Are babies atheist?

[LuisDantas]

As I said, I would rather not encourage the equivocation of theism as it is with some idealized version that does not exist in this reality.

 

[Jesster]

Wow. There's so much senseless squabbling over personal definitions of labels here.

Forget about that mess for a moment. Babies do not believe in gods. Why complicate this any further?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

And theism is a term to designate belief for those with the capacity to believe. If we are going to go that route, why not make capacity the defining characteristic, not personhood?

I'm not sure what you are even trying to say at this point. To be a theist' is to hold a belief in deities. A capacity to believe is a pretty obvious prerequisite.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes, because deity is other than self.

To unite self with deity is to distinguish both terms.

Yes, and there is a 50% off sale at Walgreens.

 

[Skwim]

Frogs too have no belief in gods

BINGO!

.

 

[Curious George]

As I said, I would rather not encourage the equivocation of theism as it is with some idealized version that does not exist in this reality.

I do not think that is what is occurring. If you would like to try to argue that it is, by all means.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure what you are even trying to say at this point. To be a theist' is to hold a belief in deities. A capacity to believe is a pretty obvious prerequisite.

The logic that you employed was that personhood was required of theism therefore personhood is required of atheism. I employed the very same logic that gave us a definition of atheist that doesn't lend itself to equivocation. In otherwords you will either need to find a different distinction to show any reason.

 

[Curious George]

BINGO!

.

Sure, sure just as much an atheist as diarrhea is an atheist. Fortunately, my atheism and its definition distinguishes itself from diarrhea. I think that is reason enough to agree to my definition.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

Babies are totally ignorant and innocent, like animals. Therefore, if you must categorize them, they are agnostics. Humans don't loose their innocence until we become fully self-aware. That is self-aware and understand that we're all mortal.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The logic that you employed was that personhood was required of theism therefore personhood is required of atheism. I employed the very same logic that gave us a definition of atheist that doesn't lend itself to equivocation. In otherwords you will either need to find a different distinction to show any reason.

I believe that probably makes sense in your head.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

More details here:

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
Humans are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and life after death, according to a major three-year international study.

Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.

But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found. The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.

Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a closed box. Three-year-olds believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers were not omniscient.

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

I wasn't part of any 'scientific' study showing such a predisposition.
My experience was the opposite.
But even if such belief is common among children, it appears that many outgrow it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Actually I think we can cut out all the animal and object references. They are fun and all but the suffix -ist refers to a person. Btw, did you know babies are also people?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If atheism is defined as belief that no gods exist then babies are not atheists.

That isn't how we use the word when talking about adults, so why would we use it that way when talking about babies?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

If atheism is defined as a lack of belief in gods, then, yes, of course babies are atheists. If atheism is defined as belief that no gods exist then babies are not atheists.

You do realize that the vast majority of words in the English language have multiple meanings, right? So atheism can actually mean both.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I hate semantic squabbling, not only is it non-productive but most people suck at it as well.

 

[Curious George]

I believe that probably makes sense in your head.

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.

 

[Curious George]

Actually I think we can cut out all the animal and object references. They are fun and all but the suffix -ist refers to a person. Btw, did you know babies are also people?

Absolutely! Let us agree that a-theist should not be read as "not theist" (btw, did you know that theists were people). And let us instead focus om defining the word. I am glad that you brought up the suffix -ist, because while it does refer to people (well an entity capable of being a follower or an adherent) that is not all it means. It refers to a folower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy. This fits well with a belief, such as the belief that no god exists. It doesn't fit well with the "non-position," "non-belief" that results from "lack of belief." So, there you have six ways to Sunday, the definition a person that believes no god exists is better.

And the conclusion: Babies, while people, are not atheists.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

I hate semantic squabbling, not only is it non-productive but most people suck at it as well.

Lol, you started the thread...you had to have known. Really? You didn't know?

Lol, I think I lack belief in that.

 

[Augustus]

Theism meant belief in a personal, supreme god and everything else was atheist.

Theism also used to mean deism

OED:

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.

b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = monotheism n.

c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = deism n.

d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe that probably makes sense in your head.

A lot of what Curious George and Willamena says only makes sense in their heads nowhere else. You are trying to use logic and reason to answer illogical and irrational posts and often in their case it is futile.