Are newborn babies atheist?

Mercutio said:
I agree wholeheartedly that learning is a much better standard (for empirical investigation) than knowledge...
Click to expand...

No problemo. My goldfish have certainly learned that when I stand at their bowl, they're going to get food. They've also learned that if they click the stones on the bottom of the bowl together, I will get pissed off and feed them. I'm not sure how they feel about god/atheism, but taking a line through trees' reasoning, I'd be betting on atheist.

Mercutio said:
(and don't even get me started on aptitude and achievement tests)
Click to expand...

I love aptitude and achievement tests - I have people doing them all the time! How many posts is it worth?
 
The Atheist said:
No problemo. My goldfish have certainly learned that when I stand at their bowl, they're going to get food. They've also learned that if they click the stones on the bottom of the bowl together, I will get pissed off and feed them. I'm not sure how they feel about god/atheism, but taking a line through trees' reasoning, I'd be betting on atheist.
Click to expand...
Wonderful example! I am stealing it for use in my class; it is a terrific example of the reciprocal nature of reinforcement. You positively reinforce them with food, they negatively reinforce you by stopping that infernal clicking!
I love aptitude and achievement tests - I have people doing them all the time! How many posts is it worth?
Click to expand...
Hmmm... each person in this thread needs to categorize "learning", "knowledge", "aptitude", and "achievement"; how much repetition? How much overlap of similar but not identical categories? Which terms are more helpful? Which are misleading?

I think that such an in-depth examination is crucial to both the "knowledge" question (duh) and the whole "can babies believe?" side-path. Who knows? Perhaps it will even give Claus the chance for a come-from-behind victory!

(bull, meet flag--how many posts is that worth?
 
Don't forget that newborn babies is not a lot of other things. They are not conservatives, libertarians, cigar aficionados, trekkers, scientists, etc, etc.

That newborn babies aren't atheists might be true. But it's not good argument at all. If someone critiziced any of my personal habits or beliefs with the argument that "newborn babies is not X" I would probably get an cerebral hemorrage from my hysterical laughter.
 
Last edited:
Father Dagon said:
Don't forget that newborn babies is not a lot of other things. They are not conservatives, libertarians, cigar aficionados, trekkers, scientists, etc, etc.

That newborn babies aren't atheists might be true. But it's not good argument at all. If someone critiziced any of my personal habits or beliefs with the argument that "newborn babies is not X" I would probably get an cerebral hemorrage from my hysterical laughter.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

I, for one, do not wish to argue that "newborn babies aren't atheists"--because the phrasing implies that they must then be believers. My argument is that the terminology is meaningless when applied to babies (as I think you agree, given your examples).
 
Mercutio said:
(emphasis mine)

I, for one, do not wish to argue that "newborn babies aren't atheists"--because the phrasing implies that they must then be believers. My argument is that the terminology is meaningless when applied to babies (as I think you agree, given your examples).
Click to expand...
And there's the both silly and scaring ideas that newborns are bisexuals or muslims, but it's the environment that socializes them away from The True Way...
 
Father Dagon said:
And there's the both silly and scaring ideas that newborns are bisexuals or muslims, but it's the environment that socializes them away from The True Way...
Click to expand...
And how many people, including babies have died on that Way.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Well- they don't believe in god.
And people who do not believe in god are atheists..

The question then becomes:- Are babies people?
 
Well- they don't believe in god.
And people who do not believe in god are atheists..
Click to expand...
/thread.

A-theism means without religion. Babies are atheists just like they are apolitical. No one's saying a baby has thought the subject matter through and decided, from listening to several lectures, reading several books and talking to religious friends, that there are no gods.Atheism just means you're not religious.

I think the fact that "atheism" has an "-ism" ending confuses a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
/thread.

A-theism means without religion. Babies are atheists just like they are apolitical. No one's saying a baby has thought the subject matter through and decided, from listening to several lectures, reading several books and talking to religious friends, that there are no gods.Atheism just means you're not religious.
Click to expand...
...which means stone walls are atheist. I still argue that such a definition removes the usefullness of the word to describe a philosophical position.

So are you going to argue with a stone wall? ;)
 
Soapy Sam said:
Well- they don't believe in god.
And people who do not believe in god are atheists..
Click to expand...

That's true for a trivial definition of "atheist." I don't like it, though.

Sam Harris, I think, gave us a more useful definition. An atheist is a person who has considered the God-claims of various religions and found them all utterly uncompelling.

I can't find anything wrong with that definition.
 
CurtC said:
That's true for a trivial definition of "atheist." I don't like it, though.

Sam Harris, I think, gave us a more useful definition. An atheist is a person who has considered the God-claims of various religions and found them all utterly uncompelling.

I can't find anything wrong with that definition.
Click to expand...

I do because it pushes a claim onto atheists when they are simply not the ones that are making a claim, that's why my "operational definition" of an atheist is now: If your answer to "Which god or gods do you believe in?" is "None" then you are an atheist.

Now you (3rd person) as an atheist may wish to make other claims, such as "I've considered the evidence for God-claims of various religions and concluded that such gods do not exist", then that's fair enough but that's a separate claim to the statement that you are an atheist.
 
And the correct answer is...*Drumroll*...


"It depends how you define atheist."

You're welcome. Now please stop bumping threads based entirely on semantics.
 
By this argument, a rock is an atheist. Not having (or being able to have) a position on the existience of God is not the same as being an atheist. Is a rock amoral?
 
What language does a newborn speak? What so-called god does it believe in, that depends on who the parents are too a point, seeing that I don’t believe in any so-called god made by man, and don’t see any use for any others to begin too.

Newborns don't believe in anything of course, but they do have a great potential to be misguided.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Darat said:
CurtC said:
Sam Harris, I think, gave us a more useful definition. An atheist is a person who has considered the God-claims of various religions and found them all utterly uncompelling.

I can't find anything wrong with that definition.
Click to expand...
I do because it pushes a claim onto atheists when they are simply not the ones that are making a claim
Click to expand...

No, that statement makes no claim, except that we've looked for evidence and so far have found none that's compelling. It keeps the burden of proof on the side making a positive claim. An atheist is just a person who has considered their arguments and has not been swayed by them.
 
Uh guys?

Maybe you missed it, but I ended this thread a few posts ago. Seriously, the question is pointless, the argument is pointless, and the correct answer (whatever that may be) is of zero consequence. Fighting over definitions is about as meaningless an exercise as you can have.

*Brings in wrecking ball and starts demolishing thread.*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom