What is your default position when you're a baby?

[Willamena]

I see two valid views for how the child relates to god, as I know the term. First, god is not the idea of god, which is to say that if you interpret god as an idea of deity (e.g. "someone to watch over me") then of course the child would not relate. Second, the idea of god is not god, which is to say that if you interpret god in terms of the universe, nature, aspects of such, or divisions of such, then relation is unavoidable. All that *is* (which, of course, entails *is not*) naturally relates to the whole and all its parts. (And that is not to look at god that cannot be looked upon.)

And there are multiple valid views for knowledge and belief: in terms of an active, voluntary, or willful conscious being, where the child's belief can be posed in terms of levels of brain activity, levels of comprehension, or levels of understanding of a subject; in terms of truth, where belief cannot be posed in order to relate a subject with an object; or in terms of information, or knowing, or proposing, or even posing. Etc.

For me, childhood stands apart from the world about which we toss words about, including the word "default." It's all well and fine for the adult to splinter the world into whichever words/terms are preferable to its sensibilities, but we should all recognize that these shiny words that exist only to please a need to speak *about* are not the world about which we speak.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Babies get it. Adults forget it.

 

[Quintessence]

I voted other as neither term is applicable to a baby. They both relate to epistemic positions that babies are incapable of holding.

The default is that babies lack the cognitive abilities to take philosophical positions on any issue, and labelling them as holding such philosophical positions on any issue is both silly and wrong.

Wouldn't that be the same as these poll options, though?

• "I know when I'm a baby I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist."
• "When I'm baby I lack the ability to comprehend God/god existence therefor neither Theist nor Atheist"

Of course, I also like a third option:

• The labels "theist" and "atheist" are almost entirely worthless in a multicultural society and should probably be discarded

 

[Demonslayer]

I lack the ability to comprehend God/god existence

Can you believe in something you lack the ability to comprehend?

 

[Quintessence]

Can you believe in something you lack the ability to comprehend?

Why are you asking me that? Isn't the answer obvious?

 

[BSM1]

I chose other because I don't remember being a baby.

 

[Demonslayer]

Why are you asking me that?

Because I like to poke the bear.

Isn't the answer obvious?

I think so, yes.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

I was a devout worshipper of Lord Shiva. I'd draw him on many white sheets and make the Lingam symbol with mud or clay outside.
I remember once I drew a Lingam behind the sketching finals in kindergarten.
I guess I was the one who set up an altar in my home which began with a marble Lingam I used to worship everyday with milk, flowers and 'beél' leaves.
I however do not remember why I was so taken by this God.
My parents worshipped Durga n her incarnations.
Though gradually my attraction went completely into Christianity and that too officially ended 2-3 years back.
So, I guess I was a Shivaite when I was a baby and a very devout at that.

 

[Willamena]

Peace be on all.
According to Holy Quran:
[7:173] And when thy Lord brings forth from Adam’s children — out of their loins — their offspring and makes them witnesses against their own selves by saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They say, ‘Yea, we do bear witness.’ This He does lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘We were surely unaware of this.’

So I believe a child comes with consciousness about God and he / she is fully innocent.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=848&region=E1&CR=EN,E2

I find it amusing that this same debate has been ongoing since at least those days.

 

[Willamena]

It always described a position. More recently some people have decided they would prefer to create a new etymology for the word and turn it into a non-position because it suits their ideological aims.

I personally prefer not to use the recent definition as it sucks.

As this poll was asking for people's opinions then I explained mine.

Other people may use whichever definition they want when they give their opinions.

 

[Willamena]

Since (as far as we’re aware) babies don’t believe in any god or gods, they’re weak atheists. It’s a fairly simple definition only make controversial because some people have chosen to see (or chosen to create the false image of) atheism being some active campaign against religion (often a specific religion) rather than just a passive characteristic individuals may or may not have.

If they don't have this alleged passive characteristic of weak atheists, then they cannot be weak atheists.

 

[Augustus]

• "When I'm baby I lack the ability to comprehend God/god existence therefor neither Theist nor Atheist"

Well spotted, missed that option and have changed my vote accordingly.

The labels "theist" and "atheist" are almost entirely worthless in a multicultural society and should probably be discarded

That certainly wouldn't have a negative impact on our ability to communicate effectively.

(Although RF traffic and advertising revenue would drop significantly, and people might find it harder to explain where rocks stood on the issue of the substantiality of higher powers)

 

[PackJason]

Satanist

 

[Riverwolf]

Like God.

I know things.

I just gotta look up.

 

[LuisDantas]

Since (as far as we’re aware) babies don’t believe in any god or gods, they’re weak atheists. It’s a fairly simple definition only make controversial because some people have chosen to see (or chosen to create the false image of) atheism being some active campaign against religion (often a specific religion) rather than just a passive characteristic individuals may or may not have.

Nailed it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course, I also like a third option:

• The labels "theist" and "atheist" are almost entirely worthless in a multicultural society and should probably be discarded

Isn't it more like they should be discarded because while lacking a clear meaning, they are often assumed (in conflicting ways) to hold some anyway?

Or, by another perspective, that the assumption that there is a clear meaning that is shared by many or most people should be challenged so that a true multicultural society can be consolidated?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What's the default position of a rock, theist or atheist?

 

[Flankerl]

What's the default position of a rock, theist or atheist?

 

[Demonslayer]

What's the default position of a rock, theist or atheist?

If it doesn't believe in anything, it can't believe in God.

 

[bobhikes]

After being indoctrinated before they have a chance to defend themselves. They didn't "find God" they were force fed God by their parents. Put a bunch of babies by themselves in a bubble and, besides the terrible stench, none of them would "find" the Gods of their parents.

That's your opinion and your entitled to it but it does mean it is correct.