Are newborn babies atheist?

ApostateltsopA said:
When it comes to what god means, I work with the definition I gave as a very basic one that lets me address all god concepts. Even stuff that would be called by another name as well, eg angels and superheros.
Click to expand...
It's all imaginary then.
 
It's an unknown, probably imaginary. Certainly all the ideas I've heard are creations of people who have hatched them up. Perhaps something is out there, but if it is I seriously doubt we can guess it's nature and there is no indication it is communicating. So basically yeah, imaginary.
 
ApostateltsopA said:
(Apologies I actually didn't see this quote from you until just now so I'm running back to it)



The null hypothisis is about empirical reality, not mental concepts. To put it another way, using your null hypothisis on math will invalidate numbers. We are not postulating the existence of gods, but the existence of the idea of gods.

So while the null can tell us it's unlikely that the god exists, we have lots, and lots, of evidence for the existence of ideas about gods.

Similarly


Since we have a world populated with people professing belief in gods, and you acknowledge that there are theists, and theist is defined as someone who believes in a god that acts in the world, we have a clear need to be able to talk about what a god is.

Similarly since we are talking about an idea which demonstrably is part of the world, there is no null hypothesis here.

Finally, if you persist on refusing to identify meaning to the word god, then you must also agree with me that no one can be defined atheist or theist, as we can not find the belief or lack of belief in something we can not define. Both statements, "I believe in god," and "I lack belief in god" are rendered meaningless by the lack of allowed meaning for the word god. It becomes gibberish.



No word has intrinsic meaning, all words are inventions to relate concepts. We absolutely can choose what to mean by them and meanings are chosen, and changed through time and societies. For my part, I have no problem with atheist as a lack of belief in any gods, so long as we acknowledge this is not the same kind of atheist as someone who believes that there are no gods. I'd also like to agree that the ist means person so we are talking about someone and their mindset.

However when it comes to babies, atheist does not apply. That is my main point here in this discussion. Theist does not apply either, babies are an unknown.

You may read the why are we bothering bit as my complete bafflement at why anyone would want to claim that they are.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, ApostateltsopA, and welcome to the boards.

I haven't posted in this thread for a while, but if you are masochistic enough to start from the beginning, I argue a similar line. While "atheist" may literally mean, "without god", it really doesn't have any socially significant meaning unless you first have a concept of God to reject. If babies are athiests because they have no concept of God, then so are rocks. How useful is that definition?
 
Tricky said:
Excellent post, ApostateltsopA, and welcome to the boards.

I haven't posted in this thread for a while, but if you are masochistic enough to start from the beginning, I argue a similar line. While "atheist" may literally mean, "without god", it really doesn't have any socially significant meaning unless you first have a concept of God to reject. If babies are athiests because they have no concept of God, then so are rocks. How useful is that definition?
Click to expand...
This is why I have changed my stance as well. I no longer consider myself atheist, though I can fit the profile at first blush. Igtheism is really the only true start to any theological discussion. True, it tends to grind to a halt shortly thereafter; then it descends into philosophy.
 
Tricky said:
Excellent post, ApostateltsopA, and welcome to the boards.

I haven't posted in this thread for a while, but if you are masochistic enough to start from the beginning, I argue a similar line. While "atheist" may literally mean, "without god", it really doesn't have any socially significant meaning unless you first have a concept of God to reject. If babies are athiests because they have no concept of God, then so are rocks. How useful is that definition?
Click to expand...

If we get to the point where the word atheist doesn't have any socially significant meaning then we're probably making progress.

It really shouldn't have any meaning beyond being a very simple descriptor to differentiate one group of people from another group.
 
Tricky said:
Excellent post, ApostateltsopA, and welcome to the boards.

I haven't posted in this thread for a while, but if you are masochistic enough to start from the beginning, I argue a similar line. While "atheist" may literally mean, "without god", it really doesn't have any socially significant meaning unless you first have a concept of God to reject. If babies are athiests because they have no concept of God, then so are rocks. How useful is that definition?
Click to expand...

Thanks,

And to answer your question, not very. Although I think we can stay on the ist means person train and eliminate rocks, when someone claims that the ist is for theist and a just means not a theist we are right back to rocks and cosmic radiation as atheists.

I still am amazed at how contentious this, and just defining the term atheist, can become. It reminds me of my first philosophy book, Augastine against the accadamians, where a group of philosophers had argued themselves to be the wisest, by refusing to endorse, or condemn, any philosophical position on anything. Thus of the camps of philosophers each voted themselves best, and the accadamians second best, so they won the "best" distinction.

All they actually did was refuse to do anything, and I have a hard time with people who want to get on that bandwagon.
 
No cause they don't have the ability to even reflect on it.

To label everything "atheist" because it lacks the capacity to believe in god is so stupid that the word just becomes meaningless.

This rock is atheist
My TV is atheist
My dog is atheist
Babies are atheist
Intelligence is atheist
Green is atheist.

Yeah everything's atheist. Dumb.
 
Kahalachan said:
No cause they don't have the ability to even reflect on it.
Click to expand...
Reflect on what?



To label everything "atheist" because it lacks the capacity to believe in god is so stupid that the word just becomes meaningless.
Click to expand...
Believe in what, again? Belief in 'god' -- a term that has been defined in nearly every way possible that it could be anything at all? Yup, the word 'god' just becomes meaningless alright.
 
Kahalachan said:
No cause they don't have the ability to even reflect on it.

To label everything "atheist" because it lacks the capacity to believe in god is so stupid that the word just becomes meaningless.

This rock is atheist
My TV is atheist
My dog is atheist
Babies are atheist
Intelligence is atheist
Green is atheist.

Yeah everything's atheist. Dumb.
Click to expand...



.- Not only dumb, this redefinition attempt is absolutely useless.

In the very unlikely event this meaningless redefinition (Lack of belief/ no theist) was accepted as of common usage, then a NEW term/word should arise to take its place to define the "conscious rejection of belief in gods" in order to clearly and easily delimit the conscious Atheist stance of, for example, Richard Dawkins from something as DIAMETRALLY DIFFERENT as the “Absolutely unconscious Atheist stance(?)” of, for example, a skunk.

In the process, the word "atheist' would be rendered so meaningless it would be left aside as useless and ultimately, forgotten.
 
Last edited:
ApostateltsopA said:
Thanks,

And to answer your question, not very. Although I think we can stay on the ist means person train and eliminate rocks, when someone claims that the ist is for theist and a just means not a theist we are right back to rocks and cosmic radiation as atheists.
Click to expand...


.- Exactly. Very well said.

"Not a theist" can be anything.

According to this "purist" and failed redefinition of Atheist (not a theist), only theists could be considered being adherent to or concerned with something, therefore persons.

I'd like to add that the prefix "A" means "Without" as in Atheos (without gods or godless) AND "No", as in Atypical (not typical)

Usage of a word is what defines its meaning.
 
Last edited:
.- I also strongly disagree with Atheism being the "default state".

Belief in gods/deities has to come from somewhere, and if everyone was born an atheist there would never have been a place for religions to evolve from.
To say beliefs in the supernatural, deities, afterlife, etc is just some "crap somebody made up" and is indoctrinated using "brainwashing" is both very uneducated and simplistic.


Of course, none of us are born with a belief in Yawhe or Allah.

But kids appear to be natural teleologians (not to be confused with "Theologians"), they automatically read purpose into explanations of why the world is the way it is, and even if that isn't theism in and of itself, it certainly rules out atheism.

Definition of TELEOLOGY:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology


Ask any 5 year old kid anywhere what happens after we die. If any of them, a single one answers "nothing because there is no afterlife", I'd be very surprised.

And NO, they were not "brainwashed" to believe there is an afterlife.

They WANT to believe there is an afterlife, because they're kids!!!

You can tell a "regular" 5 year old kid 10,000 times there is no afterlife and they won't accept it.

It takes maturity, conscience and a pair of hairy balls to accept nothing happens after we die.
 
Funny, watch this and think about what the thread is about if you think it is over the top about babies being atheist or not. :jaw-dropp





Paul


:) :) :)
 
I submit that the concept of presumptive atheism comes dangerously close to establishing a belief for atheism other than the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and should be rejected on that basis.

To put it simply, if accepting presumptive atheism is part and parcel of being an atheist, then clearly I'm not an atheist, nor do I want to be.

My personal belief is that insensate beings who are unable to understand philosophical concepts such as god, like babies, cannot be considered atheists and would more appropriately be labeled agnostic. They simply do not know if there's a god or not, and are therefore incapable of hazarding an opinion on the issue.

It is my further belief that small children also cannot properly be considered members of a religion due to their propensity to magical thinking and the fact that they accept what they're told by authority figures. I am certainly in no rush to tell Christians or Muslims that their children are not real Christians or Muslims, though :D I personally will only accept a statement of faith or lack thereof from people who have reached an age where they're able to reason, such as their teens.

I think that Catholicism sets the bar too low at setting the age of reason around 7 years old. I can't think of many 7 year olds who would feel willing and able to go against their family and community for a philosophical principle, so a 7 year old is more likely to espouse belief, whether they mean it or not, or have lingering beliefs based on fear of eternal punishment or peer pressure rather than logic and reason.
 
I used to be satisfied with rocks and babies being nominal atheists and those of us who know we're atheists being explicit atheists. However, although I disagreed with many of his other arguments, Charlie Brown's point about the suffix '-ist' meaning (roughly) a person concerned with something has persuaded me that if you are not, at least in theory, capable of thinking about the question of a god or God existing, you can be neither an atheist nor a theist.
 
Apology said:
I submit that the concept of presumptive atheism comes dangerously close to establishing a belief for atheism other than the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and should be rejected on that basis.

To put it simply, if accepting presumptive atheism is part and parcel of being an atheist, then clearly I'm not an atheist, nor do I want to be.

My personal belief is that insensate beings who are unable to understand philosophical concepts such as god, like babies, cannot be considered atheists and would more appropriately be labeled agnostic. They simply do not know if there's a god or not, and are therefore incapable of hazarding an opinion on the issue.

It is my further belief that small children also cannot properly be considered members of a religion due to their propensity to magical thinking and the fact that they accept what they're told by authority figures. I am certainly in no rush to tell Christians or Muslims that their children are not real Christians or Muslims, though :D I personally will only accept a statement of faith or lack thereof from people who have reached an age where they're able to reason, such as their teens.

I think that Catholicism sets the bar too low at setting the age of reason around 7 years old. I can't think of many 7 year olds who would feel willing and able to go against their family and community for a philosophical principle, so a 7 year old is more likely to espouse belief, whether they mean it or not, or have lingering beliefs based on fear of eternal punishment or peer pressure rather than logic and reason.
Click to expand...

Whatever your thoughts on 'atheist' as a term referring to rocks or babies as 'agnostic' is clearly even wronger.

The problem seems to be the idiocy of extending the simple fact that babies are atheist and then applying that to rocks as if its some huge gotcha when in fact its just a stupid question.

There seems to be a lot of that in the field of religion - asking stupid questions and then thinking you've won the argument.
 
Mister Agenda said:
I used to be satisfied with rocks and babies being nominal atheists and those of us who know we're atheists being explicit atheists. However, although I disagreed with many of his other arguments, Charlie Brown's point about the suffix '-ist' meaning (roughly) a person concerned with something has persuaded me that if you are not, at least in theory, capable of thinking about the question of a god or God existing, you can be neither an atheist nor a theist.
Click to expand...
Except the prefix 'a-' is just a negation. If you're not a theist, you're a-theist. It does not require being capable of any kind of '-ist.'
 
Atheism means 'without God', while agnostic means 'without knowledge'.

Of the two I think agnostic possibly comes slightly closer to describing a newborn baby because a newborn baby cannot possibly have 'knowledge' of God.

That said, I don't think either term adequately describes a newborn baby because I'm pretty sure that both are terms defined by what someone decides about God after some thought on the subject, which would naturaly have to include the subject being familiar with the concept of God.

Possibly a better term to use would be 'innocent'.
 
The semantic problem for me is that the term "atheist" alone implies that "theism" is the default position.

If we accept that we all start from a position of not knowing from birth about anything at all really, then surely we need a "null" point term to describe our condition.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Except the prefix 'a-' is just a negation. If you're not a theist, you're a-theist. It does not require being capable of any kind of '-ist.'
Click to expand...
Technically correct but semantically useless. It implies that there is no difference in the philosophy of Richard Dawkins versus a hunk of quartz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom