Are newborn babies atheist?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Doesn't that follow, if you actively deny the existence of god?

I don't think it necessarily follows. I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny, but I don't think believing in it is a bad thing.

Well, if you're reasonably young, that is ...

Hmm.

~~ Paul

 

[EGarrett]

You can, and I'm trying to. But you declined to answer any of my questions. Which of the following is an atheist: An embryo? A zygote? A sperm?

All of them are atheist. The article (an) is misleading.

Then if this is true, atheism is not a word used to describe thinking humans. I find that this reduces the word to meaninglessness.

No, it reduces the word to describing things that have nothing to do with God.

Precicely. It is simply ludicrous to describe things that are not capable of constructing advanced thoughts as "atheists". I find it degrading to have atheism considered to require a lower intellectual level than theism. Example:

Atheist: I am an atheist.
Theist: Yeah, well so is a turd.

And so is the Milky Way Galaxy. And time itself. And so was the Big Bang...

 

[Mercutio]

Isn't this kind of thing exactly what the strong/weak distinction is about?

Strong atheism = "I believe there is no god"
Weak atheism = "I do not have a belief in god"

The baby sure isn't a strong atheist. obviously. But he is a weak atheist. And so are dogs and trees and rocks.

To be fair, the strong/weak distinction only makes sense from a religious perspective in the first place. The statements of belief, you see, are applicable to each and every god, individually (assuming that there is only one god, who happens to be yours, is cheating). Oddly enough, the people most likely to "believe there is no Thor" are those who believe that there is a Yahweh, and vice versa (no, not those two in particular--substitute any religious belief that denies the "truth" of other beliefs). So, Pat Robertson is a Strong AThorist, a Strong ARaist, a Strong APoseidonist, a Strong AFlyingSpaghettiMonsterist... I do not like the "strong" and "weak" labels, precisely because they are phrased in the terms of believers.

A baby does not have any discernable belief in any particular deity. We do not, however, say "ooh, look at the cute atheist baby!"; because it is the default, no label is needed. Eventually, we may have a Mormon child, a Baptist child, a Shinto child, a Greek Pantheist child, a .... But right now, if the baby is born to X religion, he or she may be adopted into Y or Z religion, and they don't even have to check for blood type or Rh-factor or anything... Right now, it's a baby. Period.

(Some religions, I gather, have rules that include bables--recall Monty Python's line "you're a Catholic the moment Dad came"--in which case, the baby is both an accidental non-believer and an accidental Catholic. Oh, well.)

 

[Upchurch]

No, an antitheist would be someone who thinks belief in god is a bad thing.

Doesn't that follow, if you actively deny the existence of god?

Actively not believing in a god does not necessarily mean that you think that others having belief in a god is a bad thing.

Heck, a live-and-let-live atheist would be a good counter-example.

 

[Gurdur]

Then that makes that meaning of atheist simply a misunderstanding that caught on. If that is the case, fine, but I am still entitled to point out that it is based on a misunderstanding.

Twaddle.
No such misunderstanding exists. You simply want to redefine words, because of a subjective opinion of yours. There is no such thing as an objective opinion as to meaning of words, and you have not demonstrated any misunderstanding.

Atheist is a not an original noun though, is a combination of a noun and a prefix ....

Totally, utterly irrelevant.

No, it's not. Unless you define whether something is correct by whether or not it succeeds on a large scale?

I define words by how they are accepted by the majority, with a few valid exceptions. That's how it's usually done. Ever heard of a dictionary? How do you think they compile dictionaries? D'oh.

That would be "bloody silly."

You are projecting. I merely accept the majority definition since:

• it's good enough
• and no valid reason exists to exert major effort to change it
• and such suggested change is in all probability unsuccessful

What you're doing smacks of ad hominem.

Don't talk tripe. I merely made the argument first about semantics, then about political practicalities (of the chance of success of changing definitions), then I made a judgment as to the appearence of the motives. These are unconnected; I strongly suggest you learn what an ad hominum actually is.

...and now you're just showing your immaturity and undisciplined thinking.

Very funny. This of course is not an ad hominum of yours; it's merely an exceptionally stupid personal attack of yours added on top of your unsubstantiated assertions, a personal attack which does you no good at all.

If your point holds water, and someone else's doesn't, you should be able to demonstrate it with clear reasoning.

What irony.
You really need to take your own advice, of course, as well as learn how dictionaries are compiled, the difference between subjective and objective, and of course what an ad hominum actually is. Looks like you have plenty of homework to keep you busy.

 

[Gurdur]

Actively not believing in a god does not necessarily mean that you think that others having belief in a god is a bad thing.

Heck, a live-and-let-live atheist would be a good counter-example.

Take me then as an example. I run a web board myself only open to nontheists; I am a hardline atheist; but I can accept that some religions are far worse than others, and some strands within a particular religion far worse that other strands, and I adjust my tactics accordingly. I'm not going to lose my cool over a Quaker, an Episcopalian won't cause me sleepless nights, but I have zero tolerance for Opus Dei or for Scientologists.

So in the end I'm live-and-let-live where the other party is demonstratably also so, and poses no real threat.

 

[Tricky]

All of them are atheist. The article (an) is misleading.

No, it reduces the word to describing things that have nothing to do with God.

And so is the Milky Way Galaxy. And time itself. And so was the Big Bang...

And if so, then to call myself atheist is completely meaningless. It means my well-considered philosophy is the same as something that has no possible conception of God. I say it is an insult to atheists to call atheism "the default position". "Default" means a complete brainless position. I choose a different meaning for the word that I think references a philosophically contemplative position.

 

[tmackean]

Has this now become a thread about changing the meaning of words?

'Atheist' may originally have meant 'Godless' in literal translation, but Wikipedia's section on the etymology of the word suggests that from the fifth century BC onwards it has meant "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly".

This has been the most commonly recognised understanding of the term for 2500 years.

We all know that you can't stop language from evolving. It just does so. That's one of the reasons that we reissue dictionaries.

Will proponents of this alteration also be campaigning for all other words which have changed meaning to revert to their original definition? If so, then I suppose we had better stop calling this a 'thread'!

This is still a semantic argument, but it's not meaningless; it cuts to the heart of our identity. I don't wish people who query my Atheism to conclude that I simply haven't pondered the question of religion - I would find that insulting. That's why I think it's important that we distinguish between between these two states.

 

[Upchurch]

And if so, then to call myself atheist is completely meaningless. It means my well-considered philosophy is the same as something that has no possible conception of God. I say it is an insult to atheists to call atheism "the default position". "Default" means a complete brainless position. I choose a different meaning for the word that I think references a philosophically contemplative position.

This is still a semantic argument, but it's not meaningless; it cuts to the heart of our identity. I don't wish people who query my Atheism to conclude that I simply haven't pondered the question of religion - I would find that insulting. That's why I think it's important that we distinguish between between these two states.

I agree with both of these. If "atheism" is simply the default of lacking a belief in a god, what is the duly and well considered rejection of a particular god concept?

I think they definition of "atheism" has to be directly based on it's root word "theism": belief in the existence of a god or gods.

The question here is whether the "a-" in atheism means "dis-" or "lack of-" (literally, of course, it means "not-" but that doesn't help). If it simply means "lack of-", then Claus would be right and even rocks are atheists*. If it means "disbelief", then it becomes an active rather than a passive quality. The dictionary defines atheism using the active "disbelief".


* Even if Claus's "lack of-" definition were correct, I still think there should be a third category for "incapable of-" on the theism/atheism spectrum.

 

[Gurdur]

.... I don't wish people who query my Atheism to conclude that I simply haven't pondered the question of religion - I would find that insulting. That's why I think it's important that we distinguish between between these two states.

Bingo!
And someone else reflects the point I made.
_____

Well, EGarrett, no doubt you can try again to claim I am being undisciplined and immature by my accepting commonly-held definitons and by my not following your orders how to think, but hey, it's OK, because I think you're blitheringly irrelevant to the real world and utterly negligable to any genuinely valid change. Cheers!

 

[Gurdur]

...... If it simply means "lack of-", then Claus would be right and even rocks are atheists*.

In which case, it would have become a stunningly useless term and one designed to be quickly forgotten -- while a new term would arise to take its place to mean the "conscious rejection of belief in gods".

IOW, the stance advocated by Claus and EGarrett here simply has no benefits whatsoever, no sense to it, and no lasting effect of any kind, and is a huge waste of energy. The words of King Canute vs. the waves, and certain hardliners under King George III vs. the American revolutionaries, come to mind here.

 

[MortFurd]

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

One more heck of a fortunate individual to have never had to experience the crap that is religion.

 

[Upchurch]

In which case, it would have become a stunningly useless term and one designed to be quickly forgotten -- while a new term would arise to take its place to mean the "conscious rejection of belief in gods".

IOW, the stance advocated by Claus and EGarrett here simply has no benefits whatsoever, no sense to it, and no lasting effect of any kind, and is a huge waste of energy.

Not necessarily. There might be some obscure reason to use such a term. I don't know what it would be, but that doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist.

If, however, "atheism" is changed to mean "incapable of belief", you are correct that we would have to come up with a new term for "disbelief". Frankly, I'm sort of favoring Tricky's "non-theist" for "incapable of belief", or perhaps "intheist"

(My etymology is a little weak, would the proper form of my made-up word be "intheist" or "untheist"?)

 

[Tricky]

Not necessarily. There might be some obscure reason to use such a term. I don't know what it would be, but that doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist.

You mean like in this sort of discussion?

Seriously, the problem with calling atheist a "default position" is that it does not reflect the way most people regard the word "atheist". I would oppose the use of a definition that would impede communication, even if it is technically correct. Only an idiot would speak of "embryonic atheists" or an "atheist stone".

If, however, "atheism" is changed to mean "incapable of belief", you are correct that we would have to come up with a new term for "disbelief". Frankly, I'm sort of favoring Tricky's "non-theist" for "incapable of belief", or perhaps "intheist"

(My etymology is a little weak, would the proper form of my made-up word be "intheist" or "untheist"?)

I like "untheist", but as you point out, use of such a word is going to be severely limited because in general, people simply don't speak of the beliefs of things incapable of beliefs. Only naval-gazing pedants like us feel the need to make such distinctions.

***ETA this scenario of a Clausian nightmare***

Theist: I'm sorry but I just don't like atheists.
Strict Interpretation Atheist: Your baby is an atheist.
Theist: My baby is NOT an atheist.
SIA: He doesn't believe in God, therefore he is an atheist.
Theist: That doesn't mean anything. He doesn't yet KNOW about God.
SIA: Makes no difference, he's still an atheist.
Theist: Okay buddy, don't you insult my kid like that
SIA: Oh, it's not an insult. It's the default position on God.
Theist: Default this, you asshat.

 

[CFLarsen]

Never had any babies did you.

Paul

Not that I know of.

Meaning does not directly result from etymology.

That is why "villain" today does not mean "peasant", and why today "chimpanzee" does not mean "Little Old Man Of The Woods". Both originally meant other than what they mean today ("chimpanzee" from a northern Mozambiquan Bantu language).

Sheeesh. Meaning is determined mostly by the majority consensus of language-users. That means "atheist" is the tag applied to a human who consciously (and often vocally) denies the existence of gods.

Sheeeesh. The movement among a tiny minority to redefine the word is doomed to failure, and is an utterly useless exercise to begin with; trying to ram a "default position" stance through by redefining vocabulary, while of course remaining a small minority, without any real need to and without any real reward for doing so, is bloody silly.

As for "weak" vs "strong" atheism; IMHO, more time-consuming nonsense. We do have perfectly good labels already, and no-one actually needs to justify their atheism by claiming it as a default position; in fact, such attempts smack of moral cowardice. Simply be an atheist and simply stand up for it, but for heaven's sakes don't give the appearence of whininess by trying these cheap tricks.

Why, thank you!

You can, and I'm trying to. But you declined to answer any of my questions. Which of the following is an atheist: An embryo? A zygote? A sperm?

I didn't decline - it just doesn't make sense to talk of a zygote being an atheist.

Then if this is true, atheism is not a word used to describe thinking humans. I find that this reduces the word to meaninglessness.

That doesn't answer the question: Why do we need the ability to recognize the question of God, in order to call ourselves atheists?

Precicely. It is simply ludicrous to describe things that are not capable of constructing advanced thoughts as "atheists". I find it degrading to have atheism considered to require a lower intellectual level than theism. Example:

Atheist: I am an atheist.
Theist: Yeah, well so is a turd.

Atheist: That says more about your ability to treat those who don't share your religious beliefs in a decent manner, than it says about my lack of belief.

I don't think it necessarily follows. I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny, but I don't think believing in it is a bad thing.

Well, if you're reasonably young, that is ...

Hmm.

~~ Paul

Ah, but if you deny the Easter Bunny, you don't get rewards. The only reason you would deny it, would be if you thought it was bad.

To be fair, the strong/weak distinction only makes sense from a religious perspective in the first place. The statements of belief, you see, are applicable to each and every god, individually (assuming that there is only one god, who happens to be yours, is cheating). Oddly enough, the people most likely to "believe there is no Thor" are those who believe that there is a Yahweh, and vice versa (no, not those two in particular--substitute any religious belief that denies the "truth" of other beliefs). So, Pat Robertson is a Strong AThorist, a Strong ARaist, a Strong APoseidonist, a Strong AFlyingSpaghettiMonsterist... I do not like the "strong" and "weak" labels, precisely because they are phrased in the terms of believers.

A baby does not have any discernable belief in any particular deity. We do not, however, say "ooh, look at the cute atheist baby!"; because it is the default, no label is needed. Eventually, we may have a Mormon child, a Baptist child, a Shinto child, a Greek Pantheist child, a .... But right now, if the baby is born to X religion, he or she may be adopted into Y or Z religion, and they don't even have to check for blood type or Rh-factor or anything... Right now, it's a baby. Period.

I don't have any discernable belief in any particular deity, either.

(Some religions, I gather, have rules that include bables--recall Monty Python's line "you're a Catholic the moment Dad came"--in which case, the baby is both an accidental non-believer and an accidental Catholic. Oh, well.)

That may be. But if we take that seriously, we also accept their religious dogma.

Actively not believing in a god does not necessarily mean that you think that others having belief in a god is a bad thing.

Heck, a live-and-let-live atheist would be a good counter-example.

It's not about what effects you think it has on others, but about what reasons you give for denying god.

And if so, then to call myself atheist is completely meaningless. It means my well-considered philosophy is the same as something that has no possible conception of God. I say it is an insult to atheists to call atheism "the default position". "Default" means a complete brainless position. I choose a different meaning for the word that I think references a philosophically contemplative position.

No, "default" does not mean a complete brainless position. It simply means it is the starting point.

I agree with both of these. If "atheism" is simply the default of lacking a belief in a god, what is the duly and well considered rejection of a particular god concept?

I think they definition of "atheism" has to be directly based on it's root word "theism": belief in the existence of a god or gods.

The question here is whether the "a-" in atheism means "dis-" or "lack of-" (literally, of course, it means "not-" but that doesn't help). If it simply means "lack of-", then Claus would be right and even rocks are atheists*. If it means "disbelief", then it becomes an active rather than a passive quality. The dictionary defines atheism using the active "disbelief".

How is "a-" used in English? As "lack of-".

* Even if Claus's "lack of-" definition were correct, I still think there should be a third category for "incapable of-" on the theism/atheism spectrum.

Perhaps. What's the prefix for that?

In which case, it would have become a stunningly useless term and one designed to be quickly forgotten -- while a new term would arise to take its place to mean the "conscious rejection of belief in gods".

IOW, the stance advocated by Claus and EGarrett here simply has no benefits whatsoever, no sense to it, and no lasting effect of any kind, and is a huge waste of energy. The words of King Canute vs. the waves

The story of King Canute (Knud the Great) is not about no benefits whatsoever, no sense to it, and no lasting effect of any kind, or a huge waste of energy. It is about how we should not worship worldly rulers, because even the greatest could not control what God could.

Wrong analogy.

 

[Tricky]

You can, and I'm trying to. But you declined to answer any of my questions. Which of the following is an atheist: An embryo? A zygote? A sperm?

I didn't decline - it just doesn't make sense to talk of a zygote being an atheist.

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

Then if this is true, atheism is not a word used to describe thinking humans. I find that this reduces the word to meaninglessness.

That doesn't answer the question: Why do we need the ability to recognize the question of God, in order to call ourselves atheists?

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.

Precicely. It is simply ludicrous to describe things that are not capable of constructing advanced thoughts as "atheists". I find it degrading to have atheism considered to require a lower intellectual level than theism. Example:

Atheist: I am an atheist.
Theist: Yeah, well so is a turd.

Atheist: That says more about your ability to treat those who don't share your religious beliefs in a decent manner, than it says about my lack of belief.

That is a complete evasion of the discussion. 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.

No, "default" does not mean a complete brainless position. It simply means it is the starting point.

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

 

[Upchurch]

How is "a-" used in English? As "lack of-".

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".

 

[Paulhoff]

This sounds a lot like language.

Does a baby have the potential to believe in a so-called god, yes, does a baby have the potential to not believe in a so-called god, yes. Does a baby unusually take on the believes of the parents that it lives with, yes, does a baby have the ability to reject the believes of the parents, yes.

Paul

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is quite correct to say that babies are atheists. It is also stunningly uninteresting to say so.

Or, depending on your proclivities, three whole pages of interesting.

 

[EGarrett]

Twaddle.
No such misunderstanding exists. You simply want to redefine words, because of a subjective opinion of yours. There is no such thing as an objective opinion as to meaning of words, and you have not demonstrated any misunderstanding.

No. Because of the etymology of the word. That's what the prefix a- means in most words.

Totally, utterly irrelevant.

No. It is relevant.

I define words by how they are accepted by the majority, with a few valid exceptions. That's how it's usually done. Ever heard of a dictionary? How do you think they compile dictionaries? D'oh.

And again, it may still be a misunderstanding that caught on, in which case I can point out the misunderstanding.

Don't talk tripe. I merely made the argument first about semantics, then about political practicalities (of the chance of success of changing definitions), then I made a judgment as to the appearence of the motives. These are unconnected; I strongly suggest you learn what an ad hominum actually is.

An ad hominem is you slinging personal attacks instead of actually discussing things. Don't worry, people who use them love to claim they didn't after the fact.

Very funny. This of course is not an ad hominum of yours; it's merely an exceptionally stupid personal attack of yours added on top of your unsubstantiated assertions, a personal attack which does you no good at all.

What irony.
You really need to take your own advice, of course, as well as learn how dictionaries are compiled, the difference between subjective and objective, and of course what an ad hominum actually is. Looks like you have plenty of homework to keep you busy.

It's quite obvious from your tone that you aren't much for mature, civil discussion, which means you probably haven't and won't consider your point very well. Have a nice day.