Poll: Are all babies atheist?

[Willamena]

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

That's true, and that's not atheism.

 

[ChristineES]

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

A baby can't believe in God and a baby also can't not believe in God. As I keep repeating, how can a person either believe or disbelieve something that they never heard of? You have to actually have to know about something before you can either believe it or not believe it.

And I changed that to ignostic later- since someone mentioned a baby couldn't be agnostic without knowing about something, either, and I agreed.

 

[ChristineES]

I want to also add: Belief and nonbelief are not, in my opinion, choices; but they are something that a person consciously acknowledges. A baby hasn't learned enough to have that kind of sophistication to be able to acknowledge belief or nonbelief in something.

 

[Magic Man]

That's true, and that's not atheism.

Yes, it is.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

From here.

 

[crossfire]

Where's the option for "Babies think they are god?"

 

[Willamena]

Yes, it is.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

From here.

Yes, it is, but that says nothing about not understanding.

 

[Willamena]

Where's the option for "Babies think they are god?"

Is that atheism?

I considered the option: "This poll is atheist."

 

[YmirGF]

Is that atheism?

I considered the option: "This poll is atheist."

Or perhaps "This poll is breathtakingly stupid"... but I suppose some would think that a tad rude.

 

[Willamena]

Or perhaps "This poll is breathtakingly stupid"... but I suppose some would think that a tad rude.

The obvious is not always the obvious.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, it is, but that says nothing about not understanding.

Yes, it does. As I said, if you don't have an understanding of (meaning you don't know anything about) a deity, you necessarily lack the belief that one exists.

 

[YmirGF]

The obvious is not always the obvious.

I keep forgetting that some require spoon feeding.

 

[Sir Doom]

I voted, "I don't know." because I can't:

Ask them.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's true, and that's not atheism.

I, too, happen to think that it is. Atheism is a default "belief" far as I can figure it out.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, it does. As I said, if you don't have an understanding of (meaning you don't know anything about) a deity, you necessarily lack the belief that one exists.

Regardless that they have a relationship, "the absence of understanding" and "the absence of belief" are two different things. Atheism is only defined by one of those things.

Edit: It's not atheism until it's atheism. If you extend the definition to make a mere lack of understanding atheism, every time you do something like that--extend it--you lose a bit of what "atheism" means (until it can become no longer recognizable).

 

[LuisDantas]

Regardless that they have a relationship, "the absence of understanding" and "the absence of belief" are two different things. Atheism is only defined by one of those things.

Edit: It's not atheism until it's atheism. If you extend the definition to make a mere lack of understanding atheism, every time you do something like that--extend it--you lose a bit of what "atheism" means (until it can become no longer recognizable).

Trouble is, you are starting from a "default" definition of atheism that seems quite arbitrary (at least to me). What you call "extending the definition" I call refusing to artificially restrict it.

 

[Willamena]

Trouble is, you are starting from a "default" definition of atheism that seems quite arbitrary (at least to me). What you call "extending the definition" I call refusing to artificially restrict it.

If you extend the meaning of "atheism" to take into account a default position (between belief and non-belief) that is included nowhere in the definition, you lose a bit of what "atheism" means.

It's not arbitrary--its history can be traced.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you extend the meaning of "atheism" to take into account a default position (between belief and non-belief) that is included nowhere in the definition, you lose a bit of what "atheism" means.

Nope, because I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. I guess you could, since you seem to use a very different definition from mine. I can not.

I am not sure I even see that default as any different from atheism, much less as a necessary distinction. For all I can tell, the distinction is completely speculative, even fictional.

It's not arbitrary--its history can be traced.

I don't know about that. Got any references? In a previous post, perhaps? I will have to decide if it is worth attempting to shift my understanding of what Atheism as a concept means. Odds are that I won't manage to even if I decided that I should try, though.

 

[Father Heathen]

To not have an understanding is not "lacking belief".

How can you believe in a concept that you're not familiar with or aware of?

any more than having an understanding is "having a belief."

You don't need to believe in a concept in order to understand its premise, but you need to understand the premise to believe in the concept.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Scientifically a supernatural deity doesnt exist. Theism is a learned trait.


So you dont have to make a decision to be a aitheist, you only need to lack theism. Which of course all babies do.

Babies lack theism, that makes them atheist.


If we placed babies in isolation and no theism was ever taught to them, there is a good chance they would develop their own mythical beings that would break their natural atheism.

 

[Willamena]

I don't know about that. Got any references? In a previous post, perhaps? I will have to decide if it is worth attempting to shift my understanding of what Atheism as a concept means. Odds are that I won't manage to even if I decided that I should try, though.

Wikipedia has some references at the bottom of the page.
History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFAIK, atheism means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism