Are newborn babies atheist?

[Mercutio]

My point exactly: They are not capable.

Again, it isn't particularly meaningful to compare an ability to an inability: We grow up to be able to become declared atheists, but we will never grow up to be able to fly. At least not on our own.

So, I missed it, then--are you saying it is legitimate to tell parents their baby is illiterate? That it cannot drive, or play violin?

There are innumerable things that babies do not or cannot do; if it is not particularly meaningful, why do you seem to insist that it is meaningful to call them atheists?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, I missed it, then--are you saying it is legitimate to tell parents their baby is illiterate? That it cannot drive, or play violin?

There are innumerable things that babies do not or cannot do; if it is not particularly meaningful, why do you seem to insist that it is meaningful to call them atheists?

It is particularly meaningful to describe newborn babies as atheists, because so much value is placed on people's religious beliefs. We immediately judge people based on their religious beliefs, so it is important to remember that we don't start with those beliefs - whatever they may be. We start from a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism isn't just a reaction to religion. Atheists are not necessarily in defense mode. We are born atheists - religion is what is bestowed upon us by religious people.

I think that's a very important point.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Funny question.

I'd say no, babies are irreligious. They have no religion but that doesn't make them atheists. They don't believe in God but neither do they disbelieve. So.

 

[Mercutio]

It is particularly meaningful to describe newborn babies as atheists, because so much value is placed on people's religious beliefs. We immediately judge people based on their religious beliefs, so it is important to remember that we don't start with those beliefs - whatever they may be. We start from a lack of belief in gods.

"We"? The anabaptist links earlier show that at least some manifestly religious people disagree. And your last sentence... didn't you use the phrase "not capable" of belief? That is a much different thing from "lacking". And so much importance is placed on our ability to read and write--by your reasoning, shouldn't we find it meaningful to describe newborn babies as illiterate?

Atheism isn't just a reaction to religion. Atheists are not necessarily in defense mode. We are born atheists - religion is what is bestowed upon us by religious people.

No. We are born, to borrow the term used in those links, "innocent".

I think that's a very important point.

Apparently. Important enough to abandon your normal standards of logic and evidence.

 

[Herzblut]

Atheism isn't just a reaction to religion. Atheists are not necessarily in defense mode. We are born atheists - religion is what is bestowed upon us by religious people.

I think that's a very important point.

Skeptic's dictionary:
subjective validation

Subjective validation is the process of validating words, initials, statements or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant.
..
Why? Because human beings are very good at finding meaning where there is none and giving significance to what is actually meaningless in itself. We are especially good at relating things to ourselves. Words, symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, and the like have no meaning in themselves. Human beings give them meaning and often we give them a personal meaning when none was intended.

http://skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html

I know you will never admit to your fallacies like the above mentioned, same as any other ideologist. And now go back your Dawkins Shrine and light another candle in praise of Him.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

Apparently. Important enough to abandon your normal standards of logic and evidence.

How so? Am I not "technically" right?

I know you will never admit to your fallacies like the above mentioned, same as any other ideologist. And now go back your Dawkins Shrine and light another candle in praise of Him.

Herzblut

I don't worship Dawkins, or anyone else.

 

[Herzblut]

How so? Am I not "technically" right?

I know you ignored what I posted about subjective validation. Keep giving a special meaning to the symbol "atheism" - where there isn't any - based on your subjective feelings. Just be prepared that somebody doesn't share your subjective validation. That's because he/she doesn't share your emotional motivation neither.

Saying "infants are atheists" is meaningless in itself. Keep making up meanings just because you like them and bestow them upon us. We are used to it, you're not the only one.

Herzblut

 

[Mercutio]

How so? Am I not "technically" right?

In part. You are technically right that babies do not hold any religious beliefs as we adults do. The question remains as to whether that makes them any more deserving of the "atheist" label as the groups you agreed were foolish to label thusly--rocks, for instance, or zygotes. We appear to be converging (present company perhaps excepted) on a conclusion that by the "Considered & Rejected" definition of atheism, the answer is either "no" or "mu", and that by the privative definition, the answer is "mu".

 

[CFLarsen]

In part. You are technically right that babies do not hold any religious beliefs as we adults do. The question remains as to whether that makes them any more deserving of the "atheist" label as the groups you agreed were foolish to label thusly--rocks, for instance, or zygotes. We appear to be converging (present company perhaps excepted) on a conclusion that by the "Considered & Rejected" definition of atheism, the answer is either "no" or "mu", and that by the privative definition, the answer is "mu".

I was born - let's go with what you say - without any religious beliefs.

I grew up completely without any religion. No church, no mention of God, no bible, no worship, no commandments, no nothing. I never "rejected" religion, because it was never an issue: There was nothing to "reject". Religion wasn't forced on me, it may have existed, but it was outside my "sphere".

What was I? An atheist?

 

[Darat]

Lonely.

 

[CFLarsen]

Lonely.

Actually, no. There were a lot of kids around where I grew up.

 

[Tricky]

As a result of an exchange of PMs with CFLarsen, I would like to make a formal and public apology for this post:

Depends on what you mean by "fly". All I know is that if I see an atheist baby on a plane, I'll kill him.

It was intended only as an admittedly poor attempt at humor. I do not suggest that CFLarsen would kill babies, atheist or otherwise, or indeed that he would kill anyone.

I apologize for any damage to his reputation that has resulted from this post.

 

[Lonewulf]

As a result of an exchange of PMs with CFLarsen, I would like to make a formal and public apology for this post:

It was intended only as an admittedly poor attempt at humor. I do not suggest that CFLarsen would kill babies, atheist or otherwise, or indeed that he would kill anyone.

I apologize for any damage to his reputation that has resulted from this post.

LOL.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Tricky]

LOL.

You're kidding, right?

Claus has informed me that I have damaged his reputation. By making this apology I am trying to show myself as being honest and forthright. I take full responsibility for the things I post.

 

[Lonewulf]

Claus has informed me that I have damaged his reputation.

Clause: Evidence?

By making this apology I am trying to show myself as being honest and forthright. I take full responsibility for the things I post.

His reputation was damaged way before you got to it...

 

[Mercutio]

I was born - let's go with what you say - without any religious beliefs.

I grew up completely without any religion. No church, no mention of God, no bible, no worship, no commandments, no nothing. I never "rejected" religion, because it was never an issue: There was nothing to "reject". Religion wasn't forced on me, it may have existed, but it was outside my "sphere".

What was I? An atheist?

What were you? At what point? What you are, is an atheist. Not in the C&R sense, but in the privative sense. You do have beliefs, as we understand them in adults, but these beliefs do not include a belief in a god or gods. I have absolutely no problem calling you an atheist in this case--Tricky may disagree, as he uses the C&R sense.

 

[CFLarsen]

What were you? At what point?

At that point.

What you are, is an atheist. Not in the C&R sense, but in the privative sense. You do have beliefs, as we understand them in adults, but these beliefs do not include a belief in a god or gods. I have absolutely no problem calling you an atheist in this case--Tricky may disagree, as he uses the C&R sense.

But, where do you draw the limit, then? Not a newborn baby, OK, but later on. When, exactly?

What do you think a Christian would have called me?

 

[Beleth]

There's a difference between being religious and believing in God. Being religious requires having an externally-sourced code of morals and rituals. Believing in God is just... believing in God.

There is also a difference between a newborn and a baby. A newborn has no experience of God for the first five or so seconds of life until it opens its eyes. It then has, as I have mentioned before, the ability to directly perceive beings which are hugely more powerful than it is. Over the next few hours it begins to trust those beings completely.

So yes, a newborn is a (privative) atheist in the same sense that a sunrise is green. It starts out that way, but changes into something else so quickly that describing it as an atheist is more dissembling than anything else.

 

[CFLarsen]

There's a difference between being religious and believing in God. Being religious requires having an externally-sourced code of morals and rituals. Believing in God is just... believing in God.

Believing in God is not religious? That you will have to explain further.

I agree that religions have a set of morals and rituals attached to them.

There is also a difference between a newborn and a baby. A newborn has no experience of God for the first five or so seconds of life until it opens its eyes. It then has, as I have mentioned before, the ability to directly perceive beings which are hugely more powerful than it is. Over the next few hours it begins to trust those beings completely.

So yes, a newborn is a (privative) atheist in the same sense that a sunrise is green. It starts out that way, but changes into something else so quickly that describing it as an atheist is more dissembling than anything else.

Quite contrary: It exemplifies why we start (mis)interpreting what our senses tell us and sometimes attribute that to a god.

 

[Beleth]

Believing in God is not religious? That you will have to explain further.

I'd be happy to, but you need to say what exactly is puzzling you first.

Quite contrary: It exemplifies why we start (mis)interpreting what our senses tell us and sometimes attribute that to a god.

As I have mentioned before, a baby is of course completely wrong that its parents are gods. That doesn't make the belief that its parents are gods any less existent, however. And that's all that matters when discussing whether someone is a theist or not.