Happy Atheist Forum

General => Philosophy => Topic started by: hackenslash on May 26, 2016, 11:47:24 AM

Title: Are babies atheist?
Post by: hackenslash on May 26, 2016, 11:47:24 AM
New post up: Are Babies Atheist? Semantics and Communication.

This is a treatment of a common derail in discourse with apologists. Also a treatment of PZ Myers' 'dictionary atheists' rant.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2016/05/are-babies-atheists-semantics-and.html
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Bad Penny II on May 26, 2016, 02:14:06 PM
I think some of them are Satanist.
Not your laid back man of wealth and taste Satanists.
The make every living thing wish they never were sort.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Siz on May 26, 2016, 04:38:32 PM
Well, in hindsight, I'd always been 'ic, if not 'ist...
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Bad Penny II on May 26, 2016, 05:02:25 PM
Commitment issues.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Pasta Chick on May 26, 2016, 05:30:33 PM
My research indicates babies are self worshipping, much like the Asmo

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/ca/2c/4eca2c44815ffdc70b92c52a4d7f3398.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/96/7c/98967ce2f6403965025858ab5577dea7.jpg)
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: hackenslash on May 26, 2016, 05:59:05 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Asmodean on May 26, 2016, 10:22:07 PM
Quote from: Pasta Chick on May 26, 2016, 05:30:33 PM
My research indicates babies are self worshipping, much like the Asmo
Yep. Utter narcissistic sociopaths.  ;D
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Kekerusey on September 01, 2016, 09:51:48 PM
Yes.

Keke
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Tank on September 02, 2016, 07:52:23 AM
No. Babies are not atheists.

To be an atheist one has to have been exposed to the concept of theism to come to the conclusion that a theistic god does not exist. As babies have no concept of a theistic god they can not be an atheist. They don't know about anything.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Kekerusey on September 02, 2016, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 02, 2016, 07:52:23 AMNo. Babies are not atheists.

To be an atheist one has to have been exposed to the concept of theism to come to the conclusion that a theistic god does not exist. As babies have no concept of a theistic god they can not be an atheist. They don't know about anything.

I disagree ... "theist" means to be "with god" , the "a" prefix in "atheist" reverses the sense of the word. Babies do not yet know of god or gods (they are without god/gods) so they are, by definition, "atheist". To become a "theist" is a "learned" thing IMO.

Keke
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Tank on September 02, 2016, 12:45:20 PM
Quote from: Kekerusey on September 02, 2016, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: Tank on September 02, 2016, 07:52:23 AMNo. Babies are not atheists.

To be an atheist one has to have been exposed to the concept of theism to come to the conclusion that a theistic god does not exist. As babies have no concept of a theistic god they can not be an atheist. They don't know about anything.

I disagree ... "theist" means to be "with god" , the "a" prefix in "atheist" reverses the sense of the word. Babies do not yet know of god or gods (they are without god/gods) so they are, by definition, "atheist". To become a "theist" is a "learned" thing IMO.

Keke
No. You agree with me. A baby knows nothing. So it can't be a theist or an atheist.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Kekerusey on September 02, 2016, 02:40:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on September 02, 2016, 12:45:20 PMNo. You agree with me. A baby knows nothing. So it can't be a theist or an atheist.

No I don't Tank, I believe that babies are clearly atheist based on exactly what I said before (on not being theist).

Keke
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Asmodean on September 02, 2016, 02:51:58 PM
Some call babies agnostic, but going with gnosticism pertaining to (claimed) knowledge and theism to professed beliefs, babies do default to atheism. Knowledge is not all that relevant here.

This is a semantic argument, really. Atheism spans from those without a belief in gods for whom religion is not an issue (Also called apatheism by some) to those who actively, sometimes militantly, identify with their non-belief. Put the degrees of caring within atheism on an x-axis of a graph, and babies and people with certain disabilities will fall within the leftmost group. Replace caring with the degrees of knowledge and you will get the same result. They are still atheist.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Davin on September 02, 2016, 03:53:40 PM
An atheist is just a person that lacks a belief in a god or gods. In that case, I agree with Kekerusey here (and many other people as well), that babies are people who do not believe in a god or gods. That doesn't mean that all atheists are babies, not does it mean anything useful in regards to babies. But the utility is not in discussing theism about babies, the utility is a consistent definition.

But then I got to thinking about our ignorance of the thoughts of babies. Because we can't talk about things with babies (nor do we presently have any other reliable means to discover their thoughts), they might develop some kind of concept of a deity that we wouldn't know about. We know if that ever happens or, if it does happen, how often it happens. Which means that speculation is fine, but discussing the beliefs of a baby is rather pointless and useless.

With this definition, things that are not people cannot be an atheist, so cars, rocks, and shoes, not being people, are not atheists just because they too lack belief in a god or gods.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Asmodean on September 02, 2016, 04:20:16 PM
Are babies people? As in persons rather than humans?
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Davin on September 02, 2016, 05:12:10 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 02, 2016, 04:20:16 PM
Are babies people? As in persons rather than humans?
I think after birth in when they start becoming people, because they are now independent (as in can survive without being attached to another person, obviously they still need care, but at that point, the care is no longer dependent on one specific person).
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: OldGit on September 03, 2016, 01:04:40 PM
When grabbed by a man in silly clothes and doused in cold water, they generally scream blue murder.  The have no illusions about faith, y'see.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Asmodean on September 03, 2016, 02:20:04 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 02, 2016, 05:12:10 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 02, 2016, 04:20:16 PM
Are babies people? As in persons rather than humans?
I think after birth in when they start becoming people, because they are now independent (as in can survive without being attached to another person, obviously they still need care, but at that point, the care is no longer dependent on one specific person).
Well... Yes. Personally, I just have a bit of a difficulty regarding anything that can't communicate With some degree of complexity as a person.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Davin on September 07, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 03, 2016, 02:20:04 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 02, 2016, 05:12:10 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 02, 2016, 04:20:16 PM
Are babies people? As in persons rather than humans?
I think after birth in when they start becoming people, because they are now independent (as in can survive without being attached to another person, obviously they still need care, but at that point, the care is no longer dependent on one specific person).
Well... Yes. Personally, I just have a bit of a difficulty regarding anything that can't communicate With some degree of complexity as a person.
Like people who speak a language you don't understand? I've spent a lot of time wondering about that. The dehumanization because of language happens here the state where I live a lot. Things like, "you're in America, speak American" are said a lot, and mostly not as a joke. Though I'm sure that you would be able to communicate at least a little with people who speak languages that you do not.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Asmodean on September 07, 2016, 06:38:38 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 07, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
Like people who speak a language you don't understand? I've spent a lot of time wondering about that. The dehumanization because of language happens here the state where I live a lot. Things like, "you're in America, speak American" are said a lot, and mostly not as a joke. Though I'm sure that you would be able to communicate at least a little with people who speak languages that you do not.
Not at all. I'm fully capable of recognizing a language I don't understand as an advanced form of communication. Some languages are more advanced than others, but in my book, none will have you demoted from personhood.

Being incapable of communicating in a way I can understand is not the same as not being an advanced enough life form to send more than basic messages. I suppose it can be cooked down to that life form's brain patterns and the like. A person in a coma whos brain can still perform tasks associated with complex thoughts and/or memory is still a person, even if one incapable of communicating with his surroundings. That's a bad example though, as the rules are somewhat different for those who fall ill or are injured in later stages of life.

Ok, time for one of my examples that often seem to offend people, but... that's what I do.

A [healthy, "normal"] dog is not a person, and yet it can communicate about as much to me as a [healthy, "normal"] human baby - perhaps more, given my barriers in understanding Canine. Given that, how is a baby a person? I'll buy that it is by definition, but I don't understand it.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: Davin on September 07, 2016, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on September 07, 2016, 06:38:38 PM
Quote from: Davin on September 07, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
Like people who speak a language you don't understand? I've spent a lot of time wondering about that. The dehumanization because of language happens here the state where I live a lot. Things like, "you're in America, speak American" are said a lot, and mostly not as a joke. Though I'm sure that you would be able to communicate at least a little with people who speak languages that you do not.
Not at all. I'm fully capable of recognizing a language I don't understand as an advanced form of communication. Some languages are more advanced than others, but in my book, none will have you demoted from personhood.

Being incapable of communicating in a way I can understand is not the same as not being an advanced enough life form to send more than basic messages. I suppose it can be cooked down to that life form's brain patterns and the like. A person in a coma whos brain can still perform tasks associated with complex thoughts and/or memory is still a person, even if one incapable of communicating with his surroundings. That's a bad example though, as the rules are somewhat different for those who fall ill or are injured in later stages of life.

Ok, time for one of my examples that often seem to offend people, but... that's what I do.

A [healthy, "normal"] dog is not a person, and yet it can communicate about as much to me as a [healthy, "normal"] human baby - perhaps more, given my barriers in understanding Canine. Given that, how is a baby a person? I'll buy that it is by definition, but I don't understand it.
I consider the dog a person. But I advance the term because I find that there is a possibility that there are intelligent, individual beings that might not be human. In the new case, I would accept an AI, an alien, and even non-human animals as a person. I consider a person to be an individual that is capable of independent thought, has their own preferences, can learn, and has the ability to make decisions. I would consider people who temporarily lose one or more of those things to retain their personhood. So under this classification, a human baby falls into it as well as a dog. No such AI presently exists that falls into it, and we have yet to meet any aliens.

However the most common definitions of "person" have the requirement of being a human.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: No one on September 07, 2016, 09:45:49 PM
Basically,the human in its larvae stage is a blank canvas, only waiting to be corrupted when the sperm donor and incubator decide to paint their own senseless drivel upon it.
Title: Re: Are babies atheist?
Post by: existentialcrisis on December 08, 2016, 03:28:26 PM
Quote from: hackenslash on May 26, 2016, 11:47:24 AM
New post up: Are Babies Atheist? Semantics and Communication.

This is a treatment of a common derail in discourse with apologists. Also a treatment of PZ Myers' 'dictionary atheists' rant.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2016/05/are-babies-atheists-semantics-and.html

Very interesting argument. It depends if science believes we are born as blank slates. That is what the article was hinting.

If we were born as blank slates and our canvas gets filled in based on our life exposures, then we were indeed born atheist and only confirm it once we are exposed to unfalsifiable beliefs.

However, a body of research also indicates that within our DNA, including Neanderthals, is a primordial need to create art and different levels of reality. It's inextricable with language and belief is deities is a SIDE EFFECT OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

So which is it? Unfortunately I think it is the latter. Research has shown when humans lack control they turn to external forces as the culprit. For as long as we existed we needed origin myths to fill a void. It's human nature. Belief in superstition is human nature and part of our DNA. We are indeed the silliest of all animals on this planet.