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.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by Tcg]

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?

Agnostic.

In relation to agnostics and babies though, as is being written, the knowledge of belief and non-belief is understood only by agnostics, not babies.

The category for babies is 'ignorance of all things to do with ideas of GODs' in relation to atheism, agnosticism and theism and the knowledge of belief and non-belief

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 30 by Tcg]

The category of 'not theists' includes rocks, trees, churches, dogs, zygotes and embryos: So would you say that churches and zygotes are atheists? That is the conclusion we would necessarily draw from an equivalency between 'non-theist' and 'atheist,' which seems both absurd and pointlessly confusing on the face of it.

So of course proponents of the 'babies are atheists' view (which of course does not include babies themselves) must hurriedly backtrack into "Oh no, no, no, we only meant that non-theist people are equivalent to atheists." So the attempt to claim babies for that camp requires not only redefining atheism far beyond the traits of those who actually consider themselves atheists, but introducing another debatable philosophical term into the equation also; denying that dogs can be 'people' for example, while asserting that humans become people... when, exactly? Only at the instant of birth? Sometime earlier or later?



And, again, this is even working under the unproven assumption that babies do not have a theistic perspective in the first place!

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 30 by Tcg]

The category of 'not theists' includes rocks, trees, churches, dogs, zygotes and embryos:

This is why I so rarely post of threads such as this. Rarely do I find posters interested in a meaningful exchange. Once rocks, dogs, trees, etc. enter the discussion, it is clear reasonable discussion has come to a end.

[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, might 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?

If we want to assert that things are either blue or non blue; pigeons or non pigeons; gods or non gods our statement is not incorrect but valueless. If we assume we are making a statement to which some sensible meaning can be attached, then we have to consider theism as involving thought of some sort and atheism as involving thought or decision. The third category would involve those incapable of thought or decision making. My dog is not an atheist nor a theist. I think babies are in the same category.


I do accept that we can classify things into X and non-X, but pointlessly so.

[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, might 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?

If we want to assert that things are either blue or non blue; pigeons or non pigeons; gods or non gods our statement is not incorrect but valueless. If we assume we are making a statement to which some sensible meaning can be attached, then we have to consider theism as involving thought of some sort and atheism as involving thought or decision. The third category would involve those incapable of thought or decision making. My dog is not an atheist nor a theist. I think babies are in the same category.


I do accept that we can classify things into X and non-X, but pointlessly so.

Does this reply address my question which was, "What would you see then as the difference between an atheist and a non-theist?".

If so, I missed it.

I also must have missed where you addressed this question, "...what position could exist between belief and lack of belief". You talked about dogs and babies, but I asked about neither.

[marco]

Does this reply address my question which was, "What would you see then as the difference between an atheist and a non-theist?".

If so, I missed it.

I also must have missed where you addressed this question, "...what position could exist between belief and lack of belief". You talked about dogs and babies, but I asked about neither.

I have the uncomfortable feeling that I am partly responsible for your having missed something.

In a general population there is NO section between X and non-X. On the question of atheism I am saying that the population has to be composed of those who can discern, make decisions, think. The baby is NOT in the population that has been divided into two parts.

To offer more clarification one could have a poisonous snake or a non-poisonous snake. There is a dichotomy but it is clear that one must correctly choose snakes as the population in which that dichotomy exists. Asking if a baby is a poisonous snake or a non-poisonous snake is not terribly meaningful, since we've placed a baby in a population to which it does not belong.

[PinSeeker]

This is a pretty interesting question, so I'll give my input here:

No, a baby cannot be an atheist, because he/she is unable at this stage of development to reason one way or the other and make any kind of decision, whether informed or not. How anybody could disagree with that I have no idea.

Actually, I guess it depends on how you think of the term 'atheist.' Yes, a baby lacks belief in any gods. In a strictly wooden sense, yes a baby lacks a belief in any gods. But the definition itself implies that a decision has been made, and an infant is incapable of making and can therefore not be held accountable or responsible for a decision of any kind.

Having said that, though, in my opinion, the question itself is missing the real question, which is, can a baby be a child of the Christian God? And the answer to that is... Well, I'll step back a bit and do a little deductive -- biblical -- reasoning.

What makes a believer/Christian a believer/Christian? Well, biblically speaking, one who has been born again, whose heart is regenerate of God (John 3:3,8). This can take place only because of the work of God via His Spirit (John 3:5,8). At that point, the person is given faith, which, rather than a "wish," is (as defined in the Bible itself) an assurance (Hebrews 11:1). It is the gift of God, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:9-10). The very concept of assurance implies that it comes from outside of oneself, and in the case of faith, its author is God. Jesus is the author and perfecter of the Christian's faith (Hebrews 12:2). And that can happen at any point in the person's life, whether in infancy (or even in the womb, as was the case with John, as someone pointed out earlier) or in old age.

I'll answer to this, too:

• A "baby" would be considered a child of God, as it is without sin, despite what many theist would believe. There are two classes of people, the sinner/wicked, and the righteous, those without sin. A baby would be of the latter class.

I would disagree wholeheartedly with this, not just because I want to, but because the Bible teaches very clearly differently. No one is born without sin. The sin in them may not have manifest itself outwardly yet, but that says nothing about the baby's nature, which is sinful. No human fails to sin at some point, and this is because of the nature he/she is born with. The biblical concept of sin is not just "doing bad things." I agree with you that there are two types of people, but I believe -- again, because the Bible clearly teaches it -- that the two are sinner and redeemed sinner. Some, but not all, at some point become the latter, but we are all, until that point for those who are Christians, the former. From birth. And to the earlier point, in the exact same vein, a person can be changed from sinner to redeemed sinner at any point in his/her life, because it depends on God, not upon the person.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 37 by PinSeeker]

How many Gods must I consciously reject in order to be an atheist?

[PinSeeker]

How many Gods must I consciously reject in order to be an atheist?

Oh, just one. You know... THE One.

[ytrewq]

How many Gods must I consciously reject in order to be an atheist?

Oh, just one. You know... THE One.

No, that is not right at all.

Am atheist rejects just one more God than the Theist.

And on, that basis, theists are remarkably atheistic.