While babies are not born Muslims or Xians are whatever the fuck, they are born fairly helpless and rely on parental cues and influencing their mothers to take care of them. And of course any bollocks the parents believe will be passed on.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

RealityRules wrote:
1 as if babies have a 'theological position'.

2 "to demand that babies only be ascribed identities that they themselves embrace" - sheesh

3 As if atheism is a theological position.

I haven't read this whole thread, but Isn't the obvious retort "There's no such thing as a theist baby". That I would have more confidence in stating, because babies aren't born with faith, they have it drilled into them when they're a little older.

DavidMcC wrote:I haven't read this whole thread, but Isn't the obvious retort "There's no such thing as a theist baby". That I would have more confidence in stating, because babies aren't born with faith, they have it drilled into them when they're a little older.

Funny I was thinking along the same lines but did not post it.

because babies aren't born with faith, they have it drilled into them when they're a little older.

Absolutely agree.

More madness from Andrew Brown:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... s-religion

Andrew Brown wrote:There are as many atheisms as there are gods

Atheism has stalked religion for as long as the latter has existed – and today’s variant only really got started in the 18th century

There are as many atheisms as there are gods. We spend most of our lives disbelieving in things without wasting time asking why, and quite right too. So what is it that makes some particular forms of disbelief intellectually fertile or socially significant? Nick Spencer’s short history of atheism goes a long way towards answering this question, and anyone seriously interested in religion and irreligion today should read it.

More here

There is a difference between a theist and an atheist baby. A theist is required to actually believe in something while an atheist doesnt have to actively disbelieve something.

Every baby like my cat is an atheist

mrjonno wrote:There is a difference between a theist and an atheist baby. A theist is required to actually believe in something while an atheist doesnt have to actively disbelieve something.

Every baby like my cat is an atheist

It is as simple as this: "Atheist" means "not a theist".
Babies, armchairs and rocks aren't theists, go ahead and label them "atheist" if you like. They are likewise apolitical.

ADParker wrote:

mrjonno wrote:There is a difference between a theist and an atheist baby. A theist is required to actually believe in something while an atheist doesnt have to actively disbelieve something.

Every baby like my cat is an atheist

It is as simple as this: "Atheist" means "not a theist".
Babies, armchairs and rocks aren't theists, go ahead and label them "atheist" if you like. They are likewise apolitical.

Cats are definitely theists, they believe in themselves and enjoy being worshiped.

ADParker wrote:

mrjonno wrote:There is a difference between a theist and an atheist baby. A theist is required to actually believe in something while an atheist doesnt have to actively disbelieve something.

Every baby like my cat is an atheist

It is as simple as this: "Atheist" means "not a theist".
Babies, armchairs and rocks aren't theists, go ahead and label them "atheist" if you like. They are likewise apolitical.

I suspect that some people understand atheist to mean "consciously not theist". Babies are not conscious of not being theist.
(Here, "consciously" = "actively".)

... In other words, babies are neither theists nor atheists, IMO.

DavidMcC wrote:

ADParker wrote:

mrjonno wrote:There is a difference between a theist and an atheist baby. A theist is required to actually believe in something while an atheist doesnt have to actively disbelieve something.

Every baby like my cat is an atheist

It is as simple as this: "Atheist" means "not a theist".
Babies, armchairs and rocks aren't theists, go ahead and label them "atheist" if you like. They are likewise apolitical.

I suspect that some people understand atheist to mean "consciously not theist". Babies are not conscious of not being theist.
(Here, "consciously" = "actively".)

Hmm, I guess that makes some sense. I get what you're saying. However, I am of the opinion that not being something does not require actively doing anything. I mean, to actively do nothing seems quite a ridiculous thing to say. To be a theist requires actively believing in something. Being an atheist doesn't mean actively not doing the thing theists do. Atheists don't actively not believe in God, do they? They just... don't do it — and not necessarily as a conscious effort not to. It just doesn't happen.

DavidMcC wrote:... In other words, babies are neither theists nor atheists, IMO.

Yes, I suppose you could say that.

Anyway, that concludes my ramblings for the day. I should get some sleep. See you all tomorrow!

LucidFlight wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

ADParker wrote:

mrjonno wrote:There is a difference between a theist and an atheist baby. A theist is required to actually believe in something while an atheist doesnt have to actively disbelieve something.

Every baby like my cat is an atheist

It is as simple as this: "Atheist" means "not a theist".
Babies, armchairs and rocks aren't theists, go ahead and label them "atheist" if you like. They are likewise apolitical.

I suspect that some people understand atheist to mean "consciously not theist". Babies are not conscious of not being theist.
(Here, "consciously" = "actively".)

Hmm, I guess that makes some sense. I get what you're saying. However, I am of the opinion that not being something does not require actively doing anything. I mean, to actively do nothing seems quite a ridiculous thing to say. To be a theist requires actively believing in something. Being an atheist doesn't mean actively not doing the thing theists do. Atheists don't actively not believe in God, do they? They just... don't do it — and not necessarily as a conscious effort not to. It just doesn't happen.

...

There may be some vagueness in the definition of the word, "atheist" that allows this dichotomy, but I, for one, always understood it to imply that some thought had been given to it, before anyone described themselves as "atheist". On the other hand, many children of theists are brought up to be theist, before they have had a chance to even think for themselves, just through the language the parents used (eg, "God" says this, "god" does that, etc). With that vocabulary inculcated into a child, theism must seem only natural.

DavidMcC wrote:I suspect that some people understand atheist to mean "consciously not theist". Babies are not conscious of not being theist.
(Here, "consciously" = "actively".)

In response to this and somewhat what has followed:
This to me is around a distinction between a simple definition and the application of a label.

To me "atheist" means "not a" (a-) "believer in any gods" (theist). Which simply means anything not of the set "theists". But as a label it is stupid to blather on about babies and rocks possibly being atheists.As stupid as asking if rocks believe in gods or what political parties they might favor.

Lily Allen is an atheist babe.

theropod wrote:So, babies don't believe in anything, they're agnostic by ignorance? Sounds more reasonable

If they don't believe in anything they are atheists. An agnostic is someone who has taken a specific position on whether it's actually possible to know or not.

In other words, I guess: Babies are atheists, but it is impossible for them, to be agnostics.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

theropod wrote:So, babies don't believe in anything, they're agnostic by ignorance? Sounds more reasonable

If they don't believe in anything they are atheists. An agnostic is someone who has taken a specific position on whether it's actually possible to know or not.

In other words, I guess: Babies are atheists, but it is impossible for them, to be agnostics.

Babies are theists, because they believe in the first [and last] real gods they ever see -their parents.

Panderos wrote:Alright, if your definition is not arbitrary (and I think Thomas sensed the issue there when he answered 'neither, never' - the two of you appear not to be consistent here), then why choose birth as where atheism begins? Why not conception? Why import an arbitrary definition of personhood into your definiton of an atheist? Some people consider personhood beginning earlier.

Here's the real sticking point. The simple fact is that bricks, electrons, sperm, eggs, are all atheist. It only appears to be silly to describe them as such because those are not useful concepts to apply to them. Everything in the universe that does not have an active belief in a deity is atheist, but most of the things in the universe simply couldn't possess a concept such as a deity, so to actually describe them as atheist is meaningless. This is because, absent a conception of a deity, the term itself is meaningless. One doesn't actually need to have encountered or formed an opinion on the concept of a deity to be atheist, because the term itself is a privative. We say that it only applies to thinking entities because the opposing referent only applies to thinking entities.

Atheism is simply the non-acceptance of a specific class of truth-claim with regard to the existence of deities. One doesn't have to be a conscious, thinking entity to qualify, and all entities that are incapable of forming an opinion, including bricks, are thus defined.

Is a brick bald? Of course it is, because it doesn't have hair. It doesn't have to be capable of having hair to qualify as bald.

I face no such issue with my definition; to me a person becomes an atheist (or theist) when the god question is comprehensible to them.

Well, it's certainly true that one can only be a theist when the god question becomes comprehensible. Until such an event occurs, they are necessarily absent such a belief, and the privative 'atheist' applies, whether or not said application is actually useful or meaningful.

Telling you they are an atheist tells you the question of god is comprehensible to them

Confusion of map with terrain here. It is true that for somebody to be able to tell you that they're an atheist requires that they at least understand that there is such a conception as 'deity' but, similarly, for a brick to be able to tell you that it's bald would require that it had a conception of hair. That a brick can't have any such conception does not mean that it isn't bald.

and they believe the answer to be 'no he doesn't'.

That's just bollocks. I'm an atheist, and I have no such belief.

Your definition contains the information that the person either comprehends the issue and answers 'no', or does not comprehend the question.

Correct.

And also, is a human post birth. Animals are presumably not atheists in your definition as they are not post-birth humans.

One doesn't have to be human to be an atheist. One need only fit the criterion of not accepting a specific class of truth-claims with regard to the existence of a deity. That non-acceptance can occur whether or not an entity can formulate a conception of a deity.

An animal could be an atheist in mine if they were capable of comprehending the question.

What's the bollocks about comprehension? That's an entirely different question than whether or not one accepts truth-claims with regard to the existence of deities.

Now I think about it though, that is not necessarily the only definition I think would be reasonable. Another could be at the point a baby has built a model of the world in its mind, which could include a god of some sort. If it does, they are theist, if not, atheist. I don't know enough about the development of the brain to say when that is, it could conceiveably be pre- or post-birth. So I don't have some hidden reason for wanting babies to be non atheists if that is what you are thinking.

This is all irrelevant in the extreme. Can one be a platonist without any conception of number? No, so one would be aplatonist. The prefix denotes a privative. It's no more complicated than that.

I also make no distinction between believing in no god and not believing in god (unless they simply represent different levels of certainty).

Well, there is a distinction. The only thing is that said distinction is not a function of atheism, it's additional to it, which is why we apply additional terms to pin down the precise position (or lack thereof) of a given atheist. When defining something, it's important to ensure that your definition includes every member of the set, and excludes everything that is not a member of the set. To arrive at such definitions, we apply two principles, namely sufficiency and necessity. In the case of atheism, it is sufficient for an entity not to accept (regardless of whether or not they're actually capable of accepting) a specific class of truth-claim with regard to the existence of deities. Any entity that does not accept said truth-claims can reasonably be described as an atheist. It is also necessary, because if one does accept these truth-claims, one is a theist. This definition describes ALL positions that fall under the rubric of atheism, and excludes ALL that do not. Thus it defines what it is to be an atheist.

Too many see this as a philosophical issue, when it really isn't, it's an issue of language. If any definition does not include the principles of sufficiency and necessity, it fails to be a definition, because it will allow exclusion of members of the set or inclusion of non-members.

I'd need emprical evidence to be convinced that the brain is capable of two seperate types of considering that something does not exist.

That's because you're operating under the idea that atheism is the conclusion that something does not exist. This is a subset, at best, which means your definition is excluding members of the set.

I have always rejected the concept of atheist babies because a baby does not possess the cognitive capability
required to understand the term [ or indeed any for that matter ] I therefore never thought that it could still
be one regardless of that fact as it is so counter intuitive : namely that it can be something which it has zero
comprehension of. So a useful exercise in conscious raising that so thank you for that hack because I learned
something new. I hope now that I remember it and so do not resort to thinking as before [ slight possibility ]

Babies do not possess the cognitive ability required to understand the word "baby". Therefore, a baby can't be a baby.

So...it's not a baby???