Are babies atheist?

[Thief]

OK, but this doesn't go against anything I've said thus far. Babies don't have God or gods in their worldview. They lack belief in the existence of God or gods, as they are without that belief. Thus, they are "atheist".

you seem to have a compulsive need to have infants for your stance

 

[leibowde84]

you seem to have a compulsive need to have infants for your stance

Not at all. I'm just going by what the term "atheism" means and what it includes.

Can you answer my question? Why do you think that being without something requires a decision? You have yet to even attempt to address that.

 

[Thief]

Not at all. I'm just going by what the term "atheism" means and what it includes.

Can you answer my question? Why do you think that being without something requires a decision? You have yet to even attempt to address that.

and it's needful to drag you to logic?

 

[leibowde84]

you seem to have a compulsive need to have infants for your stance

You seem to have a compulsive need to change the meaning of the term "atheism" to better suit your beliefs.

God doesn't care if babies are technically atheists or not. I don't care whether babies are technically atheists. They are merely included in the definition of the term "atheism".

 

[leibowde84]

and it's needful to drag you to logic?

I'm just interested in your logic. Why do you think that being without something requires a decision? You have yet to even attempt to address that.

 

[Thief]

You seem to have a compulsive need to change the meaning of the term "atheism" to better suit your beliefs.

God doesn't care if babies are technically atheists or not. I don't care whether babies are technically atheists. They are merely included in the definition of the term "atheism".

if a child could declare disbelief there would be consequence for that declaration

children ( in spirit) default to heaven

 

[leibowde84]

if a child could declare disbelief there would be consequence for that declaration

children ( in spirit) default to heaven

But, atheism does not require a declaration. "To lack" means "to be without". No declaration is required to be without a belief. Both you and I are without belief in everything we are not familiar with.

 

[Valjean]

How are you defining atheism, Thief?

 

[Willamena]

OK, but this doesn't go against anything I've said thus far. Babies don't have God or gods in their worldview. They lack belief in the existence of God or gods, as they are without that belief. Thus, they are "atheist".

As it should be, since I wasn't arguing against you.

 

[idav]

if a child could declare disbelief there would be consequence for that declaration

children ( in spirit) default to heaven

If a baby could declare belief then they could be theist, but they can't.

 

[Thief]

You seem to have a compulsive need to change the meaning of the term "atheism" to better suit your beliefs.

God doesn't care if babies are technically atheists or not. I don't care whether babies are technically atheists. They are merely included in the definition of the term "atheism".

so all of this is a word game of technicalities and apathy?

 

[Thief]

If a baby could declare belief then they could be theist, but they can't.

ok...they are just neither....

but there is mom and dad
and for some time to come
babies will believe in someone greater

then maybe they will believe in Someone Greater

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The worldview is the set of beliefs about the world that comprise a person's "cognative orientation"*. Hence what I mean by being without God or gods in one's worldview is to lack belief in God or gods.

*Wikipedia

So a person's worldview only includes things that a person is aware of and accepts as real. Whether something isn't included in their worldview because they're unaware of it or because they're aware of it but don't accept that it is real, that thing still isn't in their worldview.

 

[Willamena]

So a person's worldview only includes things that a person is aware of and accepts as real. Whether something isn't included in their worldview because they are unaware of it or because they're aware of it but don't accept that it is real, that thing still isn't in their worldview.

Yes.

As I have argued before, atheism is the "no god" view, not the "I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about" view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

As I have argued before, atheism is the "no god" view, not the "I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about" view.

It doesn't seem to me that this is what you've been arguing.

You just said that an atheist is someone with no gods in their worldview. Well, everyone on the whole atheist spectrum from "I'm absolutely sure no gods exist" to "what's a god?" has no gods in their worldview.

If you want to reach the conclusion you're giving, you're going to need a different approach.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, they are not theists.

So you feel that babies believe in and worship a deity?

 

[Milton Platt]

Are babies atheist? What do you think? Yes? No? Please explain.

Only in the sense that to believe in a deity (or anything else) you must have at least a limited understanding of what that thing is. They of course have not formed an opinion that a god does not exist, but neither have they a belief that a god does exist, which is what is required to believe one does. So in a technical sense, they are atheists.

But then, you have not given the definition of the word atheist you are using.....

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't seem to me that this is what you've been arguing.

It is.

You just said that an atheist is someone with no gods in their worldview. Well, everyone on the whole atheist spectrum from "I'm absolutely sure no gods exist" to "what's a god?" has no gods in their worldview.

The "God or gods" that is possibly there is not the "God or gods" that is not there.

Edit: If "God" is any sort of possibility, you're not looking at atheism. So the person who has never heard of God, who has no need to question his world, is as atheist as the person who has heard of God and rejected it. The person hearing about God for the first time and questioning its meaning is nonpartisan.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "God or gods" that is possibly there is not the "God or gods" that is not there.

A god that a person acknowledges might possibly exist but they haven't accepted is not there in a person's worldview.

A god that a person hasn't even heard of is not there in a person's worldview.

 

[Willamena]

A god that a person acknowledges might possibly exist, but they haven't accepted, is not there in a person's worldview.

...is not a god one is lacking belief in, but a god that one possibly believes in. Belief in the object is equally as possible in that circumstance as the object of belief, since belief in the object and the existence of the object itself are two sides of the same (cognitive) coin (two ways of stating the same thing).

A god that a person hasn't even heard of is not there in a person's worldview.

If the object is lacking, then belief in it is lacking.