Poll: Are all babies atheist?

[Willamena]

So does the oxford.

The oxford says that if you lack e belief you are an atheist, and it doesnt make spcific exclusion of those who havent heard of it.

So according to the oxford, babies are atheists.

No, that's your interpretation. I, for one, think dictionary definitions are pretty much precise--that's their usefulness.

 

[Me Myself]

No, that's your interpretation. I, for one, think dictionary definitions are pretty much precise--that's their usefulness.

It is very precise:

If it is a person: baby = person

And disbelief or lacks belief: baby lacks belief

Then it is an atheist.

Where do you got lost? Where is the ambiguity?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So does the oxford.

No. It says the the term is used in two different ways. This is obviously true -- as is the fact that "the map is not the territory."

 

[Valjean]

No, that's your interpretation. I, for one, think dictionary definitions are pretty much precise--that's their usefulness.

Dictionaries give multiple definitions of many words; varied meanings: historical, colloquial, slang. The trick is to choose the appropriate one. Using a popular dictionary to define technical terms can be problematic. Best to use a specialized dictionary of chemistry, biology, philosophy, &c for serious work in specialized areas.
If your goal is to obfuscate, proposing a definition inappropriate to the discussion is a good starting point.

"Atheism" unmodified, is the basic, essence of atheism: the lack of or non-belief in God. The question isn't weather babies are strong atheists, gnostic atheists, religious atheists, indifferent atheists, narrow atheists, active atheists, or whatever, and ignorance of 'X' logically implies a non-belief in same.

The question is weather a baby is a (basic, essential) atheist -- (finer gradations to follow).

Babies, grasshoppers and cabbages lack a belief in God, ergo, the definition applies. It might not be useful. It might be irrelevant to the issue at hand. It might be absurd in context -- but it applies. it's technically, semantically, lexicographically apt. The philosophical or emotional ramifications may be disturbing, but they're irrelevant.

The fact stands, Babies are, technically, atheists/weak atheists.

 

[Me Myself]

No. It says the the term is used in two different ways. This is obviously true -- as is the fact that "the map is not the territory."

What you say doesnt contradict what I said.

One of the ways it is used is for those persons who lack the belief in god.

So babies are persons

They lack the belief in god.

Where are you getting lost?

 

[Me Myself]

Dictionaries give multiple definitions of many words; varied meanings: historical, colloquial, slang. The trick is to choose the appropriate one. Using a popular dictionary to define technical terms can be problematic. Best to use a specialized dictionary of chemistry, biology, philosophy, &c for serious work in specialized areas.
If your goal is to obfuscate, proposing a definition inappropriate to the discussion is a good starting point.

"Atheism" unmodified, is the basic, essence of atheism: the lack of or non-belief in God. The question isn't weather babies are strong atheists, gnostic atheists, religious atheists, indifferent atheists, narrow atheists, active atheists, or whatever, and ignorance of 'X' logically implies a non-belief in same.

The question is weather a baby is a (basic, essential) atheist -- (finer gradations to follow).

Babies, grasshoppers and cabbages lack a belief in God, ergo, the definition applies. It might not be useful. It might be irrelevant to the issue at hand. It might be absurd in context -- but it applies. it's technically, semantically, lexicographically apt. The philosophical or emotional ramifications may be disturbing, but they're irrelevant.

The fact stands, Babies are, technically, atheists/weak atheists.

Actually, atheist according to oxford needs you to be a person, so until we give personhood to grasshoers, they dont really apply.

 

[Valjean]

Take that up with the League of Lutheran Locusts or the Church of Christian Crickets.
That OED is a speciesist screed, I tell you! :149:

"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse" -- PETA.

 

[Me Myself]

That OED is a speciesist screed! :149:

"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse" -- PETA.

I doubt the non human animals are persons according to oxford. Am
I wrong? I ll go check.

 

[idav]

As some have noted babies are probably animist. I don't completely disagree, many may be theists, most, because they have a natural wonder. I do think that some may be atheists. We just don't give babies enough credit cause we can't remember.

edit: Which is why I voted some are atheists.

 

[Valjean]

Doesn't animism involve an actual set of beliefs?

I realize hominins are hard wired in ways that predispose them to faith or religiosity -- Princess Alice effect, agent detection, &c -- but I'm pretty sure infants don't have an actual, conscious belief in an omnipotent, invisible personage.

 

[Me Myself]

animism
Pronunciation: /ˈanɪmɪz(&#601m/
Definition of animism
noun
[mass noun]
1the attribution of a living soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
2the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe:
beneath the veneer of Hindu religion, ancient animism runs strong

I would say babies fall with number one. They treat many inanimate objects as if alife. At is good enoughh for me on that account.

 

[Valjean]

But in standard psychology babies don't even recognize themselves as individual entities. Are they really capable of pantheistic metaphysics?

Probably depends on weather you see Pantheism as an actual belief or more an operating system.

 

[Me Myself]

But in standard psychology babies don't even recognize themselves as individual entities. Are they really capable of pantheistic metaphysics?

Probably depends on weather you see Pantheism as an actual belief or more an operating system.

I definetely see my pantheism as to be way deeper than conscious thought, and way deeper than the belief expressed in language of "I believe God is this and this and this and this"


To me, that form of spirituality would be dead.

 

[idav]

But in standard psychology babies don't even recognize themselves as individual entities. Are they really capable of pantheistic metaphysics?

Probably depends on weather you see Pantheism as an actual belief or more an operating system.

They learn quickly to differentiate themselves and other and species.

Babies would probably be whatever the parents are. Even the fetus is constantly learning from mom in the womb.

 

[LuisDantas]

They learn quickly to differentiate themselves and other and species.

Babies would probably be whatever the parents are. Even the fetus is constantly learning from mom in the womb.

It takes considerable capability of abstract thought for one to even potentially be a theist. Certainly far more than one can develop "in utero".

Edited to add: the same can be said, admitedlly with a bit less emphasys, of being an animist.

 

[idav]

It takes considerable capability of abstract thought for one to even potentially be a theist. Certainly far more than one can develop "in utero".

Edited to add: the same can be said, admitedlly with a bit less emphasys, of being an animist.

All it takes is the question of where we come from. The natural answer to that is mom. Agreed it takes some capacity, probably the point they can understand the concept of self in a mirror which about toddler age. Though that is just being able to communicate understanding, doesn't mean the thoughts weren't already there like when we first try to understand the self looking at our hand and controlling movement.

 

[adi2d]

Not at all. Being an atheist is not necesarily an informed choice. Being an atheists simply means one doesnt believe in God.

Agnosticism is an informed choice on the other hand. And agnostic stance means you have heard the concept of god and decided that you cant know.

By that definition everyone is an agnostic. We all believe one way or another but No one KNOWS (imho Of course)

 

[Me Myself]

By that definition everyone is an agnostic. We all believe one way or another but No one KNOWS (imho Of course)

I am not saying you have to be 100% sure god exists to not be an atheist. i am saying if you dont even know or have thought up an idea similar to god, then obviously you are an atheist.

 

[Me Myself]

All it takes is the question of where we come from. The natural answer to that is mom. Agreed it takes some capacity, probably the point they can understand the concept of self in a mirror which about toddler age. Though that is just being able to communicate understanding, doesn't mean the thoughts weren't already there like when we first try to understand the self looking at our hand and controlling movement.

I think we link "understanding" with language or theory too much.

 

[Pegg]

I'd like to garner some idea of how many people believe what about the topic of babies being atheist.

The issue is in regard to 'atheism' being a response to 'theism', having some other relationship with 'theism', or having no relationship to 'theism'.

they cannot be atheist because that requires a conscious decision/thought.

They can only be born agnostic because they know nothing of anything when they are born.