Poll: Are all babies atheist?

[idav]

If we go by this distinction, default atheism then is also actually an entirely useless label, as far as labels go. So we might as well ignore it completely and stop using it.

Babies just don't do much. They don't embrace any world view. They don't have opinions about anything. It's not telling us anything when one says that babies "do not believe in a god nor possess any knowledge or opinion about one". Well, of course they don't!

I can see it's usage being relevant in the case of grown ups who have no knowledge of the concept of god (though i would still feel it's an unnecessary usage), but in babies it seems more like grasping at straws.

It is somewhat of a useless label except in respect to the claim of theism. If someoene is asked if they believe then "I don't know" and "no" both amount to not being theist. Knowledge of isn't necessary because belief doesn't require knowledge.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think so. It is in fact very useful, both because it is the default until challenged by some sort of evidence, and because it fits as a glove to discussions about how much of a right to expect or demand belief in God we should have.

It is somewhat of a useless label except in respect to the claim of theism. If someoene is asked if they believe then "I don't know" and "no" both amount to not being theist. Knowledge of isn't necessary because belief doesn't require knowledge.

This.

 

[Badran]

Now we're debating the utility of the concept or of the term again.

An atheist is one who lacks belief in God or Gods.
Babies lack belief in God or Gods.
Ergo......

QED

(Emphasis mine)

I am indeed doing so, as that's been my main point in the thread. Like i said before, i don't think it's inaccurate to say that babies are atheists. I however think it's useless. Words have meanings because we decide to give it to them. Our evolving usage of these words is also capable of re-defining them.

There are multiple religions, philosophies and world views in which babies can be included under the most inclusive definition. In all cases, including the case of this thread, i don't see the point behind doing so. Seems more of a petty contest than anything else.

I think it's more accurate to recognize them as a separate group who have still not developed the capability of thought as we know it and as such categorizing them philosophically or religiously seems pointless.

 

[Badran]

I don't think so. It is in fact very useful, both because it is the default until challenged by some sort of evidence,

It is a default, but so is:

1) Their lack of belief in pooping in the bathroom.

2) Their lack of belief in the laws of physics.

3) Their lack of belief in homosexual rights.

etc..

What i mean is, once again, it's not actually saying anything.

and because it fits as a glove to discussions about how much of a right to expect or demand belief in God we should have.

Not sure i get that. Could be me or the way it's worded, but i'd appreciate a re-wording.

 

[Me Myself]

(Emphasis mine)

I am indeed doing so, as that's been my main point in the thread. Like i said before, i don't think it's inaccurate to say that babies are atheists. I however think it's useless. Words have meanings because we decide to give it to them. Our evolving usage of these words is also capable of re-defining them.

There are multiple religions, philosophies and world views in which babies can be included under the most inclusive definition. In all cases, including the case of this thread, i don't see the point behind doing so. Seems more of a petty contest than anything else.

I think it's more accurate to recognize them as a separate group who have still not developed the capability of thought as we know it and as such categorizing them philosophically or religiously seems pointless.

A baby is an atheist a baby is also illiterate, a baby is also single.

Whether is useless or not depends on the context of the conversation.

 

[Me Myself]

I honestly find it pettier to deny they are atheists.

By definition they are. Why deny it? If it didnt say anything people wouldnt say it.

 

[Valjean]

Whether is useless or not depends on the context of the conversation.

And utility doesn't factor in the aptness of the definition.

 

[Badran]

It is somewhat of a useless label except in respect to the claim of theism. If someoene is asked if they believe then "I don't know" and "no" both amount to not being theist. Knowledge of isn't necessary because belief doesn't require knowledge.

I don't think we need to categorize babies as atheists in order to be able to recognize "i don't know" and "no" as not being theist. Both answers fail to meet theism's definition.

 

[Badran]

A baby is an atheist a baby is also illiterate, a baby is also single.

Whether is useless or not depends on the context of the conversation.

Which context do you have in mind?

I honestly find it pettier to deny they are atheists.

By definition they are. Why deny it? If it didnt say anything people wouldnt say it.

Unfortunately you'd have to have failed to understand my posts in order to categorize them as denial of the notion. Given that i've repeatedly and clearly stated that such notion is not incorrect. I've stated in my first post and in later posts that i think technically the statement is true.

What i'm addressing is strictly in regards to whether not such categorization is helpful. And that categorization is not only addressing the labeling of babies as atheists, but other similar notions as well.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think we need to categorize babies as atheists in order to be able to recognize "i don't know" and "no" as not being theist. Both answers fail to meet theism's definition.

But babies succed in being part of what atheism purviews as a definition

You said you agree and it is true.

The reason most people would resist to call them that is the tyranisaton of the label.

 

[Breathe]

Yes, they are. God is a learned concept, although there are those with a strong tendency to develop it.

Can it also be something (for lack of a better term) gained?
I know a few kids who believe in God, even when their parents don't, who believe in God, even in this Godless, heathen society.

I wonder if some people are predisposed for theism or atheism.

 

[Me Myself]

Which context do you have in mind?



Unfortunately you'd have to have failed to understand my posts in order to categorize them as denial of the notion. Given that i've repeatedly and clearly stated that such notion is not incorrect. I've stated in my first post and in later posts that i think technically the statement is true.

What i'm addressing is strictly in regards to whether not such categorization is helpful. And that categorization is not only addressing the labeling of babies as atheists, but other similar notions as well.

True, i deviated a bit from point.

It is helpful grounding people to remember atheism is e default position, and the most inocent being can br an atheist, so they shouldnt feel all high miighty for being theists.

I. Ut other cause I find it more descriptive to say they are animists. Bt I dont contradict their atheism. I am simply seeing it from another angle , which may rebute the "idea" of the point of calling them atheists (while not the fact that they are, indeed, atheists)

Its like if the thread was called are babies illiterate or are babies single. Yes, yes they are.

 

[Me Myself]

Can it also be something (for lack of a better term) gained?
I know a few kids who believe in God, even when their parents don't, who believe in God, even in this Godless, heathen society.

I wonder if some people are predisposed for theism or atheism.

Surely, though then will come a case of nature vs nurture

And nurture is not necesarily only parents of course.

But that's why I answered other: we are inherently animists. Skeptisism may put that light off depending on the will and findings of each, but even then animism is were we aim. If only in our dreams

 

[SageTree]

Babies haven't formed an ism to create a schism.

Babies just ARE.

 

[Me Myself]

Babies haven't formed an ism to create a schism.

Babies just ARE.

Atheism is pretty much formed by just being (human)

 

[Valjean]

Can it also be something (for lack of a better term) gained?
I know a few kids who believe in God, even when their parents don't, who believe in God, even in this Godless, heathen society.

I wonder if some people are predisposed for theism or atheism.

Seems so:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ginary-presidents-and-imaginary-gods-the-real

Agent detection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SageTree]

Atheism is pretty much formed by just being (human)

I'm saying babies don't create labels to divide themselves or make themselves distinct or their stance understood.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm saying babies don't create labels to divide themselves or make themselves distinct or their stance understood.

Ohhh

Sure, but neither do rocks and they still got names

 

[SageTree]

Ohhh

Sure, but neither do rocks and they still got names

:namaste

Don't mistake the finger for the moon, my Friend.

Rocks don't need names or labels, given by us, to exist and carry on.

Our Ego might say differently.

 

[Me Myself]

:namaste

Don't mistake the finger for the moon, my Friend.

Rocks don't need names or labels, given by us, to exist and carry on.

Our Ego might say differently.

I am sure they don't.

I mean we still call names to that and those who wont call themselves by those.

We do call them "babies" dont we?

:namaste