Are people born inherently atheist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about comatose people -- people who are in comas.

They can't figure anything out. They have little or no brain activity. They're vegetables.

Are they atheists since they lack belief in God?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nope.

And your definition of virign is something other than "not having had sex"?

And even if it is how about this. We can run through the classics. Does the rock collect stamps? Does it golf? Does the rock have a sense of justice? Does the rock have morals? I could go on. But if there were words for "non golfer", "non stamp collector", "lack of justice" ect. Then the rock would by default apply to all of those situations.

However it is useless to think that because we don't attribute NON QUALITIES to people. There are an infinite number of non qualities.

 

[ArtieE]

Did you miss my Catholic example, they care if babies are heathens or atheists and they care that the baby gets baptized to become Christian. Where as an atheist parent wouldn't be so concerned about such religious questions.

Good point. I hope Kilgore Trout attends to get his rock baptized.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't label infants atheists I label them weak atheists which means not (yet) theists/strong atheists and it is more meaningful than labeling rocks atheists because infants can potentially become theists/strong atheists but a rock can't. It's not rocket science, it's something we call common sense.

Ah, so now it's "common sense" that newborn infants are atheists. Yes, please go take a poll in maternity wards asking new parents whether their newborn babies are "atheists" or not. I'll eagerly await the results of your "common sense" study.

Your posts are just a waste of my time so I'll put you on my ignore list.

You don't have to put me on ignore in order to surrender. You can simply stop posting responses to me.

 

[ArtieE]

And the fact remains that you have no thoughtful or reasoned argument, and are left relying on cherry-picked definitions as your only argument.

Another post and another total waste of time. Bye.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

If I may suggest it, I think your last sentence is the root of most of the confusion about this issue.

It's as if people think that atheists actually exist.

Or as if people think that definitions can precisely (accurately) mirror objects in the exterior world.

I find it very curious.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Another post and another total waste of time. Bye.

You giving up already? Oh no. Please don't go.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You giving up already? Oh no. Please don't go.

I can pick it up.
Do babies have the capacity to believe something they have yet to learn ?

 

[Magic Man]

And the fact remains that you have no thoughtful or reasoned argument, and are left relying on cherry-picked definitions as your only argument.

No thoughtful or reasoned argument on what? It's simple. An atheist is a person with no belief in gods. An infant is a person with no belief in gods. If you want to get into whether or not that's useful information, we can do that later, but that needs to be established first.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Depends on whether they believe in a god....

I can't imagine how the comatose can believe in anything at all. Doesn't a 'belief' have to exist as an assent to a proposition?

Since the comatose can't even think in words, much less speak in words, how could they assent to any proposition?

Let's change them into 'general anesthesia patients' (GAPs). Are all GAPs atheists?

According to the views of some here on the question of infants and atheism, talking about comatose people as atheists would be meaningless, and yet I think we can pretty much all agree that it's not.

It seems meaningless to me. I have a cousin who was hit by a train as a teenager. He's been only semi-conscious every since. I don't think of him as either a theist or an atheist. The question does indeed seem meaningless to me.

But then I don't even believe in theists and atheists, so....

 

[outhouse]

The next time a young mother shows you her baby, chuck the little darling under his chin and coo, "Oh, what a cute little atheist you are!"

If the mother gives you a look of fear and confusion, try not to be surprised.

Well that's just rude, and doesn't apply to reality as no one is doing that.


My daughter is a atheist at 7. She has been a atheist since birth.

That is example of how it is used in a sentence that is not absurd. IT IS FACTUAL

 

[Magic Man]

And your definition of virign is something other than "not having had sex"?

Of course. My definition is the same as yours and anyone else's: "a person who has not had sex".

And even if it is how about this. We can run through the classics. Does the rock collect stamps? Does it golf? Does the rock have a sense of justice? Does the rock have morals? I could go on. But if there were words for "non golfer", "non stamp collector", "lack of justice" ect. Then the rock would by default apply to all of those situations.

However it is useless to think that because we don't attribute NON QUALITIES to people. There are an infinite number of non qualities.

1) You're missing the key element here, which is that a rock is not a person, which is usually a prerequisite for all those things.

2) You're correct that most of the time we don't talk about what qualities people lack, but in the case of atheism we do, because it can be useful.

 

[Magic Man]

I can't imagine how the comatose can believe in anything at all. Doesn't a 'belief' have to exist as an assent to a proposition?

I guess, but this doesn't apply to atheism.

Since the comatose can't even think in words, much less speak in words, how could they assent to any proposition?

They can't at the time.

Let's change them into 'general anesthesia patients' (GAPs). Are all GAPs atheists?

Depends on what they believe.

It seems meaningless to me. I have a cousin who was hit by a train as a teenager. He's been only semi-conscious every since. I don't think of him as either a theist or an atheist. The question does indeed seem meaningless to me.

I generally don't think of most people as theists or atheists. That doesn't make it meaningless to talk about them as such in certain contexts, though.

But then I don't even believe in theists and atheists, so....

Hmm...then I'm not sure your view on this would be meaningful.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1) You're missing the key element here, which is that a rock is not a person, which is usually a prerequisite for all those things.

2) You're correct that most of the time we don't talk about what qualities people lack, but in the case of atheism we do, because it can be useful.

It doesn't matter that its not a person. Its still "useless" as he has pointed out. But they still lack qualities. When we talk about lacking qualities we try to make it a quality with Atheism. Most people now believe that atheism is the "belief there is no god" when its not. Why? Because people have a really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really hard time discerning the difference between a quality and a non-quality. Why? Because we don't really do it for anything else.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can pick it up.
Do babies have the capacity to believe something they have yet to learn ?

As far as I know, newborn infants have no capacity to hold any beliefs, so defining them by one particular non-belief is a meaningless exercise. They are atheists in the same way a rock or squirrel is. Saying infants, rocks, or squirrels are atheists provides no significant or meaningful information.

We apply the attribute of "belief/non-belief" to humans since they are capable of holding beliefs. People are erroneously extending this definition to infants, because they are human. However, they are ignoring the fact that infants lack the fundamental attribute of being able to hold beliefs. Thus, categorizing them by the attribute "belief/non-belief" isn't applicable to infants in a meaningful way.

It doesn't seem terribly difficult to understand.

 

[Magic Man]

It doesn't matter that its not a person.

Yes, it does.

Its still "useless" as he has pointed out.

I don't see how.

 

[Magic Man]

We apply the attribute of "belief/non-belief" to humans since they are capable of holding beliefs. People are erroneously extending this definition to infants, because they are human. However, they are ignoring the fact that infants lack the fundamental attribute of being able to hold beliefs. Thus, categorizing them by the attribute "belief/non-belief" isn't applicable to infants in a meaningful way.

It doesn't seem terribly difficult to understand.

Oh, it's not. The flaw in it, though, is the claim that it's erroneous to extend the definition of atheist to infants. They are people who don't hold belief in gods. Whether it's useful or meaningful to bring up that fact in most cases is a different question.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, it's not. The flaw in it, though, is the claim that it's erroneous to extend the definition of atheist to infants.

Not if you examine the reason why we apply the attribute of "belief/non-belief" to human beings, and, in turn, why it doesn't apply to infants.

 

[Willamena]

Oh, it's not. The flaw in it, though, is the claim that it's erroneous to extend the definition of atheist to infants. They are people who don't hold belief in gods. Whether it's useful or meaningful to bring up that fact in most cases is a different question.

It is erroneous to extend the definition of atheists to infants, not because of what "atheist" means but because of what a "belief" is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, the question posed in the thread is whether we are born atheists. When we are born, we are infants, so in order to meaningfully answer the question, we have to discuss atheism in regards to infants, not what they may eventually become. Now, we can redefine infants as something else (as many have done in this thread). However, we then no longer discussing infants, and not addressing the question posed in the OP.

Another way to look at it: consider the spectrum of adult atheists; when did each of them become atheists?

Take me: I can't remember ever believing in any gods. When I was first exposed to prayer, I didn't think of it as literal communication with God; I almost approached it as a game I'd play when I stayed with my grandmother. This is my recollection at least as far back as age 5. Was I an atheist then? If I was, but I wasn't an atheist when I was born, when did I make the transition? What denotes this transition? What should I look for in my past that will let me say "aha! That's when I became an atheist"?