Are babies atheist?

[leibowde84]

write atheist on a baby's forehead......

that works for you?

Is your argument that babies are theists? If they aren't theists, then they are, by definition, atheist.

 

[Thief]

Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of a belief. To lack something means to be without it. So, an "empty head" would certainly be adequate to be without any number of beliefs.

it's a declaration.....

you need to be able

 

[Thief]

Is your argument that babies are theists? If they aren't theists, then they are, by definition, atheist.

nay.....

 

[Sanzbir]

Seeing how the term "atheism" is not a group identity label, this is pretty ludicrous. It merely means "without theism" or "without a belief in deities". We aren't saying that they are strong atheists who express their belief that no gods exist.

No. I'd say it has progressed to the point of being a group-identity label.

If people didn't treat it as a group-identity label, I don't think anyone would even think to ask the question in the OP.

If "atheism" still was a mere descriptive label, and not an identitarian label, no one would find the need to ask such a question as this in the first place. Looking at the way people use the term, it is often enough used as a label of identity.

 

[leibowde84]

it's a declaration.....

you need to be able

No, atheism is certainly not a declaration. It is actually the absence of a declaration. It applies to anyone who does not believe in any deities.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

lack
lak/
noun

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

 

[leibowde84]

No. I'd say it has progressed to the point of being a group-identity label.

If people didn't treat it as a group-identity label, I don't think anyone would even think to ask the question in the OP.

If "atheism" still was a mere descriptive label, and not an identitarian label, no one would find the need to ask such a question as this in the first place. Looking at the way people use the term, it is often enough used as a label of identity.

It can be used in more than one way, like many terms, I guess. But, technically speaking, the term "atheism" refers to ANYONE who is without a belief in deities. It is that simple.

 

[leibowde84]

nay.....

"Nay" what? So, you are agreeing?

Again, there are only two options. Either babies are theists or they are atheists.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Do not be scared of logic. If you can point to logical flaws please do so. But if you can't, perhaps it is time to accept it is your belief that has the flaw.

That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The persistence of this 'proof' is quite amusing as it has (at least) 2 very basic flaws.

1) There is no rational reason that the word should be considered a-theism (without belief in gods) rather than athe-ism (the doctrine or belief in being without gods). If we go the 'meaning comes from the letters' route than it still gives you no reason to prefer one definition over the other.

2) Much more importantly, as it relates to the fundamentals of language an communication, you cannot definitively derive the meaning of a word either from the letters which make it up or the knowledge of the meaning of a completely different word (theism, apolitical, etc.).

While it is true that knowledge of prefixes and suffixes can help you to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words, these rules do not necessarily hold true in all cases.

For example anti-hero and inflammable do not follow the expectations of the prefixes they contain. Moreover, we can't tell simply from the letters whether or not a word is actually contains a prefix or a suffix. Aback doesn't mean without a back and prism isn't a doctrine or belief in PR.

The only way you can know this is to know the actual meaning of the word in the first place, which comes from convention and its usage in context. Words also don't have meaning in isolation, they gain their meaning from the other words around them and the situation they are used in. When ibn Taymiyya refers to Avicenna as an atheist I know this is different from referring to Richard Dawkins as an atheist.

Language is use of language, and everything else is hot air (which differs from the hot air of a balloon).

Yes, this is a good example of mental gymnastics. Can you do a cartwheel?

"Doctrine of being without gods"...lol.

What would that even look like...

 

[Skwim]

Is that meant to be profound?

Nope. Only that at least you got it right.

.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, this is a good example of mental gymnastics. Can you do a cartwheel?

"Doctrine of being without gods"...lol.

What would that even look like...

You appear to have very badly missed the point, never mind...

The rational reason that the word should be considered a-theism (without belief in gods) is simply that if a person says "I'm an atheist" you know with 100% certainty that this person is not a theist but you don't know if this person actively believes gods don't exist. Using athe-ism would mean that the members of organizations like American Atheists wouldn't actually be atheists! How rational is that?

Here you are claiming that meaning comes from usage and context. So was I.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope. Only that at least you got it right.

.

Thanks, i do try ;-)

 

[Sanzbir]

It can be used in more than one way, like many terms, I guess. But, technically speaking, the term "atheism" refers to ANYONE who is without a belief in deities. It is that simple.

I see it as a term, like many terms, that started as descriptive but has generally shifted to be a term of identity now. Any identity starts that way. Even "Christian" originally meant someone who followed the teachings of Jesus and "Muslim" was a simple statement of "I submit to God", but these two evolved and morphed over the years to become a group identity. Identity obsession ruins words.

 

[leibowde84]

I see it as a term, like many terms, that started as descriptive but has generally shifted to be a term of identity now. Any identity starts that way. Even "Christian" originally meant someone who followed the teachings of Jesus and "Muslim" was a simple statement of "I submit to God", but these two evolved and morphed over the years to become a group identity. Identity obsession ruins words.

But, as you know, a term can have multiple meanings. The word "muslim" means "I submit to God". It still does. The term "Muslim" means an adherent to "Islam". Atheism, technically, applies to anyone who is without a belief in deities.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You appear to have very badly missed the point, never mind...



Here you are claiming that meaning comes from usage and context. So was I.

No, I got your point quite clearly. I stand by my assessment.

You seem to have some need for atheists to be or represent some cause or position that only exists in the heads of yourself and other "believers".

 

[Willamena]

Is your argument that babies are theists? If they aren't theists, then they are, by definition, atheist.

That's not technically correct. An atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Babies have no concept of God or gods.

 

[Augustus]

No, I got your point quite clearly. I stand by my assessment.

Seeing as you are still not addressing it, I'm pretty sure you didn't get my point 'quite clearly'.

My point: Meaning only comes from usage in context, not from the letter a, the suffix -ism or a different word such as theism.

You seem to have some need for atheists to be or represent some cause or position that only exists in the heads of yourself and other "believers".

By "other believers" do you mean other people who believe there is no god?

Anyway, seeing as you were the only one to claim there was a 'right' definition, I'm not sure why you think I am the one who has a need regarding how people use the term.

Although seeing as you 'got my point quite clearly'...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's not technically correct. An atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Babies have no concept of God or gods.

I gave you a like just for using the OED. Everyone here should follow Willamena's example.

 

[Augustus]

I gave you a like just for using the OED. Everyone here should follow Willamena's example.

That wasn't the OED, this is the OED

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It sig. C4 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

1577 M. Hanmer tr. Bp. Eusebius in Aunc. Eccl. Hist. iv. xiii. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men.
1656 T. Stanley Hist. Philos. II. viii. 93 An Atheist is taken two waies, for him who is an Enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost i. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons.
1827 J. C. Hare & A. W. Hare Guesses at Truth I. 65 Practically every man is an Atheist, who lives without God in the world.


3. Atheistic, impious.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost vi. 370 The Atheist crew.
1821 J. G. Lockhart Valerius II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky.

 

[Thief]

"Nay" what? So, you are agreeing?

Again, there are only two options. Either babies are theists or they are atheists.

you are not in control here....

the correct option.....atheism is a declaration