Are Babies Atheist?

[DrTaffy]

Exactly, I think lack of belief fits more with agnosticism. If you use ‘lack of belief’ then you include agnostics as atheists, but this isn’t the case; it is something different. This is because you can have a cross of agnosticism and atheism or theism. So:

Atheism says “No”
Agnostic Atheism says “I don’t know, but probably no”
Agnosticism says “I don’t know”
Agnostic Theism says “I don’t know, but probably yes”
Theism says “Yes”

This is my understanding of the terms based on their roots.

Agnosticism or gnosticism is about whether or not you claim to know whether or not God exists, in my opinion. So as you say, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. What you call theist or atheist I would call gnostic atheist or gnostic theist. So gnostic/agnostic or theist/atheist are orthogonal terms.

I don’t like the term gnostic/agnostic as the meaning depends so much on how you define ‘knowledge’: absolute logical proof? personal certainty? proof beyond reasonable doubt? balance of probability?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This thread shows how useful it would be to lift the “temporary” ban on discussing atheism (3+ years!). The amount of misunderstanding is just too much.

Simple definitions:

Theism: The belief in the existence of some god or gods.
Atheism: The lack of belief in the existence of some god or gods.

They have nothing to do with conscious rejection of the god-concept. Those people who

1. never heard about gods
2. are unable to understand this concept
3. find this concept incoherent
4. actively reject this concept
   are all atheists. Of course, due to the prevailing belief that “atheism” is sinister, evil, despicable, nihilistic, etc… if one points out that small children are by default - atheists - will bring forth a “righteous indignation”: how dare you equate those small, beautiful, innocent babies with the evil brethren of Stalin, Mao, etc…

Yes, indeed. It is high time to dispel the ignorance.

So atheism is a hermeneutical principle? Kind of like Sola Scriptura…

American Atheists say:

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.

Merrian-Webster say:
Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oddly enough its first known use started at the same time as the Reformation…

I don’t think your fist two numbers apply in any given case and they stand on their own and apart from atheism.

 

[Pilgrim_333]

I think that if Roman Catholics get to define what ‘Roman Catholics’ believe, atheists get to define what ‘atheists’ believe.

And atheists, from all my experience, are fairly united in stating that atheism is the lack of theism, that is to say the lack of a belief in God rather than a positive assertion that God does not exist.

Further Jimmy Akin is playing word games in contrasting statements that the ‘natural state of humanity’ is not believing “there is a God”, or not believing “There is no God”. Both are true: the natural state is having no particular beliefs about ‘God’ whatsoever until someone has introduced you to the idea. And having no particular beliefs about ‘God’ would be atheism.

(Devil’s advocate: Then again define God. I doubt that babies believe in a sentient being who initiated the Big Bang, but a vague enough definition of God could include what babies believe of the nice lady who brings them lunch.)

The difference being that Roman Catholics have a canon, creed, a catechism, canon law, 2,000 yrs. of philosophical development etc. This does not exist in atheism, since atheism is not an assertion of truth but rather an assertion of doubt aimed toward a commonly held truth. Atheism, in this regard, is akin to moral relativism and moral relativism as a philosophy is vapid and ultimately indefensible.

 

[Tyrion]

No. The word is from the Greek for “without a god”, not “without belief”. So a better simple definition would be:

Atheism: The belief in the lack of existence of some god or gods.

The word is derived from the Greek “theos” as you said. But there is more to this than just the linguistic “source”.

The words “theism” and “atheism” both describe a metaphysical stance. One either believes that some god (or gods) exist, or one does not believe that. The reason why one does not believe that is irrelevant. “Theism” is positive belief. “Atheism” in its widest and linguistically correct sense is simply the negation of “theism”. Sure, it can have several sub-categories under it, one of them would be the positive belief that “gods” do not exist.

Also, there is an unfortunate tendency of trying to bring in a “third” option - namely “agnosticism”. Agnosticism is an epistemological approach, not a metaphysical one. One either believes, or one does not. There is no “third” option.

 

[bzkoss236]

The word is derived from the Greek “theos” as you said. But there is more to this than just the linguistic “source”.

The words “theism” and “atheism” both describe a metaphysical stance. One either believes that some god (or gods) exist, or one does not believe that. The reason why one does not believe that is irrelevant. “Theism” is positive belief. “Atheism” in its widest and linguistically correct sense is simply the negation of “theism”. Sure, it can have several sub-categories under it, one of them would be the positive belief that “gods” do not exist.

Also, there is an unfortunate tendency of trying to bring in a “third” option - namely “agnosticism”. Agnosticism is an epistemological approach, not a metaphysical one. One either believes, or one does not. There is no “third” option.

Thank you for supporting our point: that atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God or gods, instead of a lack of belief. That either one believes, or does not. A lack of belief applies to how agnostic one is.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The baseline for humanity is theism, as shown by the overwhelming majority of the earth’s population. Atheism is an aberration (no offense to atheists, this is just on a statistical level). Thus, babies are born as natural theists.

We instinctively cry out, whether as infants or adults, to the Other with the realization that there IS an Other - consciousnesses outside our own, that can help us or feed us or comfort us. It is one of, if not the first, realizations an infant forms. The movement from solipsism to communion with other minds is the first step in the formation of a human consciousness. Babies would have no reason to believe there is NOT a consciousness greater than their parents to watch over them and love them, so there would be no reason for a baby to be an atheist.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No.

Atheism is a **conscious **choice to **reject **God and/or any other entity they believe is presented as a deity.

A baby, naturally embraces its creator.

I think this answer hits the nail on the head. Atheists have positioned themselves to reject belief in God. One is not born with this positioning. You see it is not just about knowledge or beliefs but it is about ones attitude and openness to God. I find many atheists to be closed to the idea of God to the point of confrontational, even angry at God. A baby is open to God since it is more innocent and has no preconceived views. An atheist is hardly a blank slate.

From a spiritual perspective Satan can not feed the lie of atheism to a child until much later and usually after they have backsliden.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Babies cannot reason or make decisions for themselves until they are of age 7. So no.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Agnosticism or gnosticism is about whether or not you claim to know whether or not God exists, in my opinion. So as you say, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. What you call theist or atheist I would call gnostic atheist or gnostic theist. So gnostic/agnostic or theist/atheist are orthogonal terms.

I don’t like the term gnostic/agnostic as the meaning depends so much on how you define ‘knowledge’: absolute logical proof? personal certainty? proof beyond reasonable doubt? balance of probability?

“Gnostic” should not be used as a complement of agnostic as it is a novel use of the word. Gnosticism is already a well established religious term with a totally unrelated meaning.

newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Babies cannot reason or make decisions for themselves until they are of age 7. So no.

I did not realize that we had pinned down the age of reason with such precision and certainty!