Are babies atheist?

[LuisDantas]

Arguably atheism isn't non-theism proper, either.

Some people seem to find the distinction meaningful, even important.

I have very little notion of why or how.

Come to think of it, I no longer even see a point to agnosticism. I have come to perceive it as raising a minor matter far above its due significance, and for no discernible benefit.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Why somene? All nouns are objects. Would you prefer I said some object?

You are arbitrarily moving the not.

It went from:

Not a person who believes in a god

To

A person who believes not in a god

And I would propose the best definition just moves it further on down to

A person who believes in not a god.

Because that's what the word means. Theism is a term to designate a certain belief. Obviously it only applies to beings as non beings can't hold beliefs. Your contention is ill considered and totally absurd.

 

[Curious George]

I have yet to see a convincing case for why that would be so.

Strong atheism is not atheism proper.

Saying it does not make it logically coherent.

Would you agree that atheism as you are referring to it is defined by a lack of belief in god or believing no god exists?

Would you agree that these are two separate things?

Further would you agree that a lack of belief can come from an inability to believe that a god exists or that no god exists?

This inability can come from either a lack of knowledge regarding the concept or a lack of ability to believe.

If so there are now three differentiating circumstances that vary distinctly all for which you would use the same term when it could be easily circumvented. Sounds like you want equivocation.

It is much more pragmatic to make the first distinction a belief and the lack of a belief as two separate categories. Especially when one of the categories revolves around a lack of knowledge which is related to agnosticism. And the last, well if there is an inability to believe then it isn't really applicable to them anyway.

 

[Willamena]

So without believing in a deity there is no self huh.

Lets see if I have a tinfoil hat in your size...

Yes, because deity is other than self.

To unite self with deity is to distinguish both terms.

 

[Curious George]

Because that's what the word means. Theism is a term to designate a certain belief. Obviously it only applies to beings as non beings can't hold beliefs. Your contention is ill considered and totally absurd.

And theism is a term to designate belief for those with the capacity to believe. If we are going to go that route, why not make capacity the defining characteristic, not personhood?

 

[Erebus]

That is one benefit (Islaam apparently fits that bill).

But mainly, it is useful because it underscores the nature, limitations and downsides of theism.

You know, I was just about to quote your previous post! I was vaguely aware that some theists have argued that babies are intrinsically *insert religion here* but didn't realise it was a common stance. Perhaps then that component of it has more widespread application than I gave credit for.

Still not really sold on its utility outside of that scenario mind you. That said, I don't find it especially important whether somebody's an atheist, theist or self-identifies as a platypus. I sometimes wonder if my slightly mystified stance on a lot of these discussions comes from me not living in an area where being the wrong brand of theist gets you lynched.

 

[Curious George]

Some people seem to find the distinction meaningful, even important.

I have very little notion of why or how.

Come to think of it, I no longer even see a point to agnosticism. I have come to perceive it as raising a minor matter far above its due significance, and for no discernible benefit.

And some people find the lack of distinction important. I really do not see why, especially if they don't understand why others see the distinction as important.

 

[Magus]

Yes, we are born with a blank brain, it is like saying, Is a baby born knowing the English language, nope, Not brainwashed with the English language yet.

 

[Curious George]

That is one benefit (Islaam apparently fits that bill).

But mainly, it is useful because it underscores the nature, limitations and downsides of theism.

Excepting stating that theism is not applicable to babies either is just as effective.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, we are born with a blank brain, it is like saying, Is a baby born knowing the English language, nope, Not being brainwashed with the English language.

Yet there is evidence that there is some inborn knowledge regarding the categoization of language. Essentially most people believe we are predisposed to language, i.e. we are not tabula rosa.

 

[LuisDantas]

Saying it does not make it logically coherent.

True enough. Try me.

Would you agree that atheism as you are referring to it is defined by a lack of belief in god or believing no god exists?

Yes.

Would you agree that these are two separate things?

Sometimes. Not always. You seem to be assuming a substance and stability to god-beliefs that I do not think can realistically be found there.

"Deities" are up there, very close to the ultimate freestyle concepts.

Further would you agree that a lack of belief can come from an inability to believe that a god exists or that no god exists?

A technical possibility, I suppose. We would have to establish how to detect a deity before a meaningful answer could be given.

This inability can come from either a lack of knowledge regarding the concept or a lack of ability to believe.

Among several other possibilities, sure.

If so there are now three differentiating circumstances that vary distinctly all for which you would use the same term when it could be easily circumvented. Sounds like you want equivocation.

No, I just don't want to encourage the perception that deities, gods and theism have inherent substance and delimitation.

All of those are human creations, and particularly ill-defined at that. We all should acknowledge that and mislead ourselves no more.

Those who want equivocation, consciously or otherwise, are those who treat those three words as solid ground for establishing other ideas.

It is much more pragmatic to make the first distinction a belief and the lack of a belief as two separate categories.

Is it? Why?

Especially when one of the categories revolves around a lack of knowledge which is related to agnosticism. And the last, well if there is an inability to believe then it isn't really applicable to them anyway.

Unfortunately, all of that effort of yours crumbles to the ground from the get-go, because the core ideas are much more malleable and capricious than they would have to be for your definitions to have true meaning.

 

[LuisDantas]

And some people find the lack of distinction important. I really do not see why, especially if they don't understand why others see the distinction as important.

Would you rather have me support equivocation?

 

[LuisDantas]

Excepting stating that theism is not applicable to babies either is just as effective.

Apparently not.

 

[Willamena]

Yet there is evidence that there is some inborn knowledge regarding the categoization of language. Essentially most people believe we are predisposed to language, i.e. we are not tabula rosa.

Kudos for equating god with language.

 

[Curious George]

True enough. Try me.



Yes.


Sometimes. Not always. You seem to be assuming a substance and stability to god-beliefs that I do not think can realistically be found there.

how so?

"Deities" are up there, very close to the ultimate freestyle concepts.

Seemingly irrelevant

A technical possibility, I suppose. We would have to establish how to detect a deity before a meaningful answer could be given.

How is that necessary?

Among several other possibilities, sure.

Name them.

No, I just don't want to encourage the perception that deities, gods and theism have inherent substance and delimitation.

All of those are human creations, and particularly ill-defined at that. We all should acknowledge that and mislead ourselves no more.

You are going to have to explain how what I said entails such a consequence.

Those who want equivocation, consciously or otherwise, are those who treat those three words as solid ground for establishing other ideas.

Non sequitur

Is it? Why?

To avoid equivocation and preserve logical consistency.

Unfortunately, all of that effort of yours crumbles to the ground from the get-go, because the core ideas are much more malleable and capricious than they would have to be for your definitions to have true meaning.

A speculation yet to be reasoned.

 

[Curious George]

Would you rather have me support equivocation?

Equivocation happens because of a lack of distinguishment which is what you are proposing.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Curious George , whatever you are talking about and calling "theism" does not much resemble what I have met.

I am not sure it can be met in this universe.

 

[Sha'irullah]

One thing I should bring up which nobody is addressing is that although a baby may not have a concept of a particular religion the baby will be born with the concept of theism unknowingly. Theism is just a withdrawal of one's own self to another conscious or uniform mind. It is essentially saying that one's own autonomy is questionable and under another autonomy.

Children experience this in the form of parenting and it is a biologically innate concept. Theism at least conceptually can foster without any external aid. I have witnessed this countless times in fost and daycare kids when I grew up.

You will always notice how a child associates agency to things that we do not interpret as having will of its own or at least the product of a will.

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George , whatever you are talking about and calling "theism" does not much resemble what I have met.

I am not sure it can be met in this universe.

That is a separate argument. And gladly one I would meet. if you think that it necessary to meet that argument first then just say so.

 

[Indagator]

Believing in supernatural is pretty natural

You got cavemen in Paleolithic period believing in something, and cavemen are as natural as humans can get, so potentially i think babies are theists.