I believe atheism is a conscious choice. So...no.
That baby doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. It has no notion of the concept of God or religion, let alone enough knowledge to reject it.
Why are you asking? Seems a pretty daft question to me unless there's some clever notion behind it that you've not revealed? Define 'atheist' first so I can see if we're discussing the same concept. Otherwise this is a semantics debate.
That baby doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. It has no notion of the concept of God or religion, let alone enough knowledge to reject it.
Why are you asking? Seems a pretty daft question to me unless there's some clever notion behind it that you've not revealed? Define 'atheist' first so I can see if we're discussing the same concept. Otherwise this is a semantics debate.
Last edited:
Why do you think it is a conscious choice?
Do you have to reject religion to be an atheist?
Think about what Dawkins said about children and religion: It doesn't make sense to talk about Muslim children or Christian children. They are children of Muslims/Christians.
I think it's his new spawn...
the PC apeman
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 648
If only we had a word that meant without (belief in a) god. Greek is usually a good source.
Last edited:
the PC apeman
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 648
By the way, on the off chance you didn't already know, cute baby.
He doesn't call them atheists, either.
I think this is a semantics issue, and it's partly to do with the way I see other people apply the 'atheist' label (as though it's equal to religion in that it's the decision to disbelieve as much as religion is the decision to believe).
I don't like 'active' atheism myself, and see it rather as the absense of something (which would of course make the baby an atheist), not a 'thing' in itself. However, the word is often not used that way, particularly by the religious. So, without knowing the reason for the question in the OP, then I am assuming he means it as the 'active' definition (as that, in my experience, is how most people refer to it).
If EGarrett would like to clarify what he means by atheist, then we can debate the issue on the terms presented. At present, we have none.
I didn't imagine for a moment that the baby was his, as he referred to it as 'that'. But if it is, then congratulations to you EGarrett.
By 'conscious choice', I was talking about the application of a label. We've made a name for something and be bestow upon ourselves or those who fit the definition.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
In my opinion, It is ridiculous to call someone an atheist unless they have considered the possibility of God or gods. Even if technically correct, it renders the word useless.
True. If it is the default position, he doesn't have to.
There is definitely a semantic issue involved here. Think about how the religious right(eous) use the term: Interchangeable with "Devil's Spawn"...
Precisely.
Babies at that age is "that".
Lisa Simpson
Unregistered
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 21,960
Babies are pretty much a-everythingists. Adisneyists, aMcDonald's-ists, aHarryPotterists.
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,942
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
Seconded.
What would you call someone who hasn't considered the possibility of deities?
Perhaps, but is that in the nature of belief/disbelief/lack of belief, or is it a trick of a dichotomous depiction - one we've come to accept.
There's lots of things I haven't believed without actively disbelieving them. Hell, I could think of new ones at any time. Won't alter the fact I didn't believe them, and didn't even notice my lack of belief before.
Please forgive me; I do not see this as a trivial matter.
Last edited:
petra10
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,824
Of course the baby is not an atheist he/she doesn't know anything about anything.He/she doesn't even know what language they will use.The Catholic church on the other hand will have you believe that the baby is born a sinner and has to be christened to be absloved.Not sure but I think musliums say babies are unclean because they come out the mothers womb,and they cut their hair all off.Babies are pure and innocent.
Why do you need to actively disbelieve in order not to believe?
Can you not believe in something, without actively not believing in it?
Or, to put it another way: Can you not believe in something you have never heard of? Isn't that exactly what not knowing about something means?
Isn't it the other way around: That you need to know about something first, in order to decide whether you believe in it - or not?
Believing is active. Not believing is not. Therefore, atheism must be the default position.
That's a lot of nots....
Who can solve the atheist (k)not?
Can you not believe in something, without actively not believing in it?
Or, to put it another way: Can you not believe in something you have never heard of? Isn't that exactly what not knowing about something means?
Isn't it the other way around: That you need to know about something first, in order to decide whether you believe in it - or not?
Believing is active. Not believing is not. Therefore, atheism must be the default position.
That's a lot of nots....
Who can solve the atheist (k)not?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Typically, "babies".
eta:
More seriously, I don't think it is wise to start pigeon-holing children with labels until they are self-aware and self-conscious enough to make those kinds of determinations on their own. The UU's do a pretty good job of this, imho, by teaching a variety of religious and non-religious beliefs to the children which culminate in a statement of belief (or non-belief, as the case may be) sometime when they are in high school. At that point, I think you're safe to start labeling them.
As an analogy, is the baby pictured above gay, straight, bisexual, or transgendered? At this point s/he is none of these things but could be considered an unactualized sexual being. Someone of undetermined status. Likewise, s/he is simply not on the a/theistic spectrum yet.
Claiming that they are is simply the first step towards indoctrination.
Last edited:
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,942
Let's put it this way then. We don't know whether the baby is an atheist or not, because we cannot tell the difference between:
1) the baby doesn't know; or
2) the baby knows, but cannot express it in a way us adults can understand.
Let's take another approach to the semantics of it: we all know that dead is the opposite of alive, but are we dead before we are alive? Wouldn't non-existing be a better description of the state of not being alive yet? One can't profess belief or lack of belief in A unless one has defined A in the first place. If you don't know what an abortion is, what's the default position, for or against it? Is atheism a proper identifier for lack of concept of god?
1) the baby doesn't know; or
2) the baby knows, but cannot express it in a way us adults can understand.
Let's take another approach to the semantics of it: we all know that dead is the opposite of alive, but are we dead before we are alive? Wouldn't non-existing be a better description of the state of not being alive yet? One can't profess belief or lack of belief in A unless one has defined A in the first place. If you don't know what an abortion is, what's the default position, for or against it? Is atheism a proper identifier for lack of concept of god?