Should babies be regarded as Athiests?

[ytrewq]

This topic came up in another thread, and IMO merits it's own thread.

I am not asking whether babies would be regarded as Atheist by way of this or that definition of Atheist. What I am asking, is whether babies should be regarded as Atheist, and why?

And if consensus is reached on whether it is reasonable to to regard a baby as Atheist, then then it is up to us to either come up with or modify the definition of Atheist as required.

This is a topic that both Theists and Atheist can contribute to, potentially with much agreement. Please do so.

[marco]

This topic came up in another thread, and IMO merits it's own thread.

I am not asking whether babies would be regarded as Atheist by way of this or that definition of Atheist. What I am asking, is whether babies should be regarded as Atheist, and why?

And if consensus is reached on whether it is reasonable to to regard a baby as Atheist, then then it is up to us to either come up with or modify the definition of Atheist as required.

This is a topic that both Theists and Atheist can contribute to, potentially with much agreement. Please do so.

Babies are not moral philosophers in that they have no ability to think or discuss views. They are neither theist not atheist just as my pet rabbit was once neither atheist nor theist, as far as I coudl tell.


The age of eight is commonly regarded as the age of reason and some might say that children of that age can think things out. Kids as young as four have displayed ability in chess but I don't recall reading of any babies who were budding Fischers.

[wiploc]

Babies are not moral philosophers in that they have no ability to think or discuss views. They are neither theist not atheist just as my pet rabbit was once neither atheist nor theist, as far as I coudl tell.

Babies are non-theists. Some of us use "atheist" as an exact synonym for "non-theist."

I'm not telling you which definition you should use, but, for many of us, babies are atheists because they are not theists.

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by wiploc]

I'm not telling you which definition you should use, but, for many of us, babies are atheists because they are not theists.

Is the claim any better if babies were left out of it?

Let's see..."for many of us, we are atheists because we are not theists."

This make no better sense. It implies that atheists exist because theists exist.

The better definition of 'Atheist' is - "Someone who does not believe in the existence of GODs."

Not even - 'Someone who does not believe in the existence of GODs, because there are people who do believe in the existence of GODs."

[Mithrae]

Babies are non-theists.

Can you substantiate that claim? As far as I can tell, it requires that you start with the assumption that god and souls do not exist in the first place, because if god and souls exist it's entirely possible if not probable that the baby's soul understands even if its brain did not. Obviously it's not exactly persuasive to say that if atheism is true babies are atheists.

Furthermore I explained in post #4 that even if we do assume materialist naturalism, it's still entirely possible that babies do have a theistic perspective; not a religious theology of course, but some sense of a greater, ever-present nurturing being which ticks all the main theistic boxes. No-one has even attempted to refute this, and yet several folk have continued to assert that babies aren't theists. It looks more like dogma than anything else.

[marco]

Babies are not moral philosophers in that they have no ability to think or discuss views. They are neither theist not atheist just as my pet rabbit was once neither atheist nor theist, as far as I coudl tell.

Babies are non-theists. Some of us use "atheist" as an exact synonym for "non-theist."

Well they are also non-electrical engineers, non-olympic athletes, non-poets though they may certainly be modern artists. I don't see where this leads.


An atheist may be a non-theist and a baby may be a non-theist but we cannot make the assumption that if A is not B and C is not B then A = C.

[Bust Nak]

An atheist may be a non-theist and a baby may be a non-theist but we cannot make the assumption that if A is not B and C is not B then A = C.

But it wasn't presented as an assumption; it was presented as a synonym. We are not assuming they mean the same thing; we are defining them as the same thing.

[marco]

An atheist may be a non-theist and a baby may be a non-theist but we cannot make the assumption that if A is not B and C is not B then A = C.

But it wasn't presented as an assumption; it was presented as a synonym. We are not assuming they mean the same thing; we are defining them as the same thing.

I don't know what you mean by synonym here. Nor do I understand what you are "defining". Are you saying a baby and an atheist are the same thing????
Je suis perdu, as Napoleon said at Waterloo.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

Check wiploc's post, I am saying atheist and non-theist are the same thing.

[marco]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

Check wiploc's post, I am saying atheist and non-theist are the same thing.

Then the problem with your regarding these as synonyms is you are assuming the population is divided into two mutually exclusive groups, when in fact there may be a third category: neither atheist nor theist and a baby would be an example of a person in such a category. A corpse, too, mught be placed into such a category. If your population is all those capable of having a view, then that can be split in two.
I think it is generally understood there is some mental activity involved in being an atheist.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

Check wiploc's post, I am saying atheist and non-theist are the same thing.

Then the problem with your regarding these as synonyms is you are assuming the population is divided into two mutually exclusive groups, when in fact there may be a third category: neither atheist nor theist and a baby would be an example of a person in such a category. A corpse, too, mught be placed into such a category. If your population is all those capable of having a view, then that can be split in two.
I think it is generally understood there is some mental activity involved in being an atheist.

What would you see then as the difference between an atheist and a non-theist?

How would you define this third category? Not a so much name for it, but what position could exist between belief and lack of belief?