Are newborn babies atheist?

[Tricky]

What would you call someone who hasn't considered the possibility of deities?

Perhaps nontheist or maybe just non-philosophical.

If you're going to call those who haven't considered the question "atheists" then you might as well call cats and dogs "atheist". Or rocks. It turns the word "atheist" into something without real meaning.

 

[CFLarsen]

Typically, "babies".

Just when do these...blobs of flesh...stop being babies? When they hear of god? What if that never happens? Or, if that happens when they are way beyond what we call "babies"?

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.

That raises a huge question: If the baby knows, but can't express it, how did the baby come about this knowledge?

You see the problem? You are actually suggesting that a baby can know about God without being told by someone.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps nontheist or maybe just non-philosophical.

What is the difference between a non-theist, and an atheist?

If you're going to call those who haven't considered the question "atheists" then you might as well call cats and dogs "atheist". Or rocks. It turns the word "atheist" into something without real meaning.

On the contrary: It emphasizes the meaning of atheist: That you simply lack a belief in god.

How can lacking something be active?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

If that is the case, why would anyone need UU as a religious group?

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.

Whoa. You can't equate sexual orientation with religious beliefs. By doing so, you are doing exactly what the religious right are doing, by preaching that sexuality can be controlled by religious faith.

Claiming that they are is simply the first step towards indoctrination.

How can not knowing of X be considered indoctrination? It is the opposite of indoctrination: To indoctrinate someone, you need some idea/concept to indoctrinate people with.

 

[Upchurch]

If that is the case, why would anyone need UU as a religious group?

I don't understand what you mean.

Whoa. You can't equate sexual orientation with religious beliefs. By doing so, you are doing exactly what the religious right are doing, by preaching that sexuality can be controlled by religious faith.

I'm not equating them, Claus. It's an analogy and I specifically named it as such. Stop strawmanning.

How can not knowing of X be considered indoctrination? It is the opposite of indoctrination: To indoctrinate someone, you need some idea/concept to indoctrinate people with.

It isn't the not knowing of something indoctrination. It's the labeling of someone who doesn't know anything about the issue that is indoctrination, or the first step in it anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't understand what you mean.

What is so religious about UU?

I'm not equating them, Claus. It's an analogy and I specifically named it as such. Stop strawmanning.

I am not "strawmanning". I am going with what you say: If you use an analogy, you are comparing two situations. You are pointing out similarities.

Why else would you use an analogy??

It isn't the not knowing of something indoctrination. It's the labeling of someone who doesn't know anything about the issue that is indoctrination, or the first step in it anyway.

Why do those we "label" need to understand what we are "labeling" them as?

 

[tmackean]

I had this same argument in a thread about a month ago. It IS entirely semantics.

Of course babies don't believe in God. The commonest usage of the term athiest in our culture, however, refers to rejection of theism.

Not the same thing.

Some people, including many on this forum (CFLarsen, for instance) have a less-commonly understood definition of the term atheist; to mean literally without a belief in God.

Both meanings are valid. I prefer to adopt a label than be born with it, however. I prefer to choose atheism - not to have it thrust upon me by default. I want to earn the title by thinking about the issues involved and making my choice.

Incidentally, my evidence for the assertion that 'rejecting theism' is the usage in common currency comes from a review of available dictionary sources. Before anyone mentions it, I *know* that dictionaries don't define words - but they do provide an insight into the linguistic zeitgeist.

 

[Jorghnassen]

That raises a huge question: If the baby knows, but can't express it, how did the baby come about this knowledge?

You see the problem? You are actually suggesting that a baby can know about God without being told by someone.

Toy example, but how can you tell whether a baby with no speaking capabilities yet is actually incapable of abstract thought?

But why don't you address my other point: is it appropriate to use the word atheist (someone who lacks belief in god) to describe someone who lacks any concept of god? I compared it to the issue of abortion: if you don't know what it is, what is the "default position"?

 

[CFLarsen]

I had this same argument in a thread about a month ago. It IS entirely semantics.

Of course babies don't believe in God. The commonest usage of the term athiest in our culture, however, refers to rejection of theism.

Not the same thing.

Some people, including many on this forum (CFLarsen, for instance) have a less-commonly understood definition of the term atheist; to mean literally without a belief in God.

Both meanings are valid. I prefer to adopt a label than be born with it, however. I prefer to choose atheism - not to have it thrust upon me by default. I want to earn the title by thinking about the issues involved and making my choice.

Incidentally, my evidence for the assertion that 'rejecting theism' is the usage in common currency comes from a review of available dictionary sources. Before anyone mentions it, I *know* that dictionaries don't define words - but they do provide an insight into the linguistic zeitgeist.

Let's go with that for a moment: Belief in deities is the default position.

Why?

Why should non-believers be the ones who need to argue against the existence of deities? Why shouldn't it be those who believe that X exists who need to argue in favor of that?

Aren't skeptics the ones who say "The onus is on the claimant"? Why is this suddenly turned upside down?

Toy example, but how can you tell whether a baby with no speaking capabilities yet is actually incapable of abstract thought?

If it isn't, how can it make the decision of whether god exists or not?

But why don't you address my other point: is it appropriate to use the word atheist (someone who lacks belief in god) to describe someone who lacks any concept of god? I compared it to the issue of abortion: if you don't know what it is, what is the "default position"?

That you can't accept the existence of it. It comes down to this: Believing is active, not believing is not.

If the baby knows about God, but can't express it, how did the baby come about this knowledge?

 

[the PC apeman]

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.

Yes, exactly. You might even say s/he is asexual. (Behavior-wise, not anatomically, of course.)

 

[Darat]

I had this same argument in a thread about a month ago. It IS entirely semantics.

Of course babies don't believe in God. The commonest usage of the term athiest in our culture, however, refers to rejection of theism.

Not the same thing.

Some people, including many on this forum (CFLarsen, for instance) have a less-commonly understood definition of the term atheist; to mean literally without a belief in God.

Both meanings are valid. I prefer to adopt a label than be born with it, however. I prefer to choose atheism - not to have it thrust upon me by default. I want to earn the title by thinking about the issues involved and making my choice.

Incidentally, my evidence for the assertion that 'rejecting theism' is the usage in common currency comes from a review of available dictionary sources. Before anyone mentions it, I *know* that dictionaries don't define words - but they do provide an insight into the linguistic zeitgeist.

Well put - I was struggling with how to say this and you've already done it.

 

[tkingdoll]

I had this same argument in a thread about a month ago. It IS entirely semantics.

Of course babies don't believe in God. The commonest usage of the term athiest in our culture, however, refers to rejection of theism.

Not the same thing.

Some people, including many on this forum (CFLarsen, for instance) have a less-commonly understood definition of the term atheist; to mean literally without a belief in God.

Both meanings are valid. I prefer to adopt a label than be born with it, however. I prefer to choose atheism - not to have it thrust upon me by default. I want to earn the title by thinking about the issues involved and making my choice.

Incidentally, my evidence for the assertion that 'rejecting theism' is the usage in common currency comes from a review of available dictionary sources. Before anyone mentions it, I *know* that dictionaries don't define words - but they do provide an insight into the linguistic zeitgeist.

Ah! That's precisely what I was trying to get across earlier. Thanks for making this clearer, I was typing in a fuzz of anger about the airport bomb situation.

 

[tkingdoll]

Double post.

Anyone want an apple?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Newborn babies are areligious. I don't think it makes sense to ask whether they are atheist, unless the you take atheist at its absolutely literal interpretation: without god. But we usually attribute some conscious decision-making to people regarding their stance on atheism or theism, I think.

I see that Pmckean has said the same thing.

If only we had a word that meant without (belief in a) god. Greek is usually a good source.

There you go. How about adogmatheism?

~~ Paul

 

[EGarrett]

A few quick points.

1. That's not my baby. It's just a generic picture from Google images that I thought would make the post a little mroe visually interesting.

2. I'm interested in any aspect of this discussion. The definition of "atheist," labelling babies, etc.

3. And this is important, so maybe I can make it bigger or in bold or something...

Where does the term "antitheist" fit into this?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where does the term "antitheist" fit into this?

An antitheist is presumably an atheist who believes that belief in a deity is dangerous or evil. Christopher Hitchens, for example.

~~ Paul

 

[the PC apeman]

... this is important, so maybe I can make it bigger or in bold or something...

Where does the term "antitheist" fit into this?

Ah. I will go out on a limb and say no, that baby is not an antitheist.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm pretty sure none of my sons thought god was evil when they were infants. Mostly, they seemed to be concerned with eating, sleeping, being cleaned up and being held. Son #1 declared his atheism around the age of 11 and son #3 declared it around the age of 5.

 

[kellyb]

I'm pretty sure none of my sons thought god was evil when they were infants. Mostly, they seemed to be concerned with eating, sleeping, being cleaned up and being held. Son #1 declared his atheism around the age of 11 and son #3 declared it around the age of 5.

Antitheism maintains that theism is "bad". Maltheism is the belief that there is a god, and he must be evil.

Just clearing that distinction up...

 

[Solus]

Are animals atheists? I think that would be a valid question to ask as well.

Edit: Non-human animals before someone overly pedantic corrects me.