Poll: Are all babies atheist?

[Flankerl]

(X) Other
They usually follow Milkism and are therefore Milkists.


You are welcome. I would post a picture for proof but this is an american forum and those puritans might implode when they see it.

 

[outhouse]

Babies are ignorant, don't know anything. Being an atheist is an informed choice. You are rejecting God(s). You cannot reject something you don't know, that makes no sense.

Agnostic is more like it.

It is not a informed choice.

It is a lack of belief, theism is a learned trait. No person is born a theist, that makes the default position, atheist.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I know.

And to be honest, I raised it long ago in another one of this threads. Not with your catchy cool name for the form of adoration though

Our mommy who art with daddy, cuddle us in thou's arms.
Thy mommy cometh, oh so very soon, always as we whine.
Give us this day our daily milk and forgive us of our persistent crying.
Although we do not forgive those that cry like us.
Lead us not into diaper rash but deliver us from our doody.

For thine is The Mommy, The Daddy and The Older Sibling. Goo goo ga ga.

 

[Willamena]

It is not a informed choice.

Oh!

It's an uninformed choice.

The trees are uninformed, rocks are uninformed, babies are uninformed--it makes perfect sense!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is a lack of belief,...

<yawn>

blah, blah, blah ... :sleep:​

</yawn>

 

[Valjean]

I would call them non-theists.

You have to first grasp a concept before you can not believe in the concept.

No you don't. You automatically don't believe in something you've never heard of. Non-belief is the default position. "Non-theist" is synonymous with atheist.

Yes, but babies aren't capable of holding any beliefs, so calling them atheists adds no useful information. It's no different than calling a grasshopper an atheist. It's stretching semantic literalism to such an absurd extent as to render language meaningless.

But atheism isn't a belief, and we're not debating the utility of the term. It's like declaring "empty" a useless and meaningless concept.

A baby does not yet have the capacity of mind to formulate beliefs or opinions.

Given that atheism is a belief, it would be impossible for a baby to technically be, by their own will an atheist, Christian, Jew or whatever else.

Jeez! Why is this so complicated? Atheism is not a belief. It's a non-belief, a lack of belief. You're way over complicating this with irrelevant epistemic and metaphysical baggage.
The definition of atheist is simplicity itself. Anything that conforms to it is an atheist.

It is like suggesting that all animals are atheists

Now you've got it! If an animal does not hold a belief in God then, by definition, the animal is not a theist, ie: it's atheist.

I don't think it is possible to to either believe or disbelieve something you've never heard of.

That's like saying a sponge that's never encountered water cannot be dry.

Therefore, I reiterate- I don't think anyone can believe or disbelieve in something that he or she has never heard of.

You're thinking of strong atheism again. Basic, weak atheism is simply a lack of belief, an emptiness.
It's like saying a bucket that's never held anything cannot be called empty.

There are a lot of things I don't know and never heard of. I don't see how I can either believe them or not believe them. They are not in my mind, I don't even think about them and, as I said, I never heard of them.

But if a concept's never occurred to you isn't it fair to say you don't, and never did believe in it?
That's all atheism is. No complicated metaphysical baggage. It's a dead simple definition.

Babies are ignorant, don't know anything. Being an atheist is an informed choice. You are rejecting God(s). You cannot reject something you don't know, that makes no sense.

How many times do we have to define "atheist" before this simple concept sinks in? Atheism is neither informed nor a choice. It is not a rejection of anything. It's a simple lack of belief, an emptyness, a transparency. It's the epistemic default position.

If everyone's working from a different definition it's no wonder we can't see eye to eye. Can we get on the same page here?

 

[YmirGF]

I have very early childhood memories, from before I could talk. Those memories are almost like silent movies and span from when I was a few weeks old to around 18 months old. All I remember is being ALERT and soaking up everything like a sponge. If you had asked me if I believed in god during that era I would have just stared at you and perhaps drooled a bit and then smiled a radiant smile because I wouldn't have known what you were saying.

In regards to the OP, I'd say that kids neither believe nor disbelieve as they are far too engrossed by their day to day reality and have not formed a capacity for thought - as we come later to know thought.

 

[Badran]

How many times do we have to define "atheist" before this simple concept sinks in? Atheism is neither informed nor a choice. It is not a rejection of anything. It's a simple lack of belief, an emptyness, a transparency. It's the epistemic default position.

If everyone's working from a different definition it's no wonder we can't see eye to eye. Can we get on the same page here?

Insisting that the most inclusive definition of atheism is the definition of atheism is part of the problem here.

 

[Me Myself]

Insisting that the most inclusive definition of atheism is the definition of atheism is part of the problem here.

Its one of the definitions of atheism.

One that is in the oxford dictionary too.

The disbelief or lack of belief in e existence of deities.

 

[Willamena]

No you don't. You automatically don't believe in something you've never heard of. Non-belief is the default position. "Non-theist" is synonymous with atheist.

Yes, you do, else there is nothing to not believe in.

Unless, of course, you are making the comnposition fallacy of mistaking believing for an instance of belief.

 

[Willamena]

Its one of the definitions of atheism.

And one of the problems here.

 

[Badran]

Its one of the definitions of atheism.

One that is in the oxford dictionary too.

The disbelief or lack of belief in e existence of deities.

I know. I wasn't saying that it's an incorrect definition. I was saying that part of the mis-communication here is due to the simplistic approach some are taking in not recognizing that there are several senses to the word atheist.

 

[Valjean]

Inclusive?
I'm positing the basic, essensial atheism; the definition, not an exploration. If you want to extend the concept you can add adjectives.
"Strong," for example.

 

[outhouse]

<yawn>

blah, blah, blah ... :sleep:
​

</yawn>

Ill raise your boredom and call you with,

Babies are not theist.

 

[Quagmire]

Babies actually know all of the secrets of the universe, but they can't tell anybody because all the other humans around them are too busy talking to listen to them. That's why they cry so much.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's not the question - we probably all can understand children don't really have a belief at all, no held concept. The question is; is a lack of a concept in general of god mean atheism. So I voted other because it depends on your define of atheism

 

[Valjean]

Exactly, SoA. Definition's everything in argument and debate, and it's usually best to start with the most simple, unqualified and basic definition and ramify as necessary.

I agree with Outhouse: "Babies are not theist."
Not theist = atheist. Same-same.

 

[Badran]

Inclusive?
I'm positing the basic, essensial atheism; the definition, not an exploration. If you want to extend the concept you can add adjectives.
"Strong," for example.

The thing is i don't actually agree that this definition represents essential atheism, and that is once again not to say that i think it's inaccurate. But to say that this is just one way to go about it. There are other approaches to categorizing this, and i don't think there's any one clear cut correct answer. To someone else for example, essential atheism would be "the rejection of belief" and i don't think that they'd be wrong in thinking that.

Rather, i think it should come down to which categorization is most helpful. I recognize multiple approaches that seem technically valid to me, but not equally helpful. This is because my experience with the word leads me to believe that there isn't any one correct definition, rather that the issue is debatable and that the word carries more than one sense to it. So, my 'inclusive' description of the definition you posted was just to highlight your approach, and the rest of my post was to highlight that it's not necessarily the approach shared by others (and that it's not necessarily the correct one).

 

[Willamena]

...The question is; is a lack of a concept in general of god mean atheism. So I voted other because it depends on your define of atheism

That's right. How do we really know trees lack a concept of god?

 

[Willamena]

Inclusive?
I'm positing the basic, essensial atheism; the definition, not an exploration. If you want to extend the concept you can add adjectives.
"Strong," for example.

If you were around a hundred years ago, this wouldn't be the essential atheism.