Are newborn babies atheist?

If newborn babies are not atheist then which God or gods do they believe in?

I can't believe there has been nearly 20 pages of debate on such a non-issue.
 
Charlie Brown said:
You don't agree with her self-identification. So?

.- Have you read the replies, definitions and arguments of this thread?

It would be good.

Let me give a hint: is way more than just "ME" or "MY" opinion.



Not necessarily. If you took a gander at your handy dictionary, you'll see that theism is not limited to what you wrote.




.- I seriously recommend you to do a research before posting.

Every single definition I've written in this forum is basically a literal copy of a dictionary. Sometimes I condense them, but they are all literal definition from dictionaries.

I never, EVER, make definitions up.

The actual definition of the vast majority of dictionaries is even narrower and they limit the definition of deity even further: A god or Goddess.

Some (out of many) examples:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/deity?q=Deity
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deity
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Deity


The "Deity" definition in my reply, while very condensed, is the broadest I could find and from "not so reputable" dictionaries.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity
And:
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/deity

But the bottom line is that a Deity is basically a Supernatural Being.
Click to expand...
Your condescension is unwarranted and your argumentum ad dictionary is tedious. You come across as some fundy theist who quotes endlessly from the bible, but has nothing substantive to say themselves. Care to try again without the attitude?

Also, please learn how to properly quote others.
 
"Your condescension is unwarranted and your argumentum ad dictionary is tedious"

.- But, like it or not, correct. If we don't adhere to language conventions and everyone has their own personal definitions, communication would be a chaos.

And I'm no being condescending, I'm sorry if you had that perception but it wasn't my intention.

I just want everyone to have a close idea of what we are talking about here to avoid being repetitive and say the same things over and over.

I did read most of the replies before I posted my first reply.


You come across as some fundy theist who quotes endlessly from the bible, but has nothing substantive to say themselves


.- A Dictionary, which is just a pragmatic compendium of language conventions to facilitate communications and have standards, compared to a Bible?!?!
It's like saying the "Measure system" is dogmatic and you want to give a FEET or a METER any length you like.

And, actually, I agree with (and like) the current, accepted definition of Atheism not because is a "dogma I have to accept by faith" but because it matches PERFECTLY with my position/stance:

I consciously and actively disbelieve in/reject the existence of gods (among other things, but that's another story). My stance is absolutely positive, voluntary, chosen and out of critical thinking, empirical observation and reason (again, that's another story),

Not out of complete ignorance or unawareness.


"unwarranted"

My guess is you are suggesting the "word usage can change" argument.

(Correct me if I'm wrong)

While that is a possibility, in the case of the term "Atheism" It hasn't happened yet so, until that unlikely event could happen (in the particular case of "Atheism"), "lack of belief" remains an incorrect and unaccepted definition.

And not only the definition remains unaccepted, the concept of "implicit Atheism' still remains unaccepted by many important (and unimportant, like me) Atheists, philosophers, scientists, etc.

I seriously doubt it but, if Atheism's definition ever changes to something that resembles a mere "psychological state consequence of complete unawareness", I will cease to use that term for my position.

And not out of arrogance, don't get me wrong.

Simply because that new definition will no longer fit nor reflect my stance, position and everything I stand for.
 
Last edited:
.- Actually, I think everything about this matters has already been said and
I personally don't have nothing more to add, I'm just starting to repeat myself.

I'd like to give my personal testimony:

I was once a newborn baby and don't recall ever have been an atheist at that time.



It's been a pleasure!
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
"Fear. Hope. Frustration. Telling tall tales around campfires.If you want to add "divine guidance" to the list you may be out of luck."

.- And the scariest of all Campfire's tales: Atheists giving away arguments to discredit Atheism and putting "weapons of mass indoctrination" in the hands of Religious, believers and Theists!!

Nooooo! "The Homeopathic Atheist, the less you know, the stronger your atheism is."

Now, seriously

I'd like to recommend everyone to read at least several replies, definitions and arguments of this thread before posting.
Click to expand...

Feel free to recommend anything you like. Feel free to be frustrated when your hall-monitoring doesn't work.
 
Charlie Brown said:
.- Actually, I think everything about this matters has already been said and
I personally don't have nothing more to add, I'm just starting to repeat myself.

I'd like to give my personal testimony:

I was once a newborn baby and don't recall ever have been an atheist at that time.



It's been a pleasure!
Click to expand...

I was once a newborn baby and I don't remember being human at that time. I guess newborn babies aren't human.

I don't remember being part of my family. I guess newborn babies aren't part of their families...

and so on and so on.
 
Charlie Brown said:
"Specuculating how far back religion went before the first evidence of it is...speculation. 10,000 years or 50,000 years,"

.- Speculations? Who told you what I said were speculations?

Do you think I made this up?

I'll give you the links when I'm allowed.

In the meantime, do your own research.



Who knows?

.- Anthropologists, Historians, Investigators, Scientists, Archeologists, Paleoanthropologists, etc.
Click to expand...

Then cite one stating when humans first came up with a deity. I'm not going to waste my time trying to find out if there actually is some idiot with a degree who thinks that is knowable.
 
joesixpack said:
The simple fact that all cultures invent theistic beliefs seems to imply that this is a natural product of human consciousness. You're absolutely correct that we are stuck with "no later than" as an answer, but they all seem to have it, and there's absolutely nothing surprising about that to me. Humans desire understanding of the world around them, and they are very inventive. Combine ignorance and creativity and you get both science and superstition.
Click to expand...

Except for the Piraha, they have no deities, though they're not entirely free from superstition. It seems to be related to their language, which includes modifiers for how sure you are of the information (witnessed it yourself or heard it from somebody else).

I don't doubt human creativity, and I'm unsurprised by how widespread belief in such things is. I just note that the concept of a deity didn't exist until someone invented it, we don't know how long ago that was, and that someone was not a baby.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I was once a newborn baby and I don't remember being human at that time. I guess newborn babies aren't human.

I don't remember being part of my family. I guess newborn babies aren't part of their families...

and so on and so on.
Click to expand...


.- "Being human" is not a position nor an arbitrary label somebody puts on you without your permission or consent, like a baptism or this ludicrous "Atheist" version of a baptism. And, unlike theism-Atheism, you simply can't choose not to be Human.

This also applies more or less to the "family" argument.

A position not chosen by you is simply not your position. And not only when you are a baby but at any age.

And, THANKS.

Actually what you said just enforces what I'm arguing:

Unawareness is just that, Unawareness.

Anything else you add to it just sounds (and is) ridiculous, just like this:

I don't remember being part of my family. I guess newborn babies aren't part of their families...


or this:

"I was newborn and I don't recall being an atheist." (Yeap, my comment was sarcastic)
Or "Republican"
or "Democrat"
or "Socialist"
or "A-santaclausist"
or "Anarchist"
or "put any remark here"
 
ynot said:
I didn’t say newborn babies are atheists, I said they aren’t theists or agnostics. I don’t like or accept the “no belief in a god” definition of “atheist” being applied to myself. Neither do I like or accept the “denial or rejection of a god” definition. As far as I’m concerned I’m only happy to be called an “atheist” if it means I don’t accept theistic claims that a god exists. By the definition of “atheist” I accept I therefore don’t think it’s correct to describe newborn babies as being “atheists“.
Click to expand...

Not to be snarky, but 'atheist' is not the first word to come to mind when trying to think of a word to describe someone who can't be said to not believe in a god.
 
Charlie Brown said:
Neither do I like or accept the “denial or rejection of a god” definition.



.- What definition is this?

Definition of what?

Anti-theism perhaps?




The correct and most accepted definition of ATHEISM is:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

(Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989)

. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
2000.)

The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being(s).

(1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)


Some irrelevant variations, but they are all basically the same.
Click to expand...

disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Oxford.

dis- 1

— prefix
1. indicating reversal: disconnect ; disembark
2. indicating negation, lack, or deprivation: dissimilar ; distrust ; disgrace
3. indicating removal or release: disembowel ; disburden


Are babies able to accept or believe that a god is real?
 
Charlie Brown said:

Are animals Atheists?

This question may sound ridiculous and childish, OK! Yes it does sound ridiculous. And childish.

But wait! animals actually have all the requisites to fit in this model.

Yeap, they do.

Again: Are animals Atheists?

If your answer is NO, please give me a valid, logical reason why babies can be considered atheists and dogs can't.
Click to expand...


NO, because the suffix '-ist' implies a person, and dogs are not people, but babies are.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
BTW, you need a dictionary badly, your spelling and syntax are atrocious.[/B]
Click to expand...

Charlie to Paulhoff, post 717.

Charlie Brown said:
.- WTF is this?
I thought this was an educational foundation, a respectable place.
Click to expand...

Charlie's mystified and outraged response to kid eager, because kid eager said: "BTW, you need a dictionary badly, your spelling and syntax are atrocious."

In case anyone was confused about that exchange.
 
Yes. In the same sense that they are also unmarried and unemployed.

The word does technically describe them, just not in any meaningful sense.
 
Charlie Brown said:
.- "Being human" is not a position nor an arbitrary label somebody puts on you without your permission or consent, like a baptism or this ludicrous "Atheist" version of a baptism. And, unlike theism-Atheism, you simply can't choose not to be Human.
Click to expand...

Erm...if you are a newborn everything is a label someone puts on you without your permission or consent. As for arbitrary well atheist, human, newborn, etc are all terms with defined meanings.

This also applies more or less to the "family" argument.

A position not chosen by you is simply not your position. And not only when you are a baby but at any age.
Click to expand...

Position? You are either theist (and no newborn baby is) or you are not. The term for not is atheist. Atheism isn't a political statement, it's a descriptor of someone who doesn't believe in God.

That's the problem with all your later examples. You equate Atheism with an argument or with holding a position. That's not what the word means.

It's a nonsense to try to claim that unawareness somehow means labels don't apply. A newborn baby born to a Chinese mother and father in a Beijing hospital is Chinese whether they know it or not. You don't hold off labelling them till they apply for a passport.

Does claiming newborn babies are atheist render the word meaningless? Well it certainly could strip it of certain meanings, but not the meaning of the word as it is probably most correctly used - someone who doesn't believe in God.
 
Position? "You are either theist (and no newborn baby is) or you are not."

Really?

You can also be ignorant (I don't know) Apathetic (I don't care) or Agnostic (we can't possibly know)

And how do you know a newborn is Atheist?



"You equate Atheism with an argument or with holding a position.Does claiming newborn babies are atheist render the word meaningless?"


.- YES.

And is not only "ME"

Forget about the "A" (Without) and "THEOS" (god)
There is no nothing about "BELIEVE IN" "NO BELIEVE IN" or "BELIEFS/NON BELIEFS" included in this word.
"ATHEOS" includes simply NO GOD.
But lets also forget also about this "irrelevant" absence.

But

What about the IST??? Lets see:


-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.



Well, you have two options:

1) You will have to invent a new word for the "babies are atheists" folly.
2) You can talk to the Language Academies all over the world and tell 'em they are wrong and you want to include "BELIEVE" in the word ATHEIST and also you want to change the meaning of the "IST" suffix, because you don't agree.






"You equate Atheism with an argument or with holding a position."


.- And you equate Atheism with absolute ignorance and total unawareness:

TABULA RASA = ATHEISM.

NICE!



BTW, Theists, Religious, Jehova's witness, televangelists, Muslims, etc all over the world must be in CELESTIAL DELIGHT reading your "arguments".
Imagine Atheism so closely associated with sheer ignorance in the "wrong hands"

Keep up the good work!
 
Last edited:
Charlie Brown said:
Position? "You are either theist (and no newborn baby is) or you are not."

Really?

You can also be ignorant (I don't know) Apathetic (I don't care) or Agnostic (we can't possibly know)

And how do you know a newborn is Atheist?
Click to expand...

Yes you can be those things, but not instead of an atheist or a theist.


"You equate Atheism with an argument or with holding a position.Does claiming newborn babies are atheist render the word meaningless?"


.- YES.

And is not only "ME"

Forget about the "A" (Without) and "THEOS" (god)
There is no nothing about "BELIEVE IN" "NO BELIEVE IN" or "BELIEFS/NON BELIEFS" included in this word.
"ATHEOS" includes simply NO GOD.
But lets also forget also about this "irrelevant" absence.

But

What about the IST??? Lets see:


-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.



Well, you have two options:

1) You will have to invent a new word for the "babies are atheists" folly.
2) You can talk to the Language Academies all over the world and tell 'em they are wrong and you want to include "BELIEVE" in the word ATHEIST and also you want to change the meaning of the "IST" suffix, because you don't agree.
Click to expand...

Feel free to invent a new word if you like. We already have one that fits the job. Not a theist? Then you are atheist. You seem to be the one with a problem so feel free to contact whoever you see fit.


"You equate Atheism with an argument or with holding a position."


.- And you equate Atheism with absolute ignorance and total unawareness:

TABULA RASA = ATHEISM.

NICE!

BTW, Theists, Religious, Jehova's witness, televangelists, Muslims, etc all over the world must be in CELESTIAL DELIGHT reading your "arguments".
Imagine Atheism so closely associated with sheer ignorance in the "wrong hands"

Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...


I don't concern myself with what words can be used for in the hands of idiots. I equate atheist with exactly what it is - a word for someone who isn't a theist.

People can arrive at that lack of theism for any number of reasons including never having even thought about it.

Atheism is a broad not-a-church, being atheist implies nothing else about an individual than simply not believing in God. I'm happy enough with that.
I don't wear it as a badge of pride, it's just the way it is.

Why should I care what the religious think of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom