Are newborn babies atheist?

[Tricky]

Which you have misunderstood. There is only one god:

A Christian is merely one god short of being an atheist.

I still say it depends. There are many varieties of Christian. Some worship the Virgin Mary as a complementary goddess. Also, it could be argued that Satan fulfills the characteristics of a god, even if an evil one. But none of this has any point. If a person believes in one or a dozen concepts of god, they are, as Merc points out, 100% not atheist. You seem to be making the argument that lowering the number of gods that someone believes in brings a them closer to atheism. This is, by every definition of atheism I have ever heard, incorrect.

You said you understood the concept of god. Not some.

Are you seriously choosing this as the place to pitch your "logical" battle? Have you exhausted all thoughtful discussion points?

Then, don't blame me for doing the same.

I don't. I assume that you speak only for yourself, which is why I don't use arguments such the one you did when you said, "Do you speak for other people now?" I consider that sort of rejoinder to be beneath the level of serious discussion. It is the tactic of a desperate person, clutching at strawmen.

Your analogy breaks down when you say "dead". Rocks have never been alive, so they can't be "dead", the same way a baby can be dead.

Exactly. It is a different meaning of "dead" that is only correct in specific, well-defined situations and not one you would use in general discussion. This is almost exactly the same case as using "atheist" to describe babies. It is (IMO) a very good analogy. Your point reinforces this.

And people say I have no sense of humour...

Oh. Was that your sense of humour? Sorry to tell you this Claus, but people are right when they say that.

Rocks have never been alive, so it is silly to compare them to babies.

In the privative sense, a dead rock is the same as a dead baby. They are both "without life". That is why such a usage of the word "dead" is not meaningful except in specific, carefully defined situations. That is why the word "atheist" to refer to something that has never had a concept of god is not meaningful except in specific, carefully defined situations. Again, you make my point for me. Thank you.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, do people normally use the word "skeptic" the way we do, here on this forum?

Again, I'm not sure who "we" is. In my opinion, you use it quite differently than most folks here.

 

[CFLarsen]

I still say it depends. There are many varieties of Christian. Some worship the Virgin Mary as a complementary goddess. Also, it could be argued that Satan fulfills the characteristics of a god, even if an evil one. But none of this has any point. If a person believes in one or a dozen concepts of god, they are, as Merc points out, 100% not atheist. You seem to be making the argument that lowering the number of gods that someone believes in brings a them closer to atheism. This is, by every definition of atheism I have ever heard, incorrect.

How so?

Are you seriously choosing this as the place to pitch your "logical" battle? Have you exhausted all thoughtful discussion points?

Address the point, please.

I don't. I assume that you speak only for yourself, which is why I don't use arguments such the one you did when you said, "Do you speak for other people now?" I consider that sort of rejoinder to be beneath the level of serious discussion. It is the tactic of a desperate person, clutching at strawmen.

Name one strawman I have erected in this thread.

Exactly. It is a different meaning of "dead" that is only correct in specific, well-defined situations and not one you would use in general discussion. This is almost exactly the same case as using "atheist" to describe babies. It is (IMO) a very good analogy. Your point reinforces this.

I disagree, it is a horrible analogy, for reasons given.

In the privative sense, a dead rock is the same as a dead baby. They are both "without life". That is why such a usage of the word "dead" is not meaningful except in specific, carefully defined situations. That is why the word "atheist" to refer to something that has never had a concept of god is not meaningful except in specific, carefully defined situations. Again, you make my point for me. Thank you.

Again, the difference is that a dead baby was once living. A "dead" rock has never been anything else.

Again, I'm not sure who "we" is. In my opinion, you use it quite differently than most folks here.

If you want to play infantile games: Do you normally use the word "skeptic" the way Randi does? Is that how it is generally used?

 

[Tricky]

How so?

QED

Address the point, please.

I have done so, more so than you.

Name one strawman I have erected in this thread.

You said I claim to "know" god.

I disagree, it is a horrible analogy, for reasons given.

Your reasons are very poor, as I have explained at length.

Again, the difference is that a dead baby was once living. A "dead" rock has never been anything else.

Depending on the situation. There are a few cases when rocks have been, arguably, living. Nevertheless, if dead is defined as "without life" then it doesn't matter if has ever been alive. If atheist is defined as "without religion" it doesn't matter if a thing has ever considered religion. I submit that both definitions are not meaningful in most cases. You say one is and one isn't. Who is being illogical here?

 

[Mercutio]

That doesn't answer the question: Do people need to follow the same reasoning to come to the same conclusion?

No, they do not.

Now...do people who follow different reasoning necessarily come to the same conclusion? (no, they do not.) So, what was your point? Again, I gave a counterexample, which is one more data point than you have provided to back up your assertion.

Yes, if they are honest enough.

So, my student would be an atheist, except that she puts sugar on her porridge? You have set yourself up, conveniently enough, to deny any counterexamples; congratulations on making your world view non-falsifiable.

I have explained again and again what I mean.

...if only you had done so consistently.

I hardly think this long thread is evidence that I am not interested in dialogue.

By the same token, we could say the same thing about Kleinman, Iacchus, and a number of others. Post count is not the equivalent of dialogue.

No, I have not declined. Read the thread, and try to understand what I am saying.

I have asked outright. I do thank you for validating my prediction, though.

Babies don't have the ability to become literate? O....K.

Did you shift that goalpost all by yourself? (The question was "are babies literate?") To answer you...Only by becoming babies no longer. See, that's the thing about the scientific evidence on babies. The researchers have to keep using fresh babies, because once you have studied a particular baby for long enough, you are no longer studying a baby.

I disagree that my "one god short" point has fallen apart, and I do believe I have demonstrated that it is very appropriate.

Appropriate? For what?
For demonstrating that you misuse the privative definition? "Atheism" is not defined by not believing in all gods; you don't get extra points from the Catholic church for also believing in other gods. Your example is terrible, Claus, and you really ought to drop it.

Again, read the thread.

Again, thank you for validating my prediction. Let's just assume for a moment that I have, in fact, been reading the thread that I have been replying to, coherently, for days. I know, it's a stretch, but use your imagination. Now, let's assume that I have read everything, but still have not managed to grok what it is that you are saying. Under those assumptions, what might I write? Maybe something like "You would do better, Claus, to actually explain your position coherently. Your objections to others' positions do not point to a cohesive whole view on your part. I would be happy to eat my words if you can put your view out for any to see, but if you simply say something like "If you can't see it from what I have written, too bad", I am left with the conclusion that you, yourself, do not understand your own position."

 

[CFLarsen]

QED

Huh? Please explain.

I have done so, more so than you.

OK, you won't address the point.

You said I claim to "know" god.

And I explained what I meant. If you won't address that, fine.

Your reasons are very poor, as I have explained at length.

I disagree.

Depending on the situation. There are a few cases when rocks have been, arguably, living. Nevertheless, if dead is defined as "without life" then it doesn't matter if has ever been alive. If atheist is defined as "without religion" it doesn't matter if a thing has ever considered religion. I submit that both definitions are not meaningful in most cases. You say one is and one isn't. Who is being illogical here?

The way it is used with dead babies is "deprived of life - no longer alive". You can't say that for rocks.

No, they do not.

Thank you.

Now...do people who follow different reasoning necessarily come to the same conclusion? (no, they do not.) So, what was your point? Again, I gave a counterexample, which is one more data point than you have provided to back up your assertion.

Read my posts here.

So, my student would be an atheist, except that she puts sugar on her porridge? You have set yourself up, conveniently enough, to deny any counterexamples; congratulations on making your world view non-falsifiable.

How so?

...if only you had done so consistently.

I have.

By the same token, we could say the same thing about Kleinman, Iacchus, and a number of others. Post count is not the equivalent of dialogue.

I didn't point to post count, but the length of the thread.

I have asked outright. I do thank you for validating my prediction, though.

It doesn't seem as if you are the least bit interested in what I have to say.

Did you shift that goalpost all by yourself? (The question was "are babies literate?") To answer you...Only by becoming babies no longer. See, that's the thing about the scientific evidence on babies. The researchers have to keep using fresh babies, because once you have studied a particular baby for long enough, you are no longer studying a baby.

Indeed. But that doesn't invalidate the knowledge we have gained from studying babies.

Appropriate? For what? For demonstrating that you misuse the privative definition? "Atheism" is not defined by not believing in all gods;

That's exactly what it is. You don't believe in any god.

you don't get extra points from the Catholic church for also believing in other gods. Your example is terrible, Claus, and you really ought to drop it.

I disagree.

Again, thank you for validating my prediction. Let's just assume for a moment that I have, in fact, been reading the thread that I have been replying to, coherently, for days. I know, it's a stretch, but use your imagination. Now, let's assume that I have read everything, but still have not managed to grok what it is that you are saying. Under those assumptions, what might I write? Maybe something like "You would do better, Claus, to actually explain your position coherently. Your objections to others' positions do not point to a cohesive whole view on your part. I would be happy to eat my words if you can put your view out for any to see, but if you simply say something like "If you can't see it from what I have written, too bad", I am left with the conclusion that you, yourself, do not understand your own position."

You can come to the conclusions you feel you have to come to.

 

[Mercutio]

That's exactly what it is. You don't believe in any god.

Which means, belief in any one god whatsoever means you are not an atheist, every bit as much so as if you believe in every single one. "One god short of atheism" is disingenuous.

You ask "Who said I wanted to use the privative definition of atheist on adults?", yes? Obviously, by the privative definition, your "one god short" is meaningless; let us explore the C&R interpretation as well. The site I linked earlier lists over 3,000 gods. If someone claims to be an atheist, is it necessary for them to have considered and rejected each of them? If someone does not believe in the christian god, does that make them "just 2,999 steps from being an atheist"? Have you, Claus, considered each of the gods?

The C&R and privative interpretations are the only ones we have explored in this thread (and "strong" and "weak" variants); by which interpretation do you consider your "one god short" example meaningful?

 

[Mercutio]

How so?

Please, Claus--have you forgotten your logic?

You rejected my counter-example, and said that people will understand why you are an atheist:"Yes, if they are honest enough."

By that logic, if they do not understand why you are an atheist, they are not being honest. You are safe from having to consider that maybe you are wrong. No True Scotsman, you know.

You really could not see that? And you say you have examined your assumptions?

 

[CFLarsen]

Which means, belief in any one god whatsoever means you are not an atheist, every bit as much so as if you believe in every single one. "One god short of atheism" is disingenuous.

You ask "Who said I wanted to use the privative definition of atheist on adults?", yes? Obviously, by the privative definition, your "one god short" is meaningless; let us explore the C&R interpretation as well. The site I linked earlier lists over 3,000 gods. If someone claims to be an atheist, is it necessary for them to have considered and rejected each of them? If someone does not believe in the christian god, does that make them "just 2,999 steps from being an atheist"? Have you, Claus, considered each of the gods?

The C&R and privative interpretations are the only ones we have explored in this thread (and "strong" and "weak" variants); by which interpretation do you consider your "one god short" example meaningful?

That's the beauty of being a born atheist: You don't have to consider each and every deity, because you hold the default position: Precisely as it is not up to you to provide evidence that supernatural powers do not exist, nor do you have to provide evidence - or even argue - that deities do not exist.

As always, the onus is on the claimant.

Let's take that again, because it goes to the core of this issue:

The onus is on the claimant.

It can never be up to the atheist - non-believer, lack-of-belief'er, privative atheist, declared or undeclared atheist, however you want to describe him - to argue that deities do not exist.

It will always and forever be up to the believer to argue that deities do exist.

But: If you accept the existence of just one deity, it is up to you to argue the non-existence of all other deities. It is solely your responsibility.

The onus is on the claimant.

If you disagree, then you also have to demand that skeptics must be the ones arguing that psychic powers don't exist.

Somehow, I don't think you want to go there.

 

[Mercutio]

That's the beauty of being a born atheist: You don't have to consider each and every deity, because you hold the default position: Precisely as it is not up to you to provide evidence that supernatural powers do not exist, nor do you have to provide evidence - or even argue - that deities do not exist.

As always, the onus is on the claimant.
[snip]

So, then, you are using the privative definition. You could have simply said so. So am I, and have said so often.

The only disagreement we have is that your posts seem to indicate that you feel this definition holds meaning for the infant. "A born atheist", as opposed to "a born innocent", implies that one could be a "born catholic", or "born muslim", or any other faith. I don't think you want to imply that; I think you would much rather emphasize the inability of an infant to hold any faith. But just as you have seen that it is meaningless to speak of a baby as "born flightless"--if a population cannot possess a characteristic, its individuals cannot meaningfully be described as lacking it--it is meaningless to speak of a baby as able to have faith in any god. Yet, paradoxically, by insisting that it is meaningful to call a baby "a born atheist", you are indeed speaking of babies as able to have faith in a god.

So, as you rightly say, please provide evidence that this is the case. Babies. Infants, Claus, not "prior infants" or "former infants" or "recovered infants". Your choice of vocabulary clearly implies that you think it meaningful for an infant to have faith in god--else how could one meaningfully lack it?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, then, you are using the privative definition. You could have simply said so. So am I, and have said so often.

The only disagreement we have is that your posts seem to indicate that you feel this definition holds meaning for the infant.

I'm not. It's lack of religious meaning.

"A born atheist", as opposed to "a born innocent", implies that one could be a "born catholic", or "born muslim", or any other faith. I don't think you want to imply that; I think you would much rather emphasize the inability of an infant to hold any faith. But just as you have seen that it is meaningless to speak of a baby as "born flightless"--if a population cannot possess a characteristic, its individuals cannot meaningfully be described as lacking it--it is meaningless to speak of a baby as able to have faith in any god. Yet, paradoxically, by insisting that it is meaningful to call a baby "a born atheist", you are indeed speaking of babies as able to have faith in a god.

No, because that would be the C&R definition of "atheist".

So, as you rightly say, please provide evidence that this is the case. Babies. Infants, Claus, not "prior infants" or "former infants" or "recovered infants". Your choice of vocabulary clearly implies that you think it meaningful for an infant to have faith in god--else how could one meaningfully lack it?

Again, I'm not.


So...we agree fully, then?

 

[Mercutio]

No, because that would be the C&R definition of "atheist".

No. For the same reasons that you know it is meaningless to speak of flightless infants. If a population cannot possess a characteristic, its individuals cannot meaningfully be described as lacking it. That you describe infants as atheist implies that it is meaningful to speak of infants as religious. It has nothing to do with considering and rejecting; the infants did not consider and reject flight. Infants, although they cannot read or write, are not meaningfully illiterate, yet they did not consider and reject literacy.

Again, I'm not.

Again, you are confused. The privative definition is only meaningful when there are members of the population that are members of the various categories to which the privatives do not belong. If our species had developed without ever having any concept of any god, it would be meaningless to call us atheists. We would just be people. There are any number of things we are not, currently, but we don't and cannot know it, since the things we could be don't exist either.

So...we agree fully, then?

I will agree that your usage is correct, and that I am mistaken, as soon as you provide your claimed scientific evidence that infants have the capacity (not potential--capacity) for religious belief. Caterpillars do not fly, Claus.

The only way your usage can be right, Claus, is for you to claim the very thing you are trying to make the opposite political point about; the privative usage demands that at least some members of the population (of infants) be religious. Are they, Claus?

 

[Mercutio]

In a blatant appeal to (legitimate) authority, I give you Aristotle.

(iii) 'privatives' and 'Positives' have reference to the same subject. Thus, sight and blindness have reference to the eye. It is a universal rule that each of a pair of opposites of this type has reference to that to which the particular 'positive' is natural. We say that that is capable of some particular faculty or possession has suffered privation when the faculty or possession in question is in no way present in that in which, and at the time at which, it should naturally be present. We do not call that toothless which has not teeth, or that blind which has not sight, but rather that which has not teeth or sight at the time when by nature it should. For there are some creatures which from birth are without sight, or without teeth, but these are not called toothless or blind.

(emphasis mine)

So, Claus, in saying that babies are meaningfully atheist, you are saying that this is a time when belief in god should naturally be present.

Somehow I doubt that you want to say that.

 

[JoeEllison]

Babies are crying poo and pee factories. Why are we discussing their "viewpoint" on any subject?

 

[CFLarsen]

We disagree, then.

You keep arguing that it has to be meaningful - but to whom? It doesn't have to be meaningful to
the newborn baby, because babies don't know that deities exist. It doesn't have to be meaningful to adults either, because then, we'd be judging the baby from our own C&R position.

All this talk about meaningfulness - it's meaningless.

 

[Tricky]

Again, you are confused. The privative definition is only meaningful when there are members of the population that are members of the various categories to which the privatives do not belong. If our species had developed without ever having any concept of any god, it would be meaningless to call us atheists. We would just be people. There are any number of things we are not, currently, but we don't and cannot know it, since the things we could be don't exist either.

Would it be correct to say, then, that some humans are atheists and that some of those human atheists are babies, or embryos or zygotes? (Yeah, I know. What does 'human' mean?)

 

[Tricky]

All this talk about meaningfulness - it's meaningless.

Ah, but you employ the same sort of talk. You earlier said it was "silly" to call zygotes 'atheist'. I think we can agree that 'silly' means about the same thing as 'not meaningful'.

 

[Mercutio]

Would it be correct to say, then, that some humans are atheists and that some of those human atheists are babies, or embryos or zygotes? (Yeah, I know. What does 'human' mean?)

Not as I read Aristotle. Some humans are atheists, some are believers, some are babies, embryos and zygotes. (In truth, I have no idea what Aristotle would think about whether the latter two were "human".)

Of course, this is subject to change--If evidence can be provided that babies have the capacity for religious belief, then it is absolutely appropriate to say that some of the human atheists are babies. If it can be shown that embryos or zygotes ...

 

[Tricky]

Not as I read Aristotle. Some humans are atheists, some are believers, some are babies, embryos and zygotes. (In truth, I have no idea what Aristotle would think about whether the latter two were "human".)

Of course, this is subject to change--If evidence can be provided that babies have the capacity for religious belief, then it is absolutely appropriate to say that some of the human atheists are babies. If it can be shown that embryos or zygotes ...

That seems to suggest that larger groups must be subdivided by their characteristics, such as capacity for religious belief, if the question of religious belief is raised. You cannot simply say "some humans are atheists", you must say, at least implicitly, "some humans capable of religious beliefs are atheists." This has been my feeling from the start, but it was more in the category of "blindingly obvious" rather than logical.

 

[Mercutio]

We disagree, then.

You keep arguing that it has to be meaningful - but to whom? It doesn't have to be meaningful to
the newborn baby, because babies don't know that deities exist. It doesn't have to be meaningful to adults either, because then, we'd be judging the baby from our own C&R position.

You continue to misunderstand. There is no reason to bring a C&R position into this at all. (If you read the thread, you will have noted that I find the C&R position lacking--it only works one god at a time, and by presupposing the religious position. How many people have truly considered every god?)

You understand what I mean by meaningful and meaningless--you understand that it is meaningless to refer to babies as "flightless". To put it into Aristotle's words, flight should not naturally be present, therefore one cannot be deprived (same root as privation) of it. Literacy should not naturally be present in infants, therefore they cannot be meaningfully said to be illiterate, for precisely the same reason.

Literacy can be observed--belief, though? It is possible that you are, in fact, assuming that babies can be religious. If so, then you are quite right to say that babies can be atheist as well. But if they cannot believe...

All this talk about meaningfulness - it's meaningless.

I suspect not.

 

[Mercutio]

That seems to suggest that larger groups must be subdivided by their characteristics, such as capacity for religious belief, if the question of religious belief is raised. You cannot simply say "some humans are atheists", you must say, at least implicitly, "some humans capable of religious beliefs are atheists." This has been my feeling from the start, but it was more in the category of "blindingly obvious" rather than logical.

Agreed. This is why I asked Claus whether he had examined his assumptions. And I also agree on the "blindingly obvious" category. ("Blind", according to Aristotle, is a privative....)