"Humans are born as atheists"

[paarsurrey]

PackJason said: ↑
And yet people seem to have no problem with calling a baby a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child."

That, too, is incorrect.

One may like to read the post#277 in this connection.
Does it help?
Regards

 

[sojourner]

I already ate, but thanks.

I want my babybackbabybackbabybackbabyback... Get in mah belleh!!!

 

[Demonslayer]

We don't call babies "anti-trust," or "pro-democracy," or anti-communist," or "anti-abortion." Why? because those are stances with regard to concepts. So is atheism.

No, atheism is not a stance. I wouldn't call a baby pro-democracy, but I would call them apolitical.

 

[sojourner]

One aspect of "a muslim child" means not sinful by birth as the Christian would believe but innocent and normal child.
Regards

"The Christian" doesn't necessarily believe that children are born sinful.

 

[sojourner]

PackJason said: ↑
And yet people seem to have no problem with calling a baby a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child."


One may like to read the post#277 in this connection.
Does it help?
Regards

Nope. It, too, is incorrect.

 

[Grumpuss]

No, atheism is not a stance. I wouldn't call a baby pro-democracy, but I would call them apolitical.

Yes, but politics isn't like the magic of faith. Being touched by God needn't be reduced to an argument like "Baby isn't a vegetarian just because he's never tasted meat!"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Human sacrifice, ritual rape, slavery... are these cultural aspects you seek to promote and/or introduce into civilized society?

It's the pot calling the kettle black. European history is rife with terrible behaviors, yet we want to call someone else the savage. Calling an entire people "savage" is inhumane and degrading, and typically based in ignorance, such as how we thought of the Mayans as "simple minded savages" but would come to learn they had an extremely elaborate and complexed society and even a calendar that is more accurate than what we have.

 

[Demonslayer]

Belief seems to be inherited, while disbelief does not seem to be.

Because belief requires knowledge of something, disbelief does not.

Do you believe in the 12 headed Giraffe-Dog named Spottylongneck? No, because you never heard of it. Up until now you had no idea the 12 headed Giraffe-Dog named Spottylongneck even existed. Therefore you did not believe in it.

To believe in it, you'd have to know about it. There are an infinite number of things, real and imaginary, that you don't know about, and therefore, don't believe in.

 

[Demonslayer]

I want my babybackbabybackbabybackbabyback... Get in mah belle!!!

LOL, awesome.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yet, I never heard of an atheist child, in case of a child born into an atheist family.
Belief seems to be inherited, while disbelief does not seem to be.
I always wondered why.
Ciao
- viole

Because they know that they have denied G-d, but the child does not subscribe to their denial.
Regards

 

[sojourner]

No, atheism is not a stance. I wouldn't call a baby pro-democracy, but I would call them apolitical.

I wouldn't. Politics is also a function of higher cognition of which children are incapable.

 

[Grumpuss]

It's the pot calling the kettle black. European history is rife with terrible behaviors, yet we want to call someone else the savage. Calling an entire people "savage" is inhumane and degrading, and typically based in ignorance, such as how we thought of the Mayans as "simple minded savages" but would come to learn they had an extremely elaborate and complexed society and even a calendar that is more accurate than what we have.

Yet there are no Mayans today.

Two wrongs do not make a right. A culture that is barbaric in the modern age is allowed to be called "barbaric". Actually going in, arresting or reforming elements of it is a different beast to tame.

 

[Valjean]

"Atheist" is, I think, a stance, because it's "anti-something." In order to be a-theist, one has to have some cognizance of theism -- or even of non-theism. Because atheism is an "ism," it's a concept -- and one that babies don't yet have. Neither are babies theists, for the same reason: "theist" involves cognition of certain concepts. Until a being is able to be sentient enough, differentiated enough, and cognizant enough of the world around her/him -- until they, themselves can say, "I am blah blah blah," they cannot correctly be referred to as anything other than a human being.

But you'd first have to understand that there's a concept called "gods" before you can "not believe in them." One can't "not believe in" something they don't even know is a thing. Belief is a choice. Awareness isn't a choice. Babies are not aware of deities. When they become aware of such concepts, they then choose whether to believe those concepts.

No, because, in order to be a-theist, you'd have to understand what it is that you're "a." You can't tell me that a baby, who is non-theist by virtue of not being able to cognate such things, is exactly the same as an adult who has made a conscious decision to "not believe." If we don't call rocks "atheist," we don't call babies "atheist." And we don't call rocks "atheist."

Sojourner, you're doing it again. You're applying the wrong definition and creating a controversy where there need not be one.

Yes, by your definition, babies can't be atheists, because you're using the term to denote a rejection of theism which would, as you point out, presuppose a cognition of theism. This is all fine, if this is the definition we're going by -- but it's not.

Yes, belief is a choice, but a lack of belief is not. Full requires a content, empty does not. Atheism, as it's being used here, is the default position; the empty box.
Most of the atheists you talk with in a general forum like this are working from a definition of lack of belief, including lack of awareness or ignorance. Atheism, as it's being used here, is the default position; an empty box.

The people promoting the idea that babies are born atheist are working from this definition; a simple lack of belief, an empty slate, the default state. You keep trying to impose a different definition onto the question, which just generates confusion and endless argument.
Please Google "straw man."

 

[PackJason]

I wouldn't. Politics is also a function of higher cognition of which children are incapable.

Yeah, so they are apolitical. The "A" in front of "theism" is Greek and means "without."

"A-theist" means "without-theism"

 

[paarsurrey]

Exactly. Disbelief is the default position.

Wrong.
One is not entitled to inherit disbelief because it is artificial, not a permanent property/ownership of a child.
Regards

 

[sojourner]

Because belief requires knowledge of something, disbelief does not.

Do you believe in the 12 headed Giraffe-Dog named Spottylongneck? No, because you never heard of it. Up until now you had no idea the 12 headed Giraffe-Dog named Spottylongneck even existed. Therefore you did not believe in it.

To believe in it, you'd have to know about it. There are an infinite number of things, real and imaginary, that you don't know about, and therefore, don't believe in.

No, I neither believe nor disbelieve it, because I do not know about it. Once I hear of it, then I either believe it or not.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, so they are apolitical. The "A" in front of "theism" is Greek and means "without."

"A-theist" means "without-theism"

Once again: an "ism" is a cognitive exercise that requires higher thinking. Babies are not "apolitical." They're babies. Why? Because they're not capable of being political in the first place.

 

[Demonslayer]

No, I neither believe nor disbelieve it, because I do not know about it. Once I hear of it, then I either believe it or not.

You don't disbelieve in it, you just don't believe in it. You have no belief in it. It's impossible to believe in something you've never heard of.

 

[Demonslayer]

Sojourner, you're doing it again. You're applying the wrong definition and creating a controversy where there need not be one.

Yes, by your definition, babies can't be atheists, because you're using the term to denote a rejection of theism which would, as you point out, presuppose a cognition of theism. This is all fine, if this is the definition we're going by -- but it's not.

Yes, belief is a choice, but a lack of belief is not. Full requires a content, empty does not. Atheism, as it's being used here, is the default position; the empty box.
Most of the atheists you talk with in a general forum like this are working from a definition of lack of belief, including lack of awareness or ignorance. Atheism, as it's being used here, is the default position; an empty box.

This

 

[PackJason]

Once again: an "ism" is a cognitive exercise that requires higher thinking. Babies are not "apolitical." They're babies. Why? Because they're not capable of being political in the first place.

Going in circles. It all comes down to this: Babies do not have a belief in a god or gods. If they don't have a belief, they have a lack of belief. The only way you can get around that is through mental gymnastics. End of story.