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

[Thief]

I think the statement "baby is atheist" is a response to the theist who usually impose all kinds of extraordinary claims about non-follower and tends to pretend they can speak for non-follower's position.

For example coming from some believer from some various religion/sect/denomination:
- My (version of) God create everyone including you.
- Everyone including you are my (version of) God's children.
- Everyone including you are create to worship, obey and love my (version of) God.
- Immoral pathetic sinner, repent now.
- Everyone including you deserve to go to hell or be punish by my (version of) God or the individual people self-punish themselves because of their sin but my God is kind enough to offer salvation to those sinners, accept it and thank my God.
- Everyone including you who don't follow my (version of) God will go to hell or being punish or self-punish themselves through magical consequences.
- Swine.

Some atheist sometimes gets annoy by those proselytize, so the statement "baby is atheist" born.

After getting annoy by those proselytize.
Some atheist say to those theist: Everyone including you when they was baby they was atheist, too bad the default position is atheism but not your theism. Since you so favour at speaking for my position, now how do you feel i speak for your position?

Personally i think it's fine for anyone to believe whether when they was baby they was atheist/theist or neither, but it can be a problem if they wish to use their analogy to convince, speak for, apply to other people and claim it as facts/truths...

I can relate to some of this.....
maybe I should qualify my previous post....

we are God's children....up to that point of denial....and we say, nay.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just using your logic, cupcake.

Wrong, sport.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps you could explain where you think I'm misunderstanding?

I asked for the difference between a rock and a baby where it concerns belief in god.
"consciousness" is not an explanation.

 

[Acim]

I asked for the difference between a rock and a baby where it concerns belief in god.
"consciousness" is not an explanation.

I observe it as a concise explanation.

Beyond the concise, the explanation would state: the difference between a rock and a baby, where it concerns a belief in god, is that a rock is not understood to have a consciousness. A baby, however, is understood to have (underdeveloped) consciousness that is growing in capability toward belief. The rock is not (known to be) growing in consciousness, therefore never gaining the ability of belief.

Further: by consciousness, I'll go with dictionary definition of: the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world

Seems none are confident in what specifically a baby's mind is aware of, either about itself or the world. But pretty sure no one is arguing that a baby is inherently unaware of itself or the world. Whereas, a rock provides no discernible way of understanding self awareness or awareness of the world.

Because none are confident in what specifically a baby's consciousness is aware of, then that is the default (not knowing what a baby knows/understands). Thus plausible to assert that a baby would first become aware of persons raising them. People who are (highly) influential in their lives, and who are (likely, but not always) their creators. Leading to the notion that babies are quickly growing in an awareness that does position them to be in a relationship that observably is theistic, though kind of depends on how one is defining god(s).

 

[McBell]

I observe it as a concise explanation.

Beyond the concise, the explanation would state: the difference between a rock and a baby, where it concerns a belief in god, is that a rock is not understood to have a consciousness. A baby, however, is understood to have (underdeveloped) consciousness that is growing in capability toward belief. The rock is not (known to be) growing in consciousness, therefore never gaining the ability of belief.

Further: by consciousness, I'll go with dictionary definition of: the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world

Seems none are confident in what specifically a baby's mind is aware of, either about itself or the world. But pretty sure no one is arguing that a baby is inherently unaware of itself or the world. Whereas, a rock provides no discernible way of understanding self awareness or awareness of the world.

Because none are confident in what specifically a baby's consciousness is aware of, then that is the default (not knowing what a baby knows/understands). Thus plausible to assert that a baby would first become aware of persons raising them. People who are (highly) influential in their lives, and who are (likely, but not always) their creators. Leading to the notion that babies are quickly growing in an awareness that does position them to be in a relationship that observably is theistic, though kind of depends on how one is defining god(s).

So the difference is merely that the baby will someday be able to form a belief and or reject it?

And you do not see that as a grasping at straws?
Interesting.

 

[Acim]

So the difference is merely that the baby will someday be able to form a belief and or reject it?

And you do not see that as a grasping at straws?
Interesting.

I think it's not known what a baby believes. That's the default position of (non-baby, conscious) observers.

The grasping at straws part is adding babies into a discussion among adults about what babies would say on this particular topic.

 

[McBell]

I think it's not known what a baby believes. That's the default position of (non-baby, conscious) observers.

The grasping at straws part is adding babies into a discussion among adults about what babies would say on this particular topic.

Thank you further demonstrating my point.

 

[Acim]

Thank you further demonstrating my point.

...that those who bring babies into a discussion to falsely bolster position of (weak) atheism are grasping at straws.

You're welcome.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Every baby is attracted to its mother naturally and refuses others, this attraction is rightly interpreted towards One (G-d)- the Creator.
Regards

 

[McBell]

...that those who bring babies into a discussion to falsely bolster position of (weak) atheism are grasping at straws.

You're welcome.

Perhaps you should go back and reacquaint yourself with my position on the matter before you make yourself look even more foolish.

 

[Sonofason]

I get where you're going with this, but technically I don't agree because the word "agnostic" has to do with certainty...specifically gnostic means you feel you have certain knowledge about something and agnostic means you admit you don't have, or can't have, specific knowledge about that thing.

You can have Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists...it just means you feel like you can't be sure. An agnostic atheist believes there is no God but admits he does not know, while an agnostic theist believes in God but also admits he does not know.

Agnostic doesn't just mean complete absence of opinion, it speaks to how sure or unsure the person is about something. It says if they feel they do know or can know something, or that the don't or can't know something. Since a baby in incapable of thinking on this level, I don't think you can call a baby agnostic (or gnostic) about anything.

In fact I might argue that gnostic vs. agnostic is more advanced thinking that belief or disbelief. A small child can believe in Santa Claus and not the boogeyman, so they likely understand the concept of belief and disbelief at an earlier age than they could articulate what certainty v. uncertainty is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

If cognition is necessary for one to be agnostic, then you're right, and then babies are neither atheist, theist, nor agnostic. We'll just have to leave them out of our little charade. They are definitely not atheist, because atheism is a belief as much as theism is a belief. One believes no god exists, and the other believes that one does. Those who have no opinion on the matter, those who haven't given it any thought, dont get labeled. But I will not accept a definition of atheism that suggest that they have no belief. They most certainly do.

 

[McBell]

Those who have no opinion on the matter, those who haven't given it any thought, dont get labeled. [

Bull
They get labeled all the time.
The only thing required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a deity.

But I will not accept a definition of atheism that suggest that they have no belief. They most certainly do.

your inability (or is it unwillingness?) to understand how a particular position is possible does not magically make said position non-existent.

Nice try though.

 

[Acim]

Perhaps you should go back and reacquaint yourself with my position on the matter before you make yourself look even more foolish.

My response wasn't about you. I'd rather stick to the ideas up for discussion.

 

[columbus]

Like most people, I voted "lacks the ability to comprehend".
There is a word for this, "igtheist". It's a combination of ignorance and theology.

All babies fall into this category, but not only babies. My aunt, Noreen, was born with some serious problems. Noreen could dress herself and had a little vocabulary. But I don't think she ever understood anything as abstract as God, much less "Jesus is my Saviour". She was not a believer nor was she an atheist. I think there are a lot of people who are like that. Igtheist seems like the most accurate word.
Tom

 

[McBell]

Like most people, I voted "lacks the ability to comprehend".
There is a word for this, "igtheist". It's a combination of ignorance and theology.

All babies fall into this category, but not only babies. My aunt, Noreen, was born with some serious problems. Noreen could dress herself and had a little vocabulary. But I don't think she ever understood anything as abstract as God, much less "Jesus is my Saviour". She was not a believer nor was she an atheist. I think there are a lot of people who are like that. Igtheist seems like the most accurate word.
Tom

would not the baby need to come to the determination "every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God" before becoming an igtheist?

Interestingly enough, I have been unable to find your stated "lack the ability to comprehend" in any listed definition or description of the term, concept, etc. for igtheist.

Would you please be so kind as to reveal your source?

 

[Burl]

Other.

My default position when I'm a baby is that you are here for my entertainment And you're failing, AAARG!

That's probably been said already, but I'm not reading the whole thread.