Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

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

How can believing in God not be religious?

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.

Again, that comes later.

 

[Beleth]

How can believing in God not be religious?

Believing in God doesn't require devotion or rituals. Being religious does. As explained in post 498.

Again, that comes later.

Yes, perhaps as long as a few hours after being born, again as mentioned in post 498.

 

[CFLarsen]

Believing in God doesn't require devotion or rituals. Being religious does. As explained in post 498.

No, you didn't explain, you just stated.

How can you believe in God without devotion? Fear, sure - God is clearly big on his believers fearing him. But no devotion?

Also, how can you believe in God without the morality pointy-finger?

 

[Tricky]

How can you believe in God without devotion? Fear, sure - God is clearly big on his believers fearing him. But no devotion?

You can believe in a concept of God, but still dislike Him. Though I don't believe in God of Christ, if I did, I still wouldn't like him and would refuse to worship Him or show him devotion. Some people call this "anti-theist".

 

[CFLarsen]

You can believe in a concept of God, but still dislike Him. Though I don't believe in God of Christ, if I did, I still wouldn't like him and would refuse to worship Him or show him devotion. Some people call this "anti-theist".

Who?

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. Furthermore, an antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Source

Yep: I check. I reference.

 

[Tricky]

Who?

I've seen some discussion of it on these boards.

Yep: I check. I reference.

You are correct.

Nevertheless, the concept of a person who believes in but dislikes God is still a valid one. I am not sure of the specific name for it.
**
Ed.
Ah, here it is. Misotheism - the hatred of God.

 

[Mercutio]

At that point.

Very helpful. If "that" were enough of a hint to help me, I would not have asked "at what point?" Again, at which point? As I said, if it is from the point that you are asking the question, you are an atheist (privative).

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

Why do you think this question can be answered "exactly"? In a spectrum, is there one and only one wavelength at which orange stops being yellow and starts being red?

What do you think a Christian would have called me?

Which Christian? And again, at which point? As I have alluded earlier, an anabaptist would call you first an innocent, then (likely) an atheist. They would draw the line on an individual basis, depending on your exposure to and demonstrated understanding of the tenets of your religious faith. There is no one set of beliefs that all Christians hold to, as you well know. As the Pope has recently demonstrated, some churches will even deny that other christian churches are churches at all. So there is no reason to suspect that simply knowing that someone is a generic "christian" will give us enough information to answer your question.

 

[The Atheist]

Lonely.

One-word post of the year so far!

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.

(Bolding mine)

Understandably so!

But what if the baby had a gun?

Also, I don't think you should have included the bolded bit, Unter himself has stated that he would indeed kill.

 

[CFLarsen]

I've seen some discussion of it on these boards.

Link?

You are correct.

Yes.

Nevertheless, the concept of a person who believes in but dislikes God is still a valid one. I am not sure of the specific name for it.
**
Ed.
Ah, here it is. Misotheism - the hatred of God.

That's not "anti-Theist".

From the link:

A classic example of misotheism can be found in Herman Melville's novel "Moby Dick". The character of Captain Ahab is wholly shaped and driven by his hatred of God as personified in the White Whale.

Let's not forget that Ahab is a fictional character in an allegorical work.

Very helpful. If "that" were enough of a hint to help me, I would not have asked "at what point?" Again, at which point? As I said, if it is from the point that you are asking the question, you are an atheist (privative).

Ayup.

Why do you think this question can be answered "exactly"? In a spectrum, is there one and only one wavelength at which orange stops being yellow and starts being red?

There would have to be, if it is considered and rejected. At some point, the Nays would be more persuasive than the Ayes.

Which Christian? And again, at which point? As I have alluded earlier, an anabaptist would call you first an innocent, then (likely) an atheist. They would draw the line on an individual basis, depending on your exposure to and demonstrated understanding of the tenets of your religious faith. There is no one set of beliefs that all Christians hold to, as you well know. As the Pope has recently demonstrated, some churches will even deny that other christian churches are churches at all. So there is no reason to suspect that simply knowing that someone is a generic "christian" will give us enough information to answer your question.

I know very well that Christians fight among themselves about what is the right belief, but the one thing that seems to unite them are those who don't believe.

I'm fairly certain I would be called an atheist. Simply because I don't believe.

 

[Mercutio]

There would have to be, if it is considered and rejected. At some point, the Nays would be more persuasive than the Ayes.

But in your example, it is explicitly not considered and rejected:

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".

From the "considered and rejected" point of view, you are not an atheist. From the privative view, you are. From the point of view of many, if not most, christian churches, you are an atheist (or perhaps a heathen, or even a savage).

So...as you say, "[t]here would have to be, if it is considered and rejected." But there need not be a clear black-or-white split if we are speaking of atheism in the privative sense. You might believe, based on your criteria, that a 5-yr-old is able to make such a decision; if the child has not yet decided by that age, he or she is a privative atheist. I might believe that a 10-yr-old (or 14, or 3, or whatever) is old enough; if my cutoff is different from yours, because my criteria are different, such is the nature of operational definitions, and as long as we make our criteria known we can be comfortable disagreeing.

 

[CFLarsen]

But in your example, it is explicitly not considered and rejected:

From the "considered and rejected" point of view, you are not an atheist. From the privative view, you are. From the point of view of many, if not most, christian churches, you are an atheist (or perhaps a heathen, or even a savage).

So...as you say, "[t]here would have to be, if it is considered and rejected." But there need not be a clear black-or-white split if we are speaking of atheism in the privative sense. You might believe, based on your criteria, that a 5-yr-old is able to make such a decision; if the child has not yet decided by that age, he or she is a privative atheist. I might believe that a 10-yr-old (or 14, or 3, or whatever) is old enough; if my cutoff is different from yours, because my criteria are different, such is the nature of operational definitions, and as long as we make our criteria known we can be comfortable disagreeing.

Not just our own criteria, but also how others judge us.

 

[Mercutio]

Not just our own criteria, but also how others judge us.

My daughter, when she told a classmate she was an atheist, got the reply "What?!? You worship Satan?!?" How others judge us is, I hope, amenable to education. If we make our own criteria known, and they make sense, perhaps we can make some headway toward changing ignorant prejudice into understanding.

I think it is unhelpful and disingenuous to insist on infantile atheism in this regard. It is not a logically bulletproof position, and given the prejudice against atheism, it gives the appearance of going out of one's way to bait believers. If you are concerned about "how others judge us", it is better to acknowledge that the concept of belief and lack of belief makes no sense to apply to infants, than to insist that it is somehow meaningful to call babies atheists, but not meaningful to call them illiterate or flightless.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

Curse you Red Baron Tricky, I spilled coffee, again!

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Claus has informed me that I have damaged his reputation.

That is rather like damaging broken glass.

By making this apology I am trying to show myself as being honest and forthright.

"There is no try, there is only do." --Yoda-- (If I ever see Yoda on a Death Star, I'll kill him. Or try to. )

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

My daughter, when she told a classmate she was an atheist, got the reply "What?!? You worship Satan?!?"

Ayup.

How others judge us is, I hope, amenable to education. If we make our own criteria known, and they make sense, perhaps we can make some headway toward changing ignorant prejudice into understanding.

I think it is unhelpful and disingenuous to insist on infantile atheism in this regard. It is not a logically bulletproof position,

It is far more logically sound than any religious position.

and given the prejudice against atheism, it gives the appearance of going out of one's way to bait believers. If you are concerned about "how others judge us", it is better to acknowledge that the concept of belief and lack of belief makes no sense to apply to infants, than to insist that it is somehow meaningful to call babies atheists, but not meaningful to call them illiterate or flightless.

As your own example clearly shows, atheists will be labeled as something vile, regardless of how well people explain what atheism is, and who atheists are. Atheists are stigmatised(!) from the beginning.

That's why we can make a very strong point by identify the problem of labeling newborns as having a specific religious belief. Babies are not born Christian, Muslim, or whatever.

So, what are they born as? Privative atheists, or - I think a better term - undeclared atheists.

When we get that point through with believers, we have come a long way to make it clear that religious beliefs are forced on people - children in particular.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

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?

You were irreligious. Like my best friend- grew up with no religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

You were irreligious. Like my best friend- grew up with no religion.

Born and bred without a belief in God, yes.

 

[Mercutio]

It is far more logically sound than any religious position.

Way to set the bar up there. How unsound does it have to be before you would reject it?

As your own example clearly shows, atheists will be labeled as something vile, regardless of how well people explain what atheism is, and who atheists are. Atheists are stigmatised(!) from the beginning.

Did my example include my daughter explaining very well what atheism is and who atheists are? No? So please, do not use my example as your strawman.

That's why we can make a very strong point by identify the problem of labeling newborns as having a specific religious belief. Babies are not born Christian, Muslim, or whatever.

So, what are they born as? Privative atheists, or - I think a better term - undeclared atheists.

Both of those are well-defined, when it comes to adults. When it comes to children, you might get better mileage from "innocents". After all, some religions already use that term, and it fits the situation perfectly well.

When we get that point through with believers, we have come a long way to make it clear that religious beliefs are forced on people - children in particular.

So take a good first step by not forcing a different adult label--atheist--on infants. If you can do it, why should they not follow your example?

 

[Tricky]

Born and bred without a belief in God, yes.

Do you remember when you first discovered the concept of God? Maybe some kids in school talked about it. Do you remember what your reaction was?

I recall that in in some of my earliest childhood memories, I believed in magic. This is even before I can remember having any thoughts about God. When I eventually did hear about God, it was perfectly natural for me to believe.

 

[JoeEllison]

I've been an atheist for my entire life... the part I can remember, at least. Blame my parents. They taught me early that stories with talking animals and magical beings were made-up.

Thanks Mom. Thanks Dad. I never had to believe in anything make-believe, not a single damned thing.