Poll: Are all babies atheist?

[StarryNightshade]

I think the "all babies are born atheist" arguement is flawed. As a baby, I wasn't an atheist. Hell, I was barely conscious of my existence. To assume that a baby is born an atheist is to assume it is aware of its existence and has made the cognitive decision that God doesn't exist. Which, of course, it hasn't. Babies aren't born atheists. They are simply born humans.

 

[Valjean]

Quite so.
Meanings do change over time and colloquial usage often differs markedly from technical definitions. That's why serious discussions avoid colloquial usage and stick to strictly defined terms to avoid misunderstanding.

 

[Valjean]

I think the "all babies are born atheist" arguement is flawed. As a baby, I wasn't an atheist. Hell, I was barely conscious of my existence. To assume that a baby is born an atheist is to assume it is aware of its existence and has made the cognitive decision that God doesn't exist. Which, of course, it hasn't. Babies aren't born atheists. They are simply born humans.

Definition fail -- again.
An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that God doesn't exist. You're thinking of what's called strong atheism. Note the qualifying adjective to distinguish this concept from the basic, unqualified definition of atheism as simple lack of belief.

 

[Willamena]

Quite so.
Meanings do change over time and colloquial usage often differs markedly from technical definitions. That's why serious discussions avoid colloquial usage and stick to strictly defined terms to avoid misunderstanding.

So, "technical definitions" are not meanings?

 

[LuisDantas]

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).

I see where you are coming from. All the same, I happen to think that in this case the most inclusive definition is also the simplest and the most useful and legitimate.

Why so? Mostly because belief in God is supposed to be significant, to imply some sort of sense of wonder, of purpose or of gratitude.

I don't think it is very accurate or very respectful to take such deep emotional content as a default to be assume until evidence in contrary is found.

 

[Valjean]

Oh dear, now we're going to have to define "meaning."

A good definition is generally the simplest feature of a word that'll distinguish it from others. It's not an explanation. It's a starting point.

 

[Quagmire]

Thing is, this is one of those things that babies don't have to figure out, which is something I'm sure they thank God for (in their own way).

 

[Willamena]

Oh dear, now we're going to have to define "meaning."

A good definition is generally the simplest feature of a word that'll distinguish it from others. It's not an explanation. It's a starting point.

Technically, the simpler starting point is "is."

 

[Me Myself]

Thing is, this is one of those things that babies don't have to figure out, which is something I'm sure they thank God for (in their own way).

Which is, of course, pooping, burping, barfing and puting their feet inside their mouths.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I am not sure that is the case.

I think most if not all here who have said at lack of belief on a deity equals atheism do not exclude the other definition of active disbelief on a deity.

Am I wrong on that? Anyone?

 

[Badran]

Quite so.
Meanings do change over time and colloquial usage often differs markedly from technical definitions. That's why serious discussions avoid colloquial usage and stick to strictly defined terms to avoid misunderstanding.

I see where you are coming from. All the same, I happen to think that in this case the most inclusive definition is also the simplest and the most useful and legitimate.

Why so? Mostly because belief in God is supposed to be significant, to imply some sort of sense of wonder, of purpose or of gratitude.

I don't think it is very accurate or very respectful to take such deep emotional content as a default to be assume until evidence in contrary is found.

I agree with the above posts to the extent that i did find that definition to be the most helpful and the simplest in many situations. Particularly when trying to convey to someone else that there are varying degrees to the atheism of someone.

In this thread, i think what's most useful is to actually include all the known legitimate definitions, rather than just pick one. Reason being that the thread is particularly exploring how people understand atheism. Using that, we can then judge how helpful is the notion in question (the notion being categorizing babies as atheists).

Putting this in mind, i then think it's also reasonable to conclude that:

1) Technically, it's not false to say that babies are atheists.

2) However, it's not at all helpful to do so.

The reason i conclude the second point is because like i said in previous posts, it doesn't actually help us in categorizing babies at all. It doesn't tell me anything about them. It also doesn't negate other similar notions made by different religions, where the notion works logically within the framework of that religion.

I think what's more helpful is to set that group (babies and those unaware) aside, as a separate group of their own.

 

[Quagmire]

Which is, of course, pooping, burping, barfing and puting their feet inside their mouths.

Everything's a prayer if you do it in the right state of mind.

 

[Valjean]

Everything's a prayer if you do it in the right state of mind.

You've been reading Gita again, I see.

 

[Ozzie]

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'.

Yep I think they are all atheist, those born to atheist parents. Check out their birth certificates, says, "no religion". Just as well Jesus said, "suffer the little children", as a pathway into a theistic reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<yawn>

blah, blah, blah ... :sleep:​

</yawn>

Ill raise your boredom and call you with, ...

One cannot simultaneously raise and call.

... Babies are not theist.

Nor are they epidemiologists. Therefore?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A good definition is generally the simplest feature of a word that'll distinguish it from others.

atheism

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe that babies are born agnostic but not atheist.

No, of course babies are atheists. They've no understanding or awareness of the concept of a deity, much less a belief in one.

 

[LuisDantas]

1) Technically, it's not false to say that babies are atheists.

2) However, it's not at all helpful to do so.

The reason i conclude the second point is because like i said in previous posts, it doesn't actually help us in categorizing babies at all. It doesn't tell me anything about them. It also doesn't negate other similar notions made by different religions, where the notion works logically within the framework of that religion.

I think what's more helpful is to set that group (babies and those unaware) aside, as a separate group of their own.

From an accuracy standpoint, I suppose you are right. It does however raise the question of what is and what should be considered helpful far as theism/atheism categorizations go.

Maybe we should make an effort towards saying the intent each time such a classification is made. Although I think that would be a mistake, personally. It lends a bit too much importance to what is ultimately a nearly meaningless (and _usually_ abused) distinction.

Actual, useful theism is in fact fairly rare, or at least rarer than many seem to believe. It is also a very personal matter, to the point that we have little to no reason to know or care whether other people are theists.

In fact, it is probably best to let go of the whole concept of belief in God. Inspiration is a better approach.

 

[Willamena]

No, of course babies are atheists. They've no understanding or awareness of the concept of a deity, much less a belief in one.

To not have an understanding is not "lacking belief" any more than having an understanding is "having a belief."

 

[Magic Man]

To not have an understanding is not "lacking belief" any more than having an understanding is "having a belief."

If you don't know about/have an understanding of a concept, you can't believe it exists.