Are newborn babies atheist?

[The Atheist]

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.

You didn't even have Santa?

 

[CFLarsen]

Way to set the bar up there.

Hey, you're the one introducing logic in a discussion about religion....

How unsound does it have to be before you would reject it?

I don't find the concept of undeclared/privative atheists unsound at all.

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 exactly why it isn't a strawman: The other person had a specific idea of what an atheist is - and it's not far off, when we consider how atheists are treated a lot of places: As the Devil's Spawn.

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.

E.g., the Catholics do: They can't seem to make up their minds whether unbaptised children can be saved or not.

The point is: Regardless of their parents' religion, the children are all taken care of if some way by the Catholics' god. So babies are hijacked into a specific religion, no matter what their parents believe.

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?

I am not forcing "atheist" on infants. That's what they are.

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?

No.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Im eternally amused by those who beleive in a default position. Not coincidentally, it is always the position they tehmselves hold near and dear to their hearts.

 

[The Atheist]

Ah! T'ai Chi, the perfect foil to Unter in this discussion.

Now we have two complete idiots arguing the toss - one from each side of the fence. Go on boys; handbags at 20 paces.

 

[Mercutio]

Im eternally amused by those who beleive in a default position. Not coincidentally, it is always the position they tehmselves hold near and dear to their hearts.

You said this already, back in post 392, along with a lame argument about the bowel habits of babies.

If you would rather understand the arguments, instead of being amused, there are people around who could explain it to you. Here, for example. Or perhaps you could pull out a stats or experimental methods book and refresh your memory about the Null Hypothesis.

 

[Mercutio]

Hey, you're the one introducing logic in a discussion about religion....

Someone had to.

I don't find the concept of undeclared/privative atheists unsound at all.

Except that the goalposts weren't here; they were over there with the infants. You have said it was not reasonable to call babies flightless, and have not (to the best of my poor memory) given you opinion as to whether it is reasonable to call them illiterate. If an infant is incapable of belief, or if we cannot know what an infant's capacity for belief is, then neither the positive nor privative terms for belief can be meaningfully applied. The concept of privative atheism is perfectly sound, when it is used properly. It sounds like you are much more interested in making a political point than in using terms properly.

That's exactly why it isn't a strawman: The other person had a specific idea of what an atheist is - and it's not far off, when we consider how atheists are treated a lot of places: As the Devil's Spawn.

And what of your phrase "regardless of how well people explain what atheism is, and who atheists are"? Do you agree that you misspoke there? And please..."it's not far off"? Such rhetoric does not help.

E.g., the Catholics do: They can't seem to make up their minds whether unbaptised children can be saved or not.

So...some churches do see a distinction between adults and infants. And you do not?

The point is: Regardless of their parents' religion, the children are all taken care of if some way by the Catholics' god. So babies are hijacked into a specific religion, no matter what their parents believe.

The catholics also have beliefs about how their god takes care of atheists. Other religions have beliefs about how their god takes care of catholics. And I am not certain you have sufficiently supported "babies are hijacked into a specific religion". I don't doubt that some are, but it certainly is not the experience of every child. And once more, the answer to this is not to misuse terms in response to misused terms; the answer is to use terms properly.

I am not forcing "atheist" on infants. That's what they are.

No, they are flightless, illiterate atheists. Along with many other things that they are not. You are making a political point, at the expense of speaking accurately about infants.

 

[JoeEllison]

You didn't even have Santa?

Nope, not even Santa. My parents tried to pull that Tooth Fairy crap on me for some reason, but I set a trap for him and my mom got shot in the face with a rubber suction cup dart when she tried to sneak into my room.

 

[CFLarsen]

Except that the goalposts weren't here; they were over there with the infants. You have said it was not reasonable to call babies flightless, and have not (to the best of my poor memory) given you opinion as to whether it is reasonable to call them illiterate. If an infant is incapable of belief, or if we cannot know what an infant's capacity for belief is, then neither the positive nor privative terms for belief can be meaningfully applied. The concept of privative atheism is perfectly sound, when it is used properly. It sounds like you are much more interested in making a political point than in using terms properly.

Not at all. I am using the terms properly; While babies can never be anything but flightless, they can be literate, the same way they can be religious or declared atheists. Is it reasonable to call a newborn baby illiterate? Sure. It fulfills the conditions of being one.

And what of your phrase "regardless of how well people explain what atheism is, and who atheists are"? Do you agree that you misspoke there? And please..."it's not far off"? Such rhetoric does not help.

OK, you lost me there. What of it?

So...some churches do see a distinction between adults and infants. And you do not?

Of course I do. That's my point.

The catholics also have beliefs about how their god takes care of atheists. Other religions have beliefs about how their god takes care of catholics. And I am not certain you have sufficiently supported "babies are hijacked into a specific religion". I don't doubt that some are, but it certainly is not the experience of every child. And once more, the answer to this is not to misuse terms in response to misused terms; the answer is to use terms properly.

It doesn't matter if the children experience it. Catholics include them regardless. "You're a Catholic the moment Dad came".

No, they are flightless, illiterate atheists. Along with many other things that they are not. You are making a political point, at the expense of speaking accurately about infants.

Not at all.

 

[Tricky]

Most of us in this thread now tend to agree that there are (at least) two kinds of atheism: Privative atheism ("undeclared atheism is misleading, as it suggests that the entity is possible of declaring, but hasn't) and what we have been calling "Considered and Rejected" atheism.

I have to wonder about the transition from one to another. Is there a time when you are both? Let's say that a baby is a Privative Atheist. As it matures it will eventually hear the concept of god(s), (although it may, like Claus, not remember it). But really, just hearing the concept does not actually mean that the child has considered it. Even with some ability to reason, a young child may struggle with a complex concept like theism. They may understand it partially or even incorrectly. During that time, does it make any sense to call them theists or atheists? Just because a child sings "Yes Jesus Loves Me" doesn't really mean that they are theist, but it would be hard to argue that they are atheists, since they have declared that they follow Jesus, even if solely because they were taught to say so.

At this phase of child development, neither of the categories of athiesm would seem to apply to that child. The Episcopal Church and other churches have addressed this with something the EC calls "confirmation". Children in their early teens are sent to classes where the "mysteries of the church" are explained. I don't suggest that the church does this to make the child decide at that point whether or not they want to be a Christian, but it does at least suggest that the Church recognizes that children are not truly Christians unless they've considered it. In my case, this was the decision node where I reached the consciously "declared" decision that I rejected Christianity.

But this phase of growing into your beliefs is troublesome if one wishes to consider both privative atheism and "C&R" atheism to be suitably described by the same word. I think it demonstrates that what we are, in this discussion, calling privative atheism should be described by a completely different, more meaningful term that does not include the word atheism when discussing beliefs in a less pedantic setting. Clarity of communication would seem to demand it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Most of us in this thread now tend to agree that there are (at least) two kinds of atheism: Privative atheism ("undeclared atheism is misleading, as it suggests that the entity is possible of declaring, but hasn't) and what we have been calling "Considered and Rejected" atheism.

I have to wonder about the transition from one to another. Is there a time when you are both? Let's say that a baby is a Privative Atheist. As it matures it will eventually hear the concept of god(s), (although it may, like Claus, not remember it). But really, just hearing the concept does not actually mean that the child has considered it. Even with some ability to reason, a young child may struggle with a complex concept like theism. They may understand it partially or even incorrectly. During that time, does it make any sense to call them theists or atheists? Just because a child sings "Yes Jesus Loves Me" doesn't really mean that they are theist, but it would be hard to argue that they are atheists, since they have declared that they follow Jesus, even if solely because they were taught to say so.

But we can make the same argument for adults: When can we say that a person understands fully and correctly what "god" means?

I don't think we can - I don't think even the Pope will claim to understand fully and correctly what "god" is.

If that is the requirement, and we can't tell if anyone fulfills the requirement, then it makes little sense to call anyone a theist at all.

At this phase of child development, neither of the categories of athiesm would seem to apply to that child. The Episcopal Church and other churches have addressed this with something the EC calls "confirmation". Children in their early teens are sent to classes where the "mysteries of the church" are explained. I don't suggest that the church does this to make the child decide at that point whether or not they want to be a Christian, but it does at least suggest that the Church recognizes that children are not truly Christians unless they've considered it. In my case, this was the decision node where I reached the consciously "declared" decision that I rejected Christianity.

I don't know about the EC, but the Danish Church's confirmation ritual is specifically designed to get the kid (14 years of age) to accept the baptism received a couple of months after birth.

But this phase of growing into your beliefs is troublesome if one wishes to consider both privative atheism and "C&R" atheism to be suitably described by the same word. I think it demonstrates that what we are, in this discussion, calling privative atheism should be described by a completely different, more meaningful term that does not include the word atheism when discussing beliefs in a less pedantic setting. Clarity of communication would seem to demand it.

That's why we have adjectives.

 

[Mercutio]

Not at all. I am using the terms properly; While babies can never be anything but flightless, they can be literate, the same way they can be religious or declared atheists. Is it reasonable to call a newborn baby illiterate? Sure. It fulfills the conditions of being one.

Excuse me? Babies can be literate? No. By the time they are literate, they are no longer babies. Until you produce evidence of a literate baby (not a former baby), literacy and flight are equally out of reach for babies.

But thank you for finally stating a position on baby literacy. I disagree with it, of course--no one expects a baby to read, and so it is a useless adjective, as discussed with Tai Chi's toilet training example--but at least you finally took a stand.

 

[Mercutio]

Most of us in this thread now tend to agree that there are (at least) two kinds of atheism: Privative atheism ("undeclared atheism is misleading, as it suggests that the entity is possible of declaring, but hasn't) and what we have been calling "Considered and Rejected" atheism.

A bit misleading. C&R atheism is a subset of privative atheism, not a different kind. All that privative atheism requires is that one not be a member of any of the religious categories. "None of the above" is the box to check whether you have never heard of the alternatives or whether you have considered them (all?) and rejected them.

 

[Tricky]

A bit misleading. C&R atheism is a subset of privative atheism, not a different kind. All that privative atheism requires is that one not be a member of any of the religious categories. "None of the above" is the box to check whether you have never heard of the alternatives or whether you have considered them (all?) and rejected them.

LOL. If you check "none of the above", that is a conscious action, therefore C&R, but if you have not checked any boxes, then your category is completely different. But if I accept what you say, then there should be another term for the inability to check the "none of the above" box. That's why I disagree with the use of the word "atheism", however modified, to describe entities that cannot check boxes.

Damn you Merc, if you give me a good word like "privative" and then destroy its usefulness.

 

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me? Babies can be literate? No. By the time they are literate, they are no longer babies. Until you produce evidence of a literate baby (not a former baby), literacy and flight are equally out of reach for babies.

Become literate. Precisely as someone can become a declared atheist.

But thank you for finally stating a position on baby literacy. I disagree with it, of course--no one expects a baby to read, and so it is a useless adjective, as discussed with Tai Chi's toilet training example--but at least you finally took a stand.

I figured it was pretty obvious that babies could learn how to read and write.

 

[edge]

Wow!
Cute Baby, funny how they change.

 

[Tricky]

But we can make the same argument for adults: When can we say that a person understands fully and correctly what "god" means?

I don't think we can - I don't think even the Pope will claim to understand fully and correctly what "god" is.

If that is the requirement, and we can't tell if anyone fulfills the requirement, then it makes little sense to call anyone a theist at all.

As you point out, by extending the "we don't understand" to the most ridiculous lengths, you make an argument that everybody is atheist. As such, you completely remove the uselfulness of the word. You can, by analogy, say that nobody is literate unless they have memorized the entire unabridged dictionary and everything ever written. After all, a child is not literate just because he can say his ABC's, right?

That is why there needs to be a point, pehaps not a firm point, perhaps a debatable point, but a point nevertheless, where, by common understanding, we agree that the understanding of the question is sufficient to reach a decision about what they believe. To call something "atheist" before that point is not meaningful. After all, you have agreed that it is not meaningful to call a zygote an atheist, so it must be true that you agree such a point exists where it becomes meaningful. I think that point should involve the emergence of powers of reason rather than emergence from the birth canal.

I don't know about the EC, but the Danish Church's confirmation ritual is specifically designed to get the kid (14 years of age) to accept the baptism received a couple of months after birth.

The "ritual" is like the graduation ceremony. The classes go on for weeks and are not held in front of the church. And of course, if the ritual is designed to get the kid to accept, does that not imply that they have the option of declining?

That's why we have adjectives.

Yes, and certain adjectives are meaningless when assigned to modify certain nouns.

 

[CFLarsen]

As you point out, by extending the "we don't understand" to the most ridiculous lengths, you make an argument that everybody is atheist. As such, you completely remove the uselfulness of the word. You can, by analogy, say that nobody is literate unless they have memorized the entire unabridged dictionary and everything ever written. After all, a child is not literate just because he can say his ABC's, right?

But everyone is an atheist: Nobody believes in all gods, they have a lack of belief - declared or otherwise, even often an expressed disbelief - in at least one god.

That is why there needs to be a point, pehaps not a firm point, perhaps a debatable point, but a point nevertheless, where, by common understanding, we agree that the understanding of the question is sufficient to reach a decision about what they believe. To call something "atheist" before that point is not meaningful. After all, you have agreed that it is not meaningful to call a zygote an atheist, so it must be true that you agree such a point exists where it becomes meaningful. I think that point should involve the emergence of powers of reason rather than emergence from the birth canal.

Let's go with that for a moment: How will you counter "you're a Catholic the moment Dad came"?

The "ritual" is like the graduation ceremony. The classes go on for weeks and are not held in front of the church. And of course, if the ritual is designed to get the kid to accept, does that not imply that they have the option of declining?

Oh, no, no, no. It's it not a graduation ceremony. The classes do go on for weeks (a few hours a week), but it is held in front of the church, the priest. The meaning is that they themselves accept Jesus as their savior, etc., etc.

They can decline, but then, they aren't going to attend in the first place. Of course, it is very few who actually take it seriously - they go for the party and the presents...

Yes, and certain adjectives are meaningless when assigned to modify certain nouns.

Of course. But not in this case.

 

[Tricky]

But everyone is an atheist: Nobody believes in all gods, they have a lack of belief - declared or otherwise, even often an expressed disbelief - in at least one god.

Great. So everyone is an atheist. I guess that we can just get rid of that word "theist" then, since it has no meaning.

What a breakthrough in communication you have made!

Let's go with that for a moment: How will you counter "you're a Catholic the moment Dad came"?

Exactly the same way I counter the "you are born atheist". I will say, "It is meaningless to assign a specific philosophical position to an entity incapable of considering that position." See? It works for all cases, baby or adult, living or dead.

Oh, no, no, no. It's it not a graduation ceremony. The classes do go on for weeks (a few hours a week), but it is held in front of the church, the priest. The meaning is that they themselves accept Jesus as their savior, etc., etc.

That's different from the Episcopal Church. It is taught by a single (or a couple) of church elders, sometimes with input from the minister. Do they really call the congregation together for weeks to watch a class being taught? Wow, that's dedication.

They can decline, but then, they aren't going to attend in the first place. Of course, it is very few who actually take it seriously - they go for the party and the presents...

LOL. That might explain it. In the EC, there is no party and there are no presents. And the teaching really did help at least one "student" to decide.

Of course. But not in this case.

I think "atheist baby" is an excellent example of using an adjective that doesn't match the noun. It's almost an oxymoron.

 

[CFLarsen]

Great. So everyone is an atheist. I guess that we can just get rid of that word "theist" then, since it has no meaning.

What a breakthrough in communication you have made!

That may be so. Am I wrong? Is a Christian not merely one god short of being an atheist?

Exactly the same way I counter the "you are born atheist". I will say, "It is meaningless to assign a specific philosophical position to an entity incapable of considering that position." See? It works for all cases, baby or adult, living or dead.

If so, it works for all religious people. Can you - or anyone - claim that they are capable of understanding what "god" is?

That's different from the Episcopal Church. It is taught by a single (or a couple) of church elders, sometimes with input from the minister. Do they really call the congregation together for weeks to watch a class being taught? Wow, that's dedication.

No, they don't. Classes are held with the priest alone.

I think "atheist baby" is an excellent example of using an adjective that doesn't match the noun. It's almost an oxymoron.

If you accept the concept of privative atheists, you have to accept the concept of atheist babies.

 

[Mercutio]

But everyone is an atheist: Nobody believes in all gods, they have a lack of belief - declared or otherwise, even often an expressed disbelief - in at least one god.

No, no, no, no, no! See, this is why the privative definition makes more sense--otherwise, Claus can say "everyone is an atheist". By the privative definition, anyone who believes in even one god--any god whatsoever--is not a "none of the above". (And Trixie, I didn't think I'd have to remind you, a geologist, that the subject does not have to be the one checking the boxes. A privative atheist is "none of the above" simply by virtue of not having checked any of the [actively checked] religious categories.)

"One god short of being an atheist" is utter crap. One god believed in is all it takes. "A little bit pregnant" is enough.