Are babies atheist?

[LuisDantas]

I'm diametrically opposed to atheist tables and chairs.

Such discrimination, for no good reason.

Also to teaching them god concepts.

Now, that I can agree with.

 

[Willamena]

Such discrimination, for no good reason.

It's a life-form thing.

 

[Curious George]

No, what i meant to say is,what i said

I will qualify by boldly claiming that a way, method, tool to think is required for belief. Not sure rocks have evolved enough to develop the required ability

This give a pretty good explanation
atheism - Dictionary Definition

And here is a piece on the entomology
The Divine Conspiracy

If atheism is also that which lacks belief why would you require an tool for belief?

And if you are going to require "a tool for belief" why not just require the capacity for belief?

 

[Erebus]

I'm diametrically opposed to atheist tables and chairs.

Also to teaching them god concepts.

Tsk, make up your mind. Do you want your furniture to live in a theocracy or not?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I find some people's persistence in this matter to be amusing. Asymmetrical means something lacks symmetry. Apolitical means someone abstains from politics. Asymptomatic means without symptoms.

But atheist, rather than the obvious 'without theism', simply HAS to mean more than that, because......reasons.

Prefix Meaning Example(Greek)
a, an

without, not

asexual, amoral, anarchy, anhydrous, Anabaptist, anachronism

That's not atheist etymological history, though. Not the least which because 'theism' didn't mean 'belief in gods' until the last hundred years or so. Theism meant belief in a personal, supreme god and everything else was atheist. Deism was atheism.

Further, we already have a number of established terms which could fit babies. Implicit atheism is one of them, but so is theological noncognitivism, a label for those who have no conception of gods. So is non-theism, which is from non-theos and what atheists used to be called and now is the the umbrella grouping which atheists, ignostic, pure agnostics (and sometimes deists) are under.

Even further, context plays a role in linguistics here as anywhere. Hydrophobic usually doesn't mean fear of water, it means chemical aversion to water. Both in chemistry (Hydrophobic plastics) and biology (advanced stages of rabies infection.) It only sometimes is a one to one 'phobia=fear' in actual usage (fear of being in water.)

 

[Curious George]

Such discrimination, for no good reason.
.

It causes equivocation, whereas a different meaning does not. The discrimination is for both practical and logical reasons.

 

[ChristineM]

If atheism is also that which lacks belief why would you require an tool for belief?

And if you are going to require "a tool for belief" why not just require the capacity for belief?

Atheism does not lack belief, it simply lacks belief in gods

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Is a baby truly without theism, though? They are baptized, blessed, raised into various forms of theism. Gods might smile on them, they might not. An infant is often surrounded and influenced by theism, even if they can't believe it.

If there is no belief, there is no theism.

 

[Willamena]

If you divide people into people who smoke and people who don't babies belong in the second category no matter whether you find that useful or not.

If you divide people who have sex with others and people who don't, it becomes pretty clear that terms can be misleading.

 

[Curious George]

Atheism does not lack belief, it simply lacks belief in gods

Either way. Why require a tool to believe in god instead of the capacity to believe in god?

 

[Willamena]

If there is no belief, there is no theism.

If there is no belief, there is no 'self.'

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So let us apply your logic.

A-theism

Something that is not theism.

A-theist

Something that is not theist

What is a theist: someone who believes god exists.

Therefore a-theist is something that is not someone who believes in god.

Therfore rocks are atheists.

Satisfied?

Someone, not something.

Layering absurdity does not make it less absurd.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If there is no belief, there is no 'self.'

So without believing in a deity there is no self huh.

Lets see if I have a tinfoil hat in your size...

 

[Willamena]

That's not atheist etymological history, though. Not the least which because 'theism didn't mean 'belief in gods' until the last hundred years or so.

And that's a good point, because up until the 1990s "lacking belief" didn't have a metaphysical, but a metaphorical, connotation.

 

[LuisDantas]

It causes equivocation, whereas a different meaning does not. The discrimination is for both practical and logical reasons.

I have yet to see a convincing case for why that would be so.

Strong atheism is not atheism proper.

 

[Curious George]

Someone, not something.

Layering absurdity does not make it less absurd.

Why somene? All nouns are objects. Would you prefer I said some object?

You are arbitrarily moving the not.

It went from:

Not a person who believes in a god

To

A person who believes not in a god

And I would propose the best definition just moves it further on down to

A person who believes in not a god.

 

[LuisDantas]

Everyone is born with pre-programmed knowledge of the Creator, all children have a limited understanding of right and wrong. For these reason they will grow up with a deep desire within to find the meaning of life and connect to a higher spiritual force.

Apparently that is fairly mainstream Islaamic teaching. I can assure you that it is not realistic, though.

 

[LuisDantas]

Call babies atheists if you wish, I don't think they believe in any gods (though I can't say I remember what I did/didn't think as a baby). I'm not sure how useful it is to call them atheists though, unless perhaps you're up against somebody who thinks all babies naturally believe in their particular god/gods.

That is one benefit (Islaam apparently fits that bill).

But mainly, it is useful because it underscores the nature, limitations and downsides of theism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Strong atheism is not atheism proper

Arguably atheism isn't non-theism proper, either.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many things are either or, not anything goes, all things are true.

If atheists want babies to be atheists when born, then their stance cannot be a matter of intelligent choice; instead, it is the believer who now makes the intelligent choice.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. (Urban dic explanation: This phrase is easier to understand if it is read as "You can't eat your cake, and have it too". )

I would not call it an intelligent choice - often enough it is not even a choice proper - but sure, theism is more elaborated than atheism at its minimum can be.