Author Topic: Are babies atheist?  (Read 1486 times)

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6322
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2016, 09:12:10 AM »
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).

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

OldGit

  • Ich em alder thene ich wes awintre and ech a lare
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 10746
  • Gender: Male
  • No amount of belief makes something a fact.
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2016, 05:04:40 AM »
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.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14309
  • The GrayGod
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2016, 06:20:04 AM »
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.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6322
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2016, 06:48:25 AM »
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.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14309
  • The GrayGod
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2016, 10:38:38 AM »
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.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6322
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2016, 11:42:22 AM »
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.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

No one

  • Sprach mit Zarathustra
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2016, 01:45:49 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.

existentialcrisis

  • Beginning to See the Wedge
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are babies atheist?
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2016, 08:28:26 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.





There are no facts, only interpretations. - Friedrich Nietzche

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. - Benjamin Franklin.