Are newborn babies atheist?

And if so, then to call myself atheist is completely meaningless.
No, it means you don't have a belief in a God. You keep saying that it's meaningless, but that is just not the case.

It means my well-considered philosophy is the same as something that has no possible conception of God.
Not really, because you have chosen not to participate in religion. I can be apolitical, not wishing to vote, or asexual, and it says a lot more about a thinking person than a baby, but it is also describes both.

I say it is an insult to atheists to call atheism "the default position". "Default" means a complete brainless position.
It still says a lot about you. If you tell someone who is passionate about politics that you are apolitical, they will still ask why.

I choose a different meaning for the word that I think references a philosophically contemplative position.
I choose to refer to myself as actively antitheist. But before I decided God was a nonsense non-claim, I was atheist and comfortable with it. It described the way I felt exactly...I didn't respect religion or consider it worthy of much thought. It didn't enter my mind except for conversations like this, or when theists tried to bring it up.
 
Last edited:
[qimg]http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/phl/newborn/newbaby.jpg[/qimg]

Is that an atheist?


This discussion appeared to be going in pointless circles, so I went straight to the source: I asked a baby.

He didn't understand the question.
 
It doesn't make sense to talk of anything that has not reasoned the question of god as an atheist.

But then, you are taking the stance that the existence of god is the default position.

Because if not, the word "atheist" has almost zero descriptive value. What good is it do describe something as atheist, when almost everything is atheist. It makes more sense to limit the use to things which are capable of understanding the question.

What good, you ask? Because that will put religion in the place it deserves: It is an abberration, something invented by some people. Fake, phony, unnatural.

That is a complete evasion of the discussion.

Absolutely not. If the believer equates non-believers with fecal matter, it says a lot about him.

The theist would be correct in his claim according to your definition of atheism. You don't like "turd"? Change it to "quark". Then tell me if your philosophy is the same as that of a quark.

I don't know if it is a "philosophy", as much as it is a point I'm making.

You mean the point before any thinking has been applied to the question? Tell me how that is different from "brainless".

Are you "brainless", if you haven't applied thinking to all questions in the world?

Take the story of Queen Victoria and the law against homosexuality. It may be dubious, but illustrates the point well:

When she was presented with a law against homosexuality, she hadn't considered that women could be homosexuals, too, so she refused to sign the bill, until all references to women were removed.

Before the law was presented, was Queen Victoria "brainless"?

No, as I said previously, it means "not-". (source, no direct link, click second entry.)


In case you didn't read the rest of my post either, I also pointed out that atheism is defined as "a disbelief in the existence of deity" and disbelief means "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue".

None of which includes a passive default "lack of belief".

Wrong.

: not : without

"Without" = "lack of".

Check the etymology of atheism:

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Is a baby not godless?
 
You realize, of course, that what you just said was self-contradictory?

It's only self-contradictory if you post in this thread because you care, I guess.

But tell me what genius method you came up with to call it self contradictory?
 
Lonewulf, EGarrett, Tricky; can't we just all get on?

Lonewulf, Marquis de Carabas - it matters to me, because, as I pointed out in a previous posting, my atheism is an intrinsic and important part of my identity. I take some pride in my ability to make my mind up independently and not go with the rest of the crowd. I've had the assumption made in the past that I am a Christian, and I don't like it when that happens.

Maybe it shouldn't be important to me - and it may not be important to you, but nearly all of us cares how the world sees us, and this is a fairly fundamental part of my skeptical worldview.

So when people on this forum assert that atheism isn't what I believe it to be, I feel the need to discuss that and challenge it. That's my take on why a thread which is primarily about semantics is actually worth pursuing.

Claus, you correctly point out the etymology of the term 'atheism' but would you agree that the etymology of a word is not necessarily a guide to its current meaning? I hope the answer to that is yes. Would you also agree that the usage of the term 'atheism' in common currency refers to a rejection of theism and NOT to being 'without theism'?

You may, of course, argue that it should not be so, as you certainly are doing, but do you acknowledge that your definition of the term is not that which is understood by the majority of people?
 
Last edited:
Well, admittedly, if I said "I am an atheist", and someone told me, "You mean, in the same way newborn babies are atheist?", I'd work to give the tard a black eye.

(Okay, no I wouldn't. I'm very non-violent)
 
Claus, you correctly point out the etymology of the term 'atheism' but would you agree that the etymology of a word is not necessarily a guide to its current meaning? I hope the answer to that is yes. Would you also agree that the usage of the terma 'atheism' in common currency refers to a rejection of theism and NOT to being 'without theism'?

You may, of course, argue that it should not be so, as you certainly are doing, but do you acknowledge that your definition of the term is not that which is understood by the majority of people?

Sure, a word can have different meaning than what its etymology shows. But it isn't really about what "atheist" means, but what it presupposes: That religion comes first, and then comes atheism. That's what I object to.

Atheism may mean rejection of deities to some people, but that's merely because they were subjected to religion first.
 
Sure, a word can have different meaning than what its etymology shows. But it isn't really about what "atheist" means, but what it presupposes: That religion comes first, and then comes atheism. That's what I object to.

Atheism may mean rejection of deities to some people, but that's merely because they were subjected to religion first.

While I agree with you on this, that still doesn't mean that beings not capable of reason are capable of reasoning. I don't think "atheist" is ever used, in the vernacular, to mean, "Someone not capable of thinking about God."
 
While I agree with you on this, that still doesn't mean that beings not capable of reason are capable of reasoning. I don't think "atheist" is ever used, in the vernacular, to mean, "Someone not capable of thinking about God."

Is a baby not godless?
 
Jesh, are you guys still on this?

For certain definitions of "atheist", babies are atheists. For any definition that implies a choice, they are not.

:rolleyes:

Hans
 
But then, you are taking the stance that the existence of god is the default position.
LOL. No, Claus. Belief in god has nothing to do with existence of god. But no, belief in god is not the default position. That is a false dichotomy. It can be belief, non-belief, or no opinion.

What good, you ask? Because that will put religion in the place it deserves: It is an abberration, something invented by some people. Fake, phony, unnatural.
Considering how religion is so common in every part of the world, I'm not sure I would call it unnatural. I think it is a very natural offshoot of man trying to make sense out of the world. It means we are thinking creatures, even if we aren't always right.

I don't know if it is a "philosophy", as much as it is a point I'm making.
Atheism is a philosophical position. You're going to have a hard time denying this.

Are you "brainless", if you haven't applied thinking to all questions in the world?
If no thought has been yet applied to a thing, then it is brainless, or perhaps "abrainy".

Is a baby not godless?
Hard to say. It depends on your definition of god.

But I agree with others that we have beat this dead horse to a pulp. If you insist on calling babies and rocks "atheist" then you go right ahead. Don't be surprised if a lot of people, including atheists, think you are radically pedantic.
 
Last edited:
LOL. No, Claus. Belief in god has nothing to do with existence of god.

Of course it has: If you believe in god, you also believe god exists.

But no, belief in god is not the default position. That is a false dichotomy. It can be belief, non-belief, or no opinion.

Nope. Something has to be first, and it can't be a belief in god.

Considering how religion is so common in every part of the world, I'm not sure I would call it unnatural. I think it is an quite natural offshoot of man trying to make sense out of the world. It means we are thinking creatures, even if we aren't always right.

I am using "unnatural" in the sense of being fake and phony. Religion is fake and phony.

Atheism is a philosophical position. You're going to have a hard time denying this.

I'm making a point. You can call it whatever you like.

If no thought has been yet applied to a thing, then it is brainless, or perhaps "abrainy".

Who is inventing new terms now?

I am not talking about applying the brain at all. I am talking about applying the brain to a specific idea/concept.

Before the law was presented, was Queen Victoria "brainless"?

Hard to say. It depends on your definition of god.

Oh, no, no, no, no. Don't start asking for definitions of god now.

Is the baby godless or not?

But I agree with others that we have beat this dead horse to a pulp. If you insist on calling babies and rocks "atheist" then you go right ahead. Don't be surprised if a lot of people, including atheists, think you are radically pedantic.

I can't be that, since I'm not calling rocks "atheist".
 
My god!!* How intellectually dishonest can you be?

I'm not "wrong". It says "not" right there in the definition. I have yet to find a definition** of atheism that doesn't describe it as active quality, yet you continue to assert your claim despite any evidence.

eta: **any currently used definition.



Check the etymology of atheism:

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Is a baby not godless?


Try reading a little about the entymology of atheism before forming an opinion:
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist." Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God." Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as the "absence of belief in deities," rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.
Or do you only except evidence that supports your position rather than taking all the evidence into account?






* no pun intended
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom