Are people born inherently atheist?

[Kilgore Trout]

Comparing the employment of a planet to the belief of a baby is not in the same realm.

Actually, it is exactly the same in that both cases offer no significant information above more fundamental knowledge (inanimate objects do not engage in human behaviors; things which cannot hold beliefs, do not hold any beliefs). Saying "Jupiter is unemployed" adds the same amount of meaningful information as does saying "my newborn infant is an atheist." Which is "none."

The belief of a baby is much more meaningful than anthropomorphizing the planet Jupiter.

Since babies cannot hold beliefs, and planets cannot be employed, they are exactly the same in terms of providing one with meaningful information.

 

[idav]

Since babies cannot hold beliefs,

Is that a fact? Your assuming that because the baby didn't answer when you asked? Remember asking the baby is not the same as asking a rock.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

OK, well, an infant is a person with no belief in gods, which qualifies him/her for the classification "atheist".

This fails to recognize why we apply beliefs to human beings, and not other things: because human beings are capable of holding beliefs. However, this distinction doesn't apply to newborn infants (as they are not capable of holding beliefs), so including them in the group "human" in regards to "something that can hold beliefs" is an incorrect, or at least meaningless, categorization.

Now, if someone wants to fall back on semantic stonewalling in lieu of rational and meaningful understanding, that is their prerogative. However, personally, I find such tactics as meaningless and vapid as labeling infants, or rocks, as atheists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is that a fact? Your assuming that because the baby didn't answer when you asked? Remember asking the baby is not the same as asking a rock.

If you have access to some neurological studies which indicate newborn infants are cognitively developed and conscious enough to hold beliefs, then I'd be more than interested in reading them.

 

[Magic Man]

This fails to recognize why we apply beliefs to human beings, and not other things: because human beings are capable of holding beliefs. However, this distinction doesn't apply to newborn infants (as they are not capable of holding beliefs), so including them in the group "human" in regards to "something that can hold beliefs" is an incorrect, or at least meaningless, categorization.

Now, if someone wants to fall back on semantic stonewalling in lieu of rational and meaningful understanding, that is their prerogative. However, personally, I find such tactics as meaningless and vapid as labeling infants, or rocks, as atheists.

Regardless, if the definition of "atheist" is "person who doesn't believe in gods", then an infant qualifies. Whether that's meaningful in most situations is irrelevant.

 

[ArtieE]

It wouldn't make any difference.

Then please indulge me and show me it doesn't make any difference. Use theist, weak atheist and strong atheist as examples. In your example if theist is A, strong atheist is B, where is weak atheist C?

 

[idav]

If you have access to some neurological studies which indicate newborn infants are cognitively developed and conscious enough to hold beliefs, then I'd be more than interested in reading them.

They are actually logical and don't typically believe in magic, so they are most likely atheist, but then they are gullible so they might easily get tricked back into believing in magic at a very early age.

The OP asks if babies are atheist and the default for any belief is a simple no. Regardless if it is a valid question, the question is from the OP, I typically don't call babies heathen atheists even if it is accurate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Regardless, if the definition of "atheist" is "person who doesn't believe in gods", then an infant qualifies. Whether that's meaningful in most situations is irrelevant.

I suppose some people do find meaningfulness irrelevant, whether dealing with concepts or semantics. I guess if someone feels so compelled to hold a particular perspective that they ultimately rely on nothing but a specific dictionary definition to justify it, then there's no way to get them to try to look at it from a more meaningfully thoughtful perspective.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

OK, well, an infant is a person with no belief in gods, which qualifies him/her for the classification "atheist".

So are all comatose people atheists?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I typically don't call babies heathen atheists even if it is accurate.

Me neither. Because it's not only silly, but meaningless.

 

[idav]

So are all comatose people atheists?

Depends if they believe in a deity or not. If the person had a head injury and memory loss then they might need to figure it out all over again.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Depends if they believe in a deity or not. If the person had a head injury and memory loss then they might need to figure it out all over again.

What about when people are asleep? Are they atheists during the night, and then become theists again when they wake up?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then please indulge me and show me it doesn't make any difference. Use theist, weak atheist and strong atheist as examples. In your example if theist is A, strong atheist is B, where is weak atheist C?

Why do we have to use the terms Strong/Weak Atheists? They are incorrect and misleading qualifiers to begin with. I prefer the terms Gnostic and Agnostic Atheists as it at least somewhat more correctly describes the positions.


All Theists believe in god.
All Atheists lack this belief.
Some Atheists Believe God does not Exist. Not all Atheists Believe god does not exist.

For example if I have a box. And then I told you that there was a five dollar bill in the box. There is no way for you to know that there is a five dollar bill in the box. It is conceivable that there is a five dollar bill in there but it could easily be a 10, 20, or nothing. Do you BELIEVE that there is a five dollar bill? Lets assume you don't simply take my word for it that there is a dollar in the box. Do you BELIEVE that I am lying? Do you believe that there is NOT a five dollar bill in the box?

 

[ArtieE]

I saw you mention that a strong atheist means rejecting at least one god concept but a person might be both 1 and 2. They may reject some specific concept like the FSM deity but still remain open minded to other deity concepts. A strong atheist puts faith in the belief that there is no deity, faith because it is impossible to reject every single concept.

Sure. There are some overlapping cases and finer points. I just don't want to get into that, it's hard enough to get people to understand the difference between weak and strong atheism.

 

[idav]

Me neither. Because it's not only silly, but meaningless.

Meaningless is subjective. Might be meaningless to you but a Catholic might take accusations of their newborn being a heathen atheist pretty seriously. Regardless the label is either accurate or not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Meaningless is subjective. Might be meaningless to you but a Catholic might take accusations of their newborn being a heathen atheist pretty seriously. Regardless the label is either accurate or not.

And, as I've stated numerous times, it is accurate in the way that calling rocks atheists is accurate. I have no problem if someone calls rocks atheists. Personally, I find it to be a meaningless label.

 

[ArtieE]

The OP asks if babies are atheist and the default for any belief is a simple no.

If the OP had asked if babies are strong atheists the answer would be no. If the OP had asked if babies are weak atheists the answer would be yes.

 

[idav]

What about when people are asleep? Are they atheists during the night, and then become theists again when they wake up?

I tend to remember my life when I'm dreaming and remain a married theist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I tend to remember my life when I'm dreaming and remain a married theist.

What about the majority of the night when you're not dreaming?

 

[ArtieE]

I suppose some people do find meaningfulness irrelevant, whether dealing with concepts or semantics. I guess if someone feels so compelled to hold a particular perspective that they ultimately rely on nothing but a specific dictionary definition to justify it, then there's no way to get them to try to look at it from a more meaningfully thoughtful perspective.

I guess you found this post meaningful but I didn't. Try producing a meaningful post next time.