-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are babies atheist?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Curious George
Veteran Member
The question is why do we need to have a word that encompasses distinctly different definitions. I believe no god exists, that is very, very different than a baby not believing in something because of ignorance. Ignorance is related to knowledge, atheism is related to belief. My atheism is a position. Not some state of ignorance or a lack of ability to believe.
I believe there is no intelligent, immortal being with more control over the universe than all other entities. It is a logical position. To say that this position is the same as someone incapable of belief due to an inability to posess any belief is not the same.
Many other people suggest they do not believe or disbelieve in god- that os they believe a god existing and a god not existing are equally likely. I would prefer not even having this group in the camp of atheism, but, either way, this is also completely distinct in that it is a belief regarding gods existence. No person capable of believing in a god can have a belief other than: believes a god exists, believes a god does not exist, and believes a god existing is equally likely as a god not existing. Those are the only three options. They are all positions, they are all claims. That anyone would then try to state that they are not making a claim because babies and people that have never heard of any god or conceived of any god are not making claims is an equivocation. It is dishonest; it is semantics, and the reason it happens is because the definition of atheism has been distorted.
Riders
Well-Known Member
Babies have no knowledge of what a God is. They can neither be atheist or theist.The parents are sort of taking the place of god. That means everything the baby needs the family the parents do unless their in a nursery, the caretakers provide everything and that's all they know.
You don't need to have knowledge of something to not believe in it.
Curious George
Veteran Member
No, but that contrasts sharply with someone who does have knowledge of something and doesn't believe in it. So much so, claiming they are the same is unreasonable.
You can't disbelieve in something that you've never heard of. It's as simple as that.
They aren't the same, but neither believes in any gods, so they're both atheists.
And even the atheist who has explored theism as much as humanly possible has a baby's utter lack of knowledge about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in.
Depends which sense of "disbelieve" you're using, but in any case, rejection of belief isn't necessary to be an atheist. This just isn't how we use the word when describing atheists, whether adults or babies.
It's just how some of us use the word when describing atheists.
(As there is no good reason to use the word otherwise.)
Do you acknowledge the existence of atheists?
Not theism and nontheism are two different things.
I'm not sure I follow that since I haven't heard 'not theism' as its own category.
So you know a rock is not a theist? You're smart! How many other things in the universe do you know is not a theist?
The latter can be both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
We don't.
That makes you a STRONG ATHEIST.
That would be a WEAK IMPLICIT ATHEIST.
People who say they do not believe god(s) exists and do not believe god(s) don't exist don't believe anything either way. Don't try to make it sound as if they believe anything.
Okay - so I can infer that whatever your criteria for atheist, it's something that's actually possible in a practical sense.
... but rejecting all gods is impossible in a practical sense, so I can be sure that this isn't the test you actually use to decide whether someone is an atheist.
We can make some more inferences from who you consider an atheist or not.
Do you think that theists can be atheists?
How about specific people: how about the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism": do you think that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are (or were, for Hitchens) atheists?
Curious George
Veteran Member
I believe fairies do not exist. You may not disbelieve in fairies all you want.