzblut]

I am not saying that science can detect deities at all. I am saying that with more scientific discoveries, the less need there is for divine explanations.

Maybe we find out in the end that one divine explanation is right!

Seriously, your statement makes good sense now. Finally.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.

Compared to whom?

Herzblut

 

[Mercutio]

Correct, and understood.

great! And to the extent that I can understand anything before coffee, I think I agree with everything you have said (which I snipped); it is precisely why I think the privative definition is the better of the two.

Interesting anecdote, and interestingly enough, he's judging Allah by the human beings who do things in his name and not by what the "God" is supposed to be independently. Shows you what the real root of "God's" power always is...even if theists don't consciously realize it. (even if your Dad isn't theist, I'm sure millions of Christians would have his same reaction to "In Allah We Trust." And all because of what the people are saying and doing, not the supposedly separate deity.)

Interesting...as a side note, I suspect that the only time my dad would label himself a theist would be to distinguish from an atheist. Other than that, of course, he would label himself a Christian. "Theist" has the same too-broad-to-be-useful-except-in-very-specific-contexts sort of problem as "atheist"; even when it is true about someone (whether baby or adult), it is so damned near irrelevant as to make no difference.

 

[Mercutio]

Irrelevant. Cognitive aspects of babies are under discussion, not behavioral. ##yawn##

Herzblut.

When you tell me how it is that people here have come to their conclusions about a baby's cognitive capacity without reference to their behavior, I will recognize this distinction. In this thread, though, people have asserted that a baby believes this or that, but these are mere assertions. (To be fair, the same circularity problem is present for "instinct".)

If we are careful about manipulating environmental factors and observing the baby, we may find functional relationships there, but the truth is that we have only the behavior of the baby to go by, and the burden of proof is on one who claims to have access to a baby's cognitions.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Gotta love these 'default position'-type of arguments. Curiously, the 'default position' is always the position the arguer holds to be true.

Babies crap themselves too. So crapping yourself instead of using the toilet is the 'default position' according to these people, eh?

 

[CFLarsen]

Babies crap themselves too. So crapping yourself instead of using the toilet is the 'default position' according to these people, eh?

Since when can newborn babies use the toilet?

 

[Mercutio]

Gotta love these 'default position'-type of arguments. Curiously, the 'default position' is always the position the arguer holds to be true.

Babies crap themselves too. So crapping yourself instead of using the toilet is the 'default position' according to these people, eh?

No one expects a newborn baby to be toilet trained, so the description of "one who craps himself" is not helpful. It is only when the possibility arises of bowel control that the distinction is useful; that is, only with the positively defined category "toilet trained" does the term "not toilet trained" become useful and not trivial.

Perhaps if we wish to distinguish from people whose crap flows from their mouths, then the "default position" you describe would be appropriate. Otherwise, like calling a baby an atheist, we don't need to say "here is my newborn baby, and by the way he is not toilet-trained yet". It would be true, but because it is a default position, it is not worth mentioning.

The context changes tremendously when talking about infants and adults. Using the "considered and rejected" definition for babies is as foolish as using babies' bowel movements to determine a default for adults.

 

[Taffer]

That is a very succinct way of putting it, but to take it out of symbolic form, I would say:

Strong: I have a concept of God and I believe He does not exist.

Weak: I have a concept of God, and I have no belief that He exists.

Neither one of these forms of atheism covers "I have no concept of God".

(Holy replies batman!)

You are quite correct, Tricky. However, it depends on how we are defining atheist. If we define "atheist" to mean "without theism", then I believe this would encompass any and all beings who do not believe in the theistic entity, including those who have not heard about it before. However, if we define it as "a belief about theism" (or some such), then I would agree with you.

 

[Tricky]

The context changes tremendously when talking about infants and adults. Using the "considered and rejected" definition for babies is as foolish as using babies' bowel movements to determine a default for adults.

And herein lies the problem. The context chages are indeed so tremendous when talking about these two cases that it scarcely makes sense to use the same words when referring to them. I earlier suggest "non-theist" for what some here are calling "Default Position Atheists", but I don't expect to be able to coin such a word for general acceptence.

What makes more sense to me is to explain that you are talking about things that "have no concept of god(s)" when referencing DPAs. Yes, it takes a few more words, but in doing so it eliminates the confusion of calling inanimate objects or unreasoning organisms "atheists". I think eliminating that confusion is worth a few extra words.

 

[Mercutio]

But the C&R atheism stance also falls upart on examination; it makes sense only when a theistic (and a particular theistic, perhaps a different one with different speakers) approach is assumed as a default. Unless one is speaking of someone who has considered and rejected every possible variant of god, one is using "atheist" when the proper term should be some variant of "heathen".

As long as both variants of "atheist" require additional explanation, I see no superiority of one over the other. The "confusion of calling inanimate objects or unreasoning organisms 'atheists'" is very much a contrived situation. In any reasonable context (i.e., not when arguing with JREFers), the context is usually fairly clear, and either misunderstanding (assuming C&R when privative is meant, or assuming privative when C&R is meant) is fairly easily cleared up. In more technical contexts, it is probably best that one makes one's definitions clear in the first place (in which case, this thread ends on page one with the answer "it depends on which definition of 'atheist' you use"); after all (to use my too-old example once again), we all understand "sunrise", but it is easy enough to explain that the real situation is earth-rotation, if we want to get technical about it.

 

[Tricky]

But the C&R atheism stance also falls upart on examination; it makes sense only when a theistic (and a particular theistic, perhaps a different one with different speakers) approach is assumed as a default. Unless one is speaking of someone who has considered and rejected every possible variant of god, one is using "atheist" when the proper term should be some variant of "heathen".

Yes. I understand that the C&R atheism does not survive dissection. Nevertheless, it is the more common understanding of the word. Unless you allow some usage of the C&R version, then, as you point out, nobody can correctly call themselves "atheist".

As long as both variants of "atheist" require additional explanation, I see no superiority of one over the other.

No. The C&R version is commonly understood. There may be a bit of tweaking (as a large number of people think atheists hate God), but it is much more commonly understood than the DPA version. Since I am in favor of mutual understanding, I feel that gives C&R a great superiority.

The "confusion of calling inanimate objects or unreasoning organisms 'atheists'" is very much a contrived situation.

Do you think so? Try telling someone their baby is an atheist. You will have a great deal of explaining to do.

In any reasonable context (i.e., not when arguing with JREFers), the context is usually fairly clear, and either misunderstanding (assuming C&R when privative is meant, or assuming privative when C&R is meant) is fairly easily cleared up.

Here, we disagree.

In more technical contexts, it is probably best that one makes one's definitions clear in the first place (in which case, this thread ends on page one with the answer "it depends on which definition of 'atheist' you use"); after all (to use my too-old example once again), we all understand "sunrise", but it is easy enough to explain that the real situation is earth-rotation, if we want to get technical about it.

LOL. This illustrates my point perfectly. Even, as a reasonably educated person, I feel that if I said "beautiful earth rotation" to describe the light that appears in the morning, other reasonably educated people would say, "huh?" I would then have to explain what would otherwise be a perfectly comprehensible statement. "Beautiful sunrise". Calling DPA "atheism" is like calling sunrise "earth rotation". Technically correct, but bad for communication.

 

[CFLarsen]

Tricky,

You're not forgetting post #382, are you?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky,

You're not forgetting post #382, are you?

I saw nothing there that needed a reply.