Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Babies Aren't Atheists

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Babies are atheists, since atheism is not having belief in god". I hear variations of this falsehood a lot, so I am going to correct it here.

Babies, by their nature, cannot "be" any position. They are not Republicans, they aren't solipsists, they aren't absurdists. Babies simply are empty vessels. To claim they an grasp god enough to reject the position of belief in God is therefore blatantly wrong-headed. You might as well say "my baby is not a Republican". The baby cannot grasp enough epistemology to be for or against any position. Consequently, they cannot be against God existing.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 3:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
"Babies are atheists, since atheism is not having belief in god". I hear variations of this falsehood a lot, so I am going to correct it here.

Babies, by their nature, cannot "be" any position. They are not Republicans, they aren't solipsists, they aren't absurdists. Babies simply are empty vessels. To claim they an grasp god enough to reject the position of belief in God is therefore blatantly wrong-headed. You might as well say "my baby is not a Republican". The baby cannot grasp enough epistemology to be for or against any position. Consequently, they cannot be against God existing.

Yeah exactly. Babies are not republicans. Saying a baby is an atheist is exactly like saying 'babies don't believe in god' and you seem to understand that already, so your arguments nullify themselves.

People become whatever religion they belong to through lifelong indoctrination based on their cultural hemisphere.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 3:35:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:15:35 PM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
"Babies are atheists, since atheism is not having belief in god". I hear variations of this falsehood a lot, so I am going to correct it here.

Babies, by their nature, cannot "be" any position. They are not Republicans, they aren't solipsists, they aren't absurdists. Babies simply are empty vessels. To claim they an grasp god enough to reject the position of belief in God is therefore blatantly wrong-headed. You might as well say "my baby is not a Republican". The baby cannot grasp enough epistemology to be for or against any position. Consequently, they cannot be against God existing.


Yeah exactly. Babies are not republicans.

But babies aren't not Republicans either. If their parents are Republicans, they may live as Republicans and have Republican posters in their room, etc.

Saying a baby is an atheist is exactly like saying 'babies don't believe in god' and you seem to understand that already, so your arguments nullify themselves.

No, I didn't say, that, I said they couldn't grasp any epistemological postion on things.

People become whatever religion they belong to through lifelong indoctrination based on their cultural hemisphere.

Genetic fallacy.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 3:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:35:29 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

No, I didn't say, that, I said they couldn't grasp any epistemological postion on things.


Well it doesn't matter what you say. Babies still don't belive in god, whether they understand epistemological positions or not.

Genetic fallacy.

It's only a genetic fallacy if the person in question convert to another religion because of different influence outwards. Otherwise it is 100 % firm to say that people tend to pick up the religion their parents give them and only have it because their parents raised them that way.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 3:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
"Babies are atheists, since atheism is not having belief in god". I hear variations of this falsehood a lot, so I am going to correct it here.

Babies, by their nature, cannot "be" any position. They are not Republicans, they aren't solipsists, they aren't absurdists. Babies simply are empty vessels. To claim they an grasp god enough to reject the position of belief in God is therefore blatantly wrong-headed. You might as well say "my baby is not a Republican". The baby cannot grasp enough epistemology to be for or against any position. Consequently, they cannot be against God existing.

Definitions:
Atheist - Somebody who doesn't believe a god exists
Baby - Somebody who doesn't believe a god exists

Ergo babies are atheists. A=A.

It's not hard logic.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Babies simply are empty vessels.

Ta-Da!

And an empty vessel has no belief in God... therefore, an atheist. Thank you for clearing that up!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

They are not Republicans
. . .

You might as well say "my baby is not a Republican".

Uhm... yeah. Okay, atheists have no belief in God. Babies have no belief in God. How does that mean babies aren't atheists, again?

Maybe you should try arguing this with Neutral. He's upset because some atheists wrongfully told him that he wasn't an atheist before he believed in God. Now you're trying to claim that babies - who have no belief in God - are somehow other than atheists.

The point is this - you're inducted into religion. And if you had never been introduced to religion, you would likely have retained your lack of belief in God. It's something society and your parents introduce you to.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Babies simply are empty vessels.

Ta-Da!

And an empty vessel has no belief in God... therefore, an atheist. Thank you for clearing that up!

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:
a"the"ist
G2;āTHēG6;ist/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
(https://www.google.com...)

Now here is Agnostic:

ag"nos"tic
agG2;n"stik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God
(https://www.google.com...)

If you do not see the difference by reading them let me expound.
Atheist=No God
Agnostic= Neither belief or disbelief in anything
Different? I think so. Which applies to babies? I would think agnostic would more correctly.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A baby does not believe that there is not enough information to make a decision.
Not agnostic.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

And a baby is a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, babies are atheists.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:52:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

And a baby is a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, babies are atheists.

You seem to have a error. It is not that they lack belief, they do not have one. To lack belief you would have to have knowledge of said belief and babies cannot understand religion. Therefore, they cannot be Atheist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:57:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:54:12 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:52:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

And a baby is a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, babies are atheists.

You seem to have a error. It is not that they lack belief, they do not have one. To lack belief you would have to have knowledge of said belief and babies cannot understand religion. Therefore, they cannot be Atheist.

Atheism in no way is related to religion.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 6:08:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:54:12 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:52:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

And a baby is a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, babies are atheists.

You seem to have a error. It is not that they lack belief, they do not have one. To lack belief you would have to have knowledge of said belief and babies cannot understand religion. Therefore, they cannot be Atheist.

The error is all yours. Not having something, and lacking something, are the same thing.

Do you not have a Rolls Royce?
Do you lack a Rolls Royce?

It's the same thing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 7:11:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 6:08:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:54:12 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:52:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

And a baby is a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, babies are atheists.

You seem to have a error. It is not that they lack belief, they do not have one. To lack belief you would have to have knowledge of said belief and babies cannot understand religion. Therefore, they cannot be Atheist.

The error is all yours. Not having something, and lacking something, are the same thing.

Do you not have a Rolls Royce?
Do you lack a Rolls Royce?

It's the same thing.
In that context, yes. But to say that I am lacking in patience does not mean I have any patience. It means I have little of or need more. Here is a definition:

lack"ing
G2;lakiNG/
adjective
not available or in short supply.
(https://www.google.com...)
So we see two different meanings. Therefore, once again, it is up to us to make the connection to what it is. Personally, I think it is in short supply.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 7:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:57:55 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:54:12 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:52:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:24:45 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 5:19:23 PM, Beastt wrote:

No, not exactly. An Atheist is this:

noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

And a baby is a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, babies are atheists.

You seem to have a error. It is not that they lack belief, they do not have one. To lack belief you would have to have knowledge of said belief and babies cannot understand religion. Therefore, they cannot be Atheist.

Atheism in no way is related to religion.

That seems a small bit like saying pots have nothing to do with cooking. Atheism, by definition, is related to religion. If you do not think so, go argue with a dictionary. There is not much else I can do.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 7:48:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 3:03:21 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
"Babies are atheists, since atheism is not having belief in god". I hear variations of this falsehood a lot, so I am going to correct it here.

Babies, by their nature, cannot "be" any position. They are not Republicans, they aren't solipsists, they aren't absurdists. Babies simply are empty vessels. To claim they an grasp god enough to reject the position of belief in God is therefore blatantly wrong-headed. You might as well say "my baby is not a Republican". The baby cannot grasp enough epistemology to be for or against any position. Consequently, they cannot be against God existing.

You have done nothing to establish a falsehood existing. You HAVE established that you don't understand what "atheist" means-- literally, it means "without theism."

Much like a baby is apolitical-- "without politics"-- which you have correctly established, a baby is atheist. The huge difference between a child atheist and a full grown adult atheist is that the child is much more easily swayed toward theism.

I remember my college church fellowship saying quite gravely, "If we cannot get to them by age 22(ish), they are most likely lost forever."
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you define every thing that doesn't believe in any deity as an atheist, even if it doesn't have the mental capabilities to believe, then babies are atheists. And so are rocks, trees, water molecules. You get the point.

However, if you define atheist as a person, who doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, then a baby is not an atheist, because a baby is not a person.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:02:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Trees, toilet paper, smallpox, air, and agnostics also lack belief in God. So unless you readily define atheism synonymously with ignorance and agnosticism, lacking belief in God is not an accurate definition for atheism. We can semantically define terms however we want. Actually rejecting that God exists is not inherent in babies.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:21:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:00:38 PM, Skikx wrote:
If you define every thing that doesn't believe in any deity as an atheist, even if it doesn't have the mental capabilities to believe, then babies are atheists. And so are rocks, trees, water molecules. You get the point.

However, if you define atheist as a person, who doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, then a baby is not an atheist, because a baby is not a person.

A baby is not a person? Yikes...

I'll let you all in on the issue at stake: this is fundamentally about the burden of proof, not personhood. Atheism is the default human state, much like being naked. Theism is PUT ON a child, as is clothing. One of the prime differences is that we have evidence for clothes existing but not deities.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:27:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:02:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Trees, toilet paper, smallpox, air, and agnostics also lack belief in God. So unless you readily define atheism synonymously with ignorance and agnosticism, lacking belief in God is not an accurate definition for atheism. We can semantically define terms however we want. Actually rejecting that God exists is not inherent in babies.

Yes, definitions are important. I have heard this nagging issue put this way:

Weak atheist: merely lacks belief in a deity

Strong atheist: actively disbelieves in a deity

I have used the term "anti-theist" to mean "against theism" as well. So, it gets complicated...

Richard Dawkins is a strong atheist, and even he has admitted that he would change his position with compelling proof. He believes strongly that that will never happen, so it can get pretty circular.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:29:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:21:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:00:38 PM, Skikx wrote:
If you define every thing that doesn't believe in any deity as an atheist, even if it doesn't have the mental capabilities to believe, then babies are atheists. And so are rocks, trees, water molecules. You get the point.

However, if you define atheist as a person, who doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, then a baby is not an atheist, because a baby is not a person.

A baby is not a person? Yikes...

I'll let you all in on the issue at stake: this is fundamentally about the burden of proof, not personhood. Atheism is the default human state, much like being naked. Theism is PUT ON a child, as is clothing. One of the prime differences is that we have evidence for clothes existing but not deities.

Atheism doesn't entail disbelief in God then either. So the default position is neutral just like agnosticism and ignorance. The only benefit of using atheism in this manner is a false connotation of disbelief.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:37:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do babies believe in a god?

Yes-theist
No-atheist
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:29:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:21:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:00:38 PM, Skikx wrote:
If you define every thing that doesn't believe in any deity as an atheist, even if it doesn't have the mental capabilities to believe, then babies are atheists. And so are rocks, trees, water molecules. You get the point.

However, if you define atheist as a person, who doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, then a baby is not an atheist, because a baby is not a person.

A baby is not a person? Yikes...

I'll let you all in on the issue at stake: this is fundamentally about the burden of proof, not personhood. Atheism is the default human state, much like being naked. Theism is PUT ON a child, as is clothing. One of the prime differences is that we have evidence for clothes existing but not deities.

Atheism doesn't entail disbelief in God then either. So the default position is neutral just like agnosticism and ignorance. The only benefit of using atheism in this manner is a false connotation of disbelief.

First, see my post above yours. Second, agnostic is also a tricky term. The layperson sees it as "I really don't know either way." Technically, it means that knowledge of the supernatural is unprovable (unknowable) just as the absence of it is unprovable.

Then there's "secular" which I think means that one doesn't know or care either way.

So, you could have an agnostic theist (rare) or an agnostic atheist. If it comes up in conversation, I say I am agnostic, but I think that technically I am an agnostic atheist who, if there is a deity, it is so undefined, mysterious, and unevidenced in this universe as for me to not care that it exists.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:44:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:21:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 9/25/2014 8:00:38 PM, Skikx wrote:
If you define every thing that doesn't believe in any deity as an atheist, even if it doesn't have the mental capabilities to believe, then babies are atheists. And so are rocks, trees, water molecules. You get the point.

However, if you define atheist as a person, who doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, then a baby is not an atheist, because a baby is not a person.

A baby is not a person? Yikes...

I'll let you all in on the issue at stake: this is fundamentally about the burden of proof, not personhood. Atheism is the default human state, much like being naked. Theism is PUT ON a child, as is clothing. One of the prime differences is that we have evidence for clothes existing but not deities.

This has nothing to do with the burden of prove for or against the existence of a deity.
This is solely about the definition of the term "atheist" and whether or not a baby fits that definition.

Yes, the default position is not to believe in any deities. But a stone doesn't believe in any deities either. Because the stone doesn't even have a mind and without a mind it can not believe. And without a mind the stone is not a person.

Atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

According to this definition, the stone, even though it doesn't believe in any deities, is not an atheist, for the stone is not a person.
A dog, albeit much more intelligent than a stone, does not have the mental capability to belief in any deities. But is the dog an atheist?
No, for the dog is not a person.
A baby, while it doesn't believe in any deities, is not a person either, therefore it is not an atheist.

For a baby to be an atheist, the requirement of personhood must be stripped from the definition of the term atheist.
Leaving you with "a thing that doesn't believe in the existence of any deities." And as I said in my previous post, if you define atheist in such a way, then inanimate objects would be atheist as well.
Simplified, you could say that everything that is not actually a theist, is an atheist.
I am not saying that this definition is wrong. I am just saying, that as long as the definition of the term atheist includes personhood, as many here have said (including atheists), then babies are not atheists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 8:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 8:37:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Do babies believe in a god?

Yes-theist
No-atheist

It's actually more like this:

Yes- theist
No- atheist, ignorance, agnosticism.

So all agnostics must be atheists too. My toilet paper is an atheist. All three are equally applicable as "lacking belief". The important thing keep in mind, semantics aside, is that a baby doesn't reject that God exists. A baby (using an accurate term) is simply ignorant of the belief of whether or not God exists.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 9:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright... I have projected in my head how this discussion would pan out with Sikkx (sp?) and I can concede:

Babies are not atheists because they have neither the ability to believe nor the ability to lack belief! Whew... I think I saved us all some trouble there...

That said, this reminds me of a joke from Frasier Crane on "Cheers":

How many babies does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. Babies lack the depth perception and motor coordination to screw in a light bulb!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 11:18:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Babies are Babies you fools :D no really if they are "athiests" because they are not believing in God so my poops (just 3 hours ago they left me) are athiests too, they are non-believers lol.
Never fart near dog