Atheists: A Question About Newborn Kittens.

[Stevicus]

Agnosticism isn't just "I don't know;" it's the positive assertion that the existence or non-existence of gods is unprovable.


No, a person can't be born agnostic, since agnosticism is a position.

It still means a lack of knowledge. We're talking about newborn kittens or newborn babies, which wouldn't have any actual beliefs or even enough knowledge to be able to say one or the other. This is a discussion of semantics over terms which kittens and babies can not understand. They really don't know.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Do you consider newborn kittens to be atheists?

Why or why not?

(inspired by @Heyo - hope you don't mind).

Technically….only in the same way a worm, or a tree, or a rock might be considered an atheist.

For the word to have any practical meaning, it comes as result of having been presented with a proposition of the existence of god/s and not finding them credible.

Since a baby, or a kitten, or a worm, or a tree, or a rock are not capable (so far as is known) of understanding a proposition concerning god/s it is meaningless to attach the label of atheist to them.

A label of theist or atheist requires a belief in a proposition of god/s;
and in order to be meaningful requires that such proposition has been considered and either accepted (theist) or not accepted (atheist).

 

[Secret Chief]

Until introduced to the subject, neither believer in or non-believer in accurately describes the infant's position.

I didn't know C&W wasn't music until I heard it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also agnostic, polytheist, apatheist, nontheist, pantheist. Let's not unreasonably restrict her responses.

And ignostic / igtheist.

Why do I get the sense that this two years old child will find adults way too complicated?

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is a position on theism, hence the root word. Unless newborns have begun to come into the world with a position on theism, I would say that a newborn is neither an atheist nor a theist.

Sorry, that is not accurate.

Atheism is the absence of theism. While discussion and expression of atheism tends to contrast with and challenge theism, that is not what defines the concept and the idea of atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to say, in this case I think @SalixIncendium has the more reasonable take on this question. I think it would be same with, say, Santa Claus. Until introduced to the notion, an infant has neither a belief nor a disbelief in Santa. There are those who would say that makes the infant aSanta, but I think that's two narrow a viewpoint. Until introduced to the subject, neither believer in or non-believer in accurately describes the infant's position.

Can't say I see the point.

An infant (or rock) is atheistic even if he or it has no idea whatsoever of that.

 

[Secret Chief]

Why do I get the sense that this two years old child will find adults way too complicated?

Not old enough to comprehend metaphysical positions? Plus, she'll probably be upset at @SalixIncendium 's attire.

 

[Secret Chief]

An rock) is atheistic

Can you provide any links to sources that claim inanimate objects are atheistic? (rather than simply humans)

Your claim means that aside from the molecules that constitute non-atheists the entire rest of the universe is atheistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you provide any links to sources that claim inanimate objects are atheistic? (rather than simply humans)

You will have to trust my discernment (or refuse to).

Your claim means that aside from the molecules that constitute non-atheists the entire rest of the universe is atheistic.

The molecules themselves are atheistic as well.

It is only after some form of abstract thought becomes possible that the possibilities of agnosticism, theism and even apatheism arise.

So, people with brains may become theists, or be conditioned into claiming theism. But their molecules and even their cells just can't.

 

[Secret Chief]

The molecules themselves are atheistic

OK, I'm done here.

 

[Stevicus]

I suppose the other side of the question is, even if kittens and babies and rocks are, according to definition, "atheists," the question is, so what? What point is one trying to make here? Is it to counter some bad press or misperceptions about atheists?

"Well, I guess kittens and babies like us, so we atheists can't be all bad, can we?" Other than that, I'm not sure I'm understanding the thrust of this particular argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose the other side of the question is, even if kittens and babies and rocks are, according to definition, "atheists," the question is, so what? What point is one trying to make here?

Fair question. Please read on.

Is it to counter some bad press or misperceptions about atheists?

I don't think so. If anything, presenting non-sentients as atheists may well encourage further disregard and further unfair criticism of atheism. Even all-out insults.

But it is also intellectually honest and may help clarify and correct certain misconceptions.

"Well, I guess kittens and babies like us, so we atheists can't be all bad, can we?" Other than that, I'm not sure I'm understanding the thrust of this particular argument.

I can't speak for others, but in my case I want to point out the nature of atheism as I understand it and, hopefully, also point out that there is an inherent assymetry between it and theism.

Theism, despite some odd cultural and doctrinary expectations with surprisingly good support, can't happen in a vacuum. It can only exist (or at least be claimed) once some form of god-conception arises or is proposed and there are people around with the ability to express belief in the existence of a literal form of that conception, at least to themselves.

Atheism has no such requirements and requires no effort nor justification whatsoever.

That is a fact that many apologists of theism fail to acknowledge somehow.

One of the most frustrating traits of much of the discussion between theists and atheists is that both sides often end up discussing logic and evidences with various degrees of honesty and awareness of facts, but ultimately neither theism nor atheism has much to do with logic nor with evidence.

They are both aesthetical stances, opposed and mutually exclusive but very assymetric in ambition and consequences. Theism is simply inherently more daring, all the more so when it takes the form of proselitist monotheism. To presume to decide what other people should believe in is no minor audacity.

But social reinforcement is a powerful force, and leads many Abrahamists (and to a lesser degree others) to misunderstandings on the nature and consequences of both theism and atheism. And because not all atheists are well informed, many of us end up repeating those mistakes as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently this is a dispute for you to have with other atheists:

That is right. We don't all agree on this little matter. And it is a little, very little matter.

(...)
My refrigerator has never rejected any assertion. It's not an atheist fridge. It's just a fridge.

It needs proper acceptance. Or something.

 

[crossfire]

Kitteh: I don't want to meditate, I want to play! Is this kitteh theist or atheist?

 

[Secret Chief]

Kitteh: I don't want to meditate, I want to play! Is this kitteh theist or atheist?

It's a manifestation of Mara, birthday girl!

 

[ChristineM]

Kitteh: I don't want to meditate, I want to play! Is this kitteh theist or atheist?

Kitty is trying to figure out how to knock Buddha off the shelf

 

[Trailblazer]

I second this. I worship cats.

Me too. God, step aside.

 

[Heyo]

Agnosticism isn't just "I don't know;"

... it's also "and you don't know either".

it's the positive assertion that the existence or non-existence of gods is unprovable.

That would be hard Agnosticism. I'm just a soft Agnostic. I'm agnostic on the position if gods are unknowable, I just know that they are not known as of yet.

No, a person can't be born agnostic, since agnosticism is a position.

All persons (and kitties) are born agnostic. They just can't be Agnostics as Agnosticism is a position.

 

[Heyo]

Kitty is trying to figure out how to knock Buddha off the shelf

Kill your idol!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would be hard Agnosticism. I'm just a soft Agnostic.

Those are different definitions than I've ever heard. My understanding is that hard agnosticism is the claim that the existence of gods is inherently unknowable ("we can't ever know") and weak agnosticism is the claim that the existence of gods is currently unknowable, given our current level of knowledge ("we can't know right now").

I'm agnostic on the position if gods are unknowable, I just know that they are not known as of yet.

And that's what makes you an agnostic. A baby that doesn't have a position on whether gods are knowable can't be an agnostic.

All persons (and kitties) are born agnostic. They just can't be Agnostics as Agnosticism is a position.

It seems like you're putting a lot of weight on that capital "A," but I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.