Are newborn babies atheist?

[Beleth]

That's an entirely different discussion.

Then I wonder why you brought it up.

The question is: Are newborn babies atheist?

The answer is: Yes.

Evidence?

 

[CFLarsen]

Then I wonder why you brought it up.

I have been talking about newborn babies all along.

Evidence?

Post #315.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have still totally failed to give any good reason as to why we should start using two words instead of one word.

Why should we start playing around with the definition of "atheist", when the current majority public one works so well?

IOW, is there at all any point to all of this?

You've simply dismissed out of hand both my and Upchurch's contributions on this; odd. And unproductive for you. Any old how, back to the question: do you see any real concrete benefits in your suggestions here or not? If so, what are they?

See post #4, 18, 23, 29. For starters.

 

[Beleth]

I have been talking about newborn babies all along.

That's a qualifier that I have seen nowhere else in this thread. Inserting adjectives at this stage in the game would typically warrant an accusation of goalpost-moving.

Post #315.

You didn't finish the answer, then. You said the answer was "Yes",when the answer is actually "Yes and no".

 

[CFLarsen]

That's a qualifier that I have seen nowhere else in this thread. Inserting adjectives at this stage in the game would typically warrant an accusation of goalpost-moving.

Try to read the title of the thread. You can find it at the top of the page.

You didn't finish the answer, then. You said the answer was "Yes",when the answer is actually "Yes and no".

No, the answer is Yes. The baby cannot consider a belief.

 

[Beleth]

Try to read the title of the thread. You can find it at the top of the page.

Touche.

No, the answer is Yes. The baby cannot consider a belief.

That's not what the evidence you provided says.

Wait, I take that back. That's what the out-of-context evidence you provided says, but that's not what the whole evidence in post #314 (and originally in post #45)says.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's not what the evidence you provided says.

Wait, I take that back. That's what the out-of-context evidence you provided says, but that's not what the whole evidence in post #314 (and originally in post #45)says.

What does it say, then?

 

[Beleth]

What does it say, then?

I'm sure you can read it for yourself. You edited it at one point; surely you read what you deleted before you deleted it.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Claus,Tricky... out of curiousity are you an atheist?

as to the OP...I once read an atheist is someone who sees no evidence for the existence of any superior being and then draws the conclusion that such a being doesn't exist.

How can a newborn baby draw a conclusion about the existence of God?

 

[Tricky]

No, the answer is Yes. The baby cannot consider a belief.

You have repeatedly asserted this. I hope that you will eventually come around to supporting it with evidence, but I'm not holding my breath. It seems quite clear to me that babies have some beliefs. They believe, for example, if they cry, someone will attend to their needs. You think that is not a belief? Well, you may have some problem demonstrating that it isn't. You'll have to carefully define what a belief is, opening up a big can of worms.

Now as to whether they have theistic beliefs, that's really opening up another can of worms. For that, you need a comprehensive definition of "god". Then you need to define how what defines "belief" in god. I seriously doubt that you or anyone else here is up to that task for the sake of what ultimately resolves to a semantic question.

If you wish to use "atheist" to describe babies, it is probably fine for you. Since you already display no interest in clear communication with others, it won't make much difference.

 

[Tricky]

Claus,Tricky... out of curiousity are you an atheist?

I am. I'm pretty sure Claus is too.

as to the OP...I once read an atheist is someone who sees no evidence for the existence of any superior being and then draws the conclusion that such a being doesn't exist.

Close, but not quite exact. My feeling is that since there is no evidence for any God or gods yet described, there is no good reason for me to believe in any of them because the liklihood of them is so very low. I keep open, however, the possibilities that evidence may show up for one of those gods or for another that has yet to be described. But again, the liklihood is so very low of such an occurrance that I would find it pointless to believe "just in case".

In my mind, there are no absolutes, only probabilities. If you want to call my assigning an extremely tiny probabability to the liklihood of god a "conclusion", well, I won't argue too much. It is about as close as I get to "conclusions" about anything.

How can a newborn baby draw a conclusion about the existence of God?

Claus is arguing that conclusions aren't necessary, but that lack of conclusion, indeed lack of any consideration of the matter, constitutes atheism. Semantically, a case can be made for it. Pragmatically, it is a pointless distinction.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sure you can read it for yourself. You edited it at one point; surely you read what you deleted before you deleted it.

Come on: You say it doesn't say what I say it does. Please explain what you think it says.

Claus,Tricky... out of curiousity are you an atheist?

I was born one.

as to the OP...I once read an atheist is someone who sees no evidence for the existence of any superior being and then draws the conclusion that such a being doesn't exist.

How can a newborn baby draw a conclusion about the existence of God?

It doesn't have to.

You have repeatedly asserted this. I hope that you will eventually come around to supporting it with evidence, but I'm not holding my breath.

Already addressed.

It seems quite clear to me that babies have some beliefs. They believe, for example, if they cry, someone will attend to their needs. You think that is not a belief? Well, you may have some problem demonstrating that it isn't. You'll have to carefully define what a belief is, opening up a big can of worms.

Crying for help is called instinct.

Now as to whether they have theistic beliefs, that's really opening up another can of worms. For that, you need a comprehensive definition of "god". Then you need to define how what defines "belief" in god. I seriously doubt that you or anyone else here is up to that task for the sake of what ultimately resolves to a semantic question.

I'm not saying they have theistic beliefs.

If you don't think that babies cannot consider a belief, why do you ask me what defines "belief" in god? Shouldn't that be a question you yourself should answer?

If you wish to use "atheist" to describe babies, it is probably fine for you. Since you already display no interest in clear communication with others, it won't make much difference.

Since I repeatedly have to refer to my previous posts, I don't think I am the one displaying no interest in clear communication with others.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I was born one.

Are you one now?

 

[Tricky]

Since I repeatedly have to refer to my previous posts, I don't think I am the one displaying no interest in clear communication with others.

LOL. You think that instead of answering questions, referencing previous posts where you don't answer questions is clear communication? Claus, you're a hoot!

You want to talk about clear communication? Harry asks us both the same question. I give a definite answer and explain what I mean by it. You evade the question with a one-sentence statement that does not answer the question and give no explanation whatsoever.

This little example shows that you are indeed the one displaying no interest in clear communication. Maybe you have some sort of allergy to it or something, because I cannot understand why you avoid it so.

 

[Beleth]

Come on: You say it doesn't say what I say it does. Please explain what you think it says.

That's a different question, and one I am happy to answer.

I agree with the assessment and conclusion reached in post 45.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you one now?

Yes.

LOL. You think that instead of answering questions, referencing previous posts where you don't answer questions is clear communication? Claus, you're a hoot!

You want to talk about clear communication? Harry asks us both the same question. I give a definite answer and explain what I mean by it. You evade the question with a one-sentence statement that does not answer the question and give no explanation whatsoever.

This little example shows that you are indeed the one displaying no interest in clear communication. Maybe you have some sort of allergy to it or something, because I cannot understand why you avoid it so.

Apparently, my joke went over your head.

If you don't think that babies cannot consider a belief, why do you ask me what defines "belief" in god? Shouldn't that be a question you yourself should answer?

That's a different question, and one I am happy to answer.

I agree with the assessment and conclusion reached in post 45.

You pointed to the whole of evidence in post #45. It says clearly that:

4) a person who does not believe in god.

Using definitions 1, 2 and 3 for the word 'atheist', the baby is not an atheist.

Using definition 4, the baby is an atheist.

But you are willing to ignore one definition in favor of the one that supports your argument. In other words, select your data.

 

[Mercutio]

Part of the problem appears to be the fact that we have not only multiple definitions (1, 2, 3, and 4 have been discussed in this thread) of atheism, but also at least two separate traditions of use of the word. Some here have linked to the Wiki article which notes that "atheist" has a history as a term of disparagement, from a time when the idea of not believing was unheard of. So there is a long tradition of using this term to label an "other"; the atheists themselves did not choose, nor define, this term. Relatedly but separately, there is also the simple privative use of the term "atheist" as the "none of the above" category that is not Baptist, Mormon, Hellenic Pantheist, Druid, Muslim, Shinto, FSM, or any of scores of others. In this case, even the atheist/theist distinction is a fairly silly thing, since any two theists may have so little in common that they might well call the other "atheist" using the first (insulting) definition of the word.

That first usage, defined by believers, gets treated as a belief system all its own. Mind you, I think it is silly to do this--the people who are defining it are projecting their own belief structure onto their view of the atheist (thus, "strong" and "weak" belief, which makes sense from a believer point of view, but which is meaningless from the privative atheist perspective. From this perspective, though, atheism is a belief system--indeed, a sort of faith--which a person must come to. A baby cannot have considered all the possible gods to reject them; therefore a baby cannot be an atheist.

(I am amused and annoyed by how easily people on both sides of this thread have been able to read the belief system of babies; conveniently enough, babies always believe what fits the argument we wish to make. This is question-begging and circular reasoning, and not a good argument.)

The second, privative definition is indeed a "default" position (or if you prefer, a "none of the above" position), which clearly does apply to babies. But of course, by this definition it is silly to call a baby an atheist--it does not add anything to our understanding of the baby. Don't think, though, that this is "atheist propaganda"; schisms have occurred in churches because of the question of infant baptism. Anabaptist churches question the legitimacy of infant baptism, on the grounds that an infant cannot choose to believe. Here, for instance, is one examination of the topic.

When a person is baptized, he is making a commitment to live all the rest of his life according to the Bible. He automatically and immediately becomes subject to certain responsibilities that the Bible requires of all baptized people. If a person is not able to accept these responsibilities, then he is simply not ready to be baptized.

Here are a few of the responsibilities that God requires of all people who are baptized. Can babies do these?

A. All Baptized People Should Exhort and
Encourage Other Christians.

1 Corinthians 12:13,25,26 - Note first that baptism makes people members of Jesus' body, which is the church (Eph. 1:22,23; 5:23). Some people baptize babies, but still do not consider them to be members of the church. God's word says that, when one has been Scripturally baptized, he is automatically in the church. Then all members in the church should care for, suffer with, and rejoice with other members. Can a baby do this? [cf. Heb. 10:22-25]

Ephesians 4:16 - In the body (the church) every joint and each part is to work to edify and build up the body. What work can babies do? None. Therefore, they should not be baptized into the body.

B. All Baptized People Should Worship God.

Acts 2:38-42,47 - Note again that, when people were baptized, the Lord added them to His church (v41,47). To baptize people and yet consider them not fully members of the church would be unscriptural. These baptized people then continued in the acts of worship named: breaking bread, prayer, the apostles' doctrine, etc. Can babies do this?

1 Corinthians 14:15-20 - Members of the church (this includes all baptized people - 1 Cor. 12:13) are to assemble with other Christians to sing, pray, and teach. All this should be done with understanding. But the Scripture expressly says that babies cannot do these things with the understanding that God requires (v20).

Notice the passage carefully: Members of the church should understand what is done in worship. Babies cannot understand. Therefore, babies should not be baptized into the church!

1 Corinthians 10:16,17; 11:23-29 - All members of the body (i.e., all people who are baptized - 12:13) should eat the bread and drink the cup in communion (10:16,17). Do churches that baptize babies have them partake of communion?

When members partake, they must remember Jesus' death and discern the meaning of it. If they eat without understanding, they eat and drink damnation to themselves (11:23-29). Can babies remember and discern this? If not, they should not partake. But all members of the body should partake, therefore babies should not be baptized into the body!

Clearly, God requires all members of the church to do things that babies cannot do. Therefore, the command to be baptized is not addressed to babies and does not include them.

C. Baptized People Should Put God First
in Their Lives.

Romans 6:3,4,11-18 - When people are baptized, they come into Christ and should walk in newness of life. They are made alive to God (newness of life), so they must not let sin reign in their bodies, but must use their members as instruments of righteousness. Obeying the gospel makes us free from sin and slaves to righteousness. But babies cannot make such choices and commitments. They should not be baptized until they are able to accept this responsibility from their own hearts.

Romans 12:1,2 - This passage is addressed to "brethren" - i.e., children of God, members of God's family, the church. But people become children of God, born again as brethren in the family, when by faith they are baptized (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Tim. 3:15). Such people should present their bodies as living sacrifices to God, not being conformed to the world. This commitment must be accepted by one who is baptized. Can babies make such a commitment?

1 Corinthians 15:58 - Brethren (i.e., people who became children of God at the point of baptism) should be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord's work. One who cannot so abound, ought not to be baptized. Can babies abound in the Lord's work?

Matthew 28:19,20 - Baptized people should be taught to obey all Jesus' commands. This shows that it is not necessary, at the very point of baptism, for people to know all the specific commands they must obey after baptism. But they must be capable of learning and applying those commands. And they must have a heart willing to accept and obey everything Jesus says to do.

This is the commitment that a person makes when he repents and is baptized. No one should be baptized unless he has made such a commitment. A baby cannot do this, so he should not be baptized until he is old enough to choose for himself to do so.

Note carefully that we have learned what God says people must do before they can be baptized, during baptism (the proper purpose), and after baptism. And babies do not qualify in any of these areas. To baptize babies, then, would be to act by human authority without God's authority, thereby violating the will of God.

Of course, the description of babies on this site fits the privative definition of "atheist", but of course the author does not use that term to describe them. They are "babies". Also "innocent".

By the first tradition, it would be an insult to call a baby an atheist, and it would also be wrong, since atheism is a considered belief system. By the second tradition, it would be meaningless to call a baby an atheist, although it would be trivially true.

Conclusion: Both Tricky and Claus are wrong.

 

[Herzblut]

In my mind, there are no absolutes, only probabilities.

In my mind, that is an absolute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

Herzblut

 

[Tricky]

Well said, Merc. However I said as far back as post #10 that it might be "technically correct" to call babies atheist even if "useless" (I should have said "silly"). I might have used the word "privative" if I were a hot-shot college professor like you.

 

[Tricky]

In my mind, that is an absolute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

Damn. Busted.