•
•

Are babies born atheists? (self.DebateReligion)

B_anonchristian apologist が 投稿

Been hearing a lot about the whole "lack of belief" thing that seems to imply somehow that atheism is true, while the terms obviously aren't the same thing, let's take a look at some of the conlusions of this line of thinking.

If all babies are born atheist, then it's safe to say that all theists are ex-atheists and further that all atheists cannot be ex-Christian since they are just going back to the "default position". This also means that all agnostics are ex-atheists as well as anyone other than the position "atheism".

The whole "lack of belief" thing is blown out of proportion, especially in online apologetics and leads to absurd conclusions.

全 17 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]EdwardHarleyagnostic atheist 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Been hearing a lot about the whole "lack of belief" thing that seems to imply somehow that atheism is true

Considering the fact that atheism is merely the lack of belief, there's no way for atheism to be true or false. Who's saying this and where are you hearing it from?

while the terms obviously aren't the same thing

What terms?

If all babies are born atheist, then it's safe to say that all theists are ex-atheists and further that all atheists cannot be ex-Chistian since they are just going back to the "default position".

Your reasoning is flawed for 2 reasons:

1) It doesn't matter that babies could be considered atheists, it lends absolutely nothing to any sort of discussion. Anyone trying to argue that point is being dumb and disingenuous.

2) Someone could be an ex-Christian, because if someone is something and then they become something else, they are now an "ex" of whatever they previously were. Therefore, someone who used to be a Christian, but is now an atheist (no matter the definition you use), would be an ex-Christian.

Bonus) Atheism would be the default position. Not believing something is the default. If you have no good reason to believe something you don't believe it. If you haven't heard a claim you automatically don't believe it. You can't believe something you've never heard and you can't believe something you haven't been convinced that it's true.

If someone came up to you and said that their hair color changed overnight as a result of alien abduction, would you believe them? If so, why? If not, that's because the default is to not believe a claim until sufficient evidence has been presented to support it.

This also means that all agnostics are ex-atheists as well as anyone other than the position "atheism".

Agnostic, the way I, and many others, use it is not mutually exclusive with atheism. I'm an agnostic atheist.

The whole "lack of belief" thing is blown out of proportion, especially in online apologetics and leads to absurd conclusions.

Where is it blown out of proportion? Do you have some specific examples?

[–]Galligan4life 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not believing in something is patently different than lacking belief in something. Atheism is not believing in God or God's. Lacking a belief in God or God's doesn't really mean anything. If anything, it would mean you are too dull to form a conscience opinion or you've never even heard of gods and therefore you cannot feel anywhich way about them. Babies do in fact fit into that category, but they're not atheists. They believe in nothing and hold no opinions.

[–]EdwardHarleyagnostic atheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not believing in something is patently different than lacking belief in something.

The word lack means to "not have," correct? If I don't have belief, that means I do not believe. Not believing and lacking belief are exactly the same thing.

Atheism is not believing in God or God's. Lacking a belief in God or God's doesn't really mean anything.

As I just pointed out, they're exactly the same thing.

If anything, it would mean you are too dull to form a conscience opinion or you've never even heard of gods and therefore you cannot feel any which way about them.

If one has never heard of a claim or haven't actually thought about it, they would not be in the position to believe it. They would not believe it. They would not have a positive belief in it. They would lack belief in/of that thing. I could say it a few more different ways if you'd like, but I think I've used enough.

Babies do in fact fit into that category, but they're not atheists.

They would be atheists, but as I pointed out already using that as ANY sort of point in discussion is disingenuous and just plain dumb. I correct people if I see them using that point as anything substantial, because it doesn't further any discussion and is completely pointless.

They believe in nothing and hold no opinions.

They don't believe in gods, so they are atheists, and I've explained why it's useless to call them that.

[–]carmasays 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Babies aren't born believing in a god. How a person wants to label that isn't really important in my opinion. The default state is not having a belief in a god and this applies to all babies. This doesn't imply that it's true, just that it's the position that we all start out at.

[–]ThatguyIncognito 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Semantics. If by "atheist" we mean "a human who does not believe in any gods" then yes, babies are atheists. It's of limited use because babies also don't believe in Antarctica or, in most cases, Picasso. But it's useful to point out that we all start out with non-belief. Those who claim that some knowledge of God is innate have a lot of proving to do.

Usually we reserve the use of "ist" for someone who consciously takes a position. If that's the case babies aren't atheist. So first define the term and that will let us know whether or not babies are.

The rest of your argument about consequences of how we apply the term doesn't seem right to me. Nobody is born a Christian. That doesn't mean there are no ex-Christians. If born not a christian you later are raised one and then become an atheist, you are still an ex-Christian. Whether you were something before being a Christian, if you are one and then stop then you are an ex-Christian. Even if you have 20 other religions first.

If babies are defined as atheists then yes, all theists are ex-atheists. So? It doesn't mean they rationally changed position and thus it doesn't mean much.

Agnostics generally don't believe in god. A few self identified agnostics do. In no version of agnosticism would it matter that the agnostic used to be anything else, they are now, presumably by rational thinking, agnostic.

Lacking belief remains important. Theists pretty much invariably say that I can't prove there is no god. I agree. So? That doesn't get us any closer to showing there is one.

[–]afkpuezo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wat.

Been hearing a lot about the whole "lack of belief" thing that seems to imply somehow that atheism is true

What? Classifying atheism as a lack of belief doesn't mean it's automatically true/accurate/reasonable/whatever.

If all babies are born atheist, then it's safe to say that all theists are ex-atheists

Sure

further that all atheists cannot be ex-Chistian since they are just going back to the "default position".

What? If they were christian at one point, then stopped being christian, they are ex-christian.

This also means that all agnostics are ex-atheists as well as anyone other than the position "atheism".

Only if you take agnostic to be contradictory to atheism, which doesn't really work if we're going with defining atheism as 'lack of belief'.

The whole "lack of belief" thing is blown out of proportion, especially in online apologetics and leads to absurd conclusions.

I'd agree with that, but not in the way you want me to, I think.

Are babies born atheists?

I don't know, probably. I don't have a good way of getting into the minds of babies, but if they do not believe that at least god exists, then they are atheists. Certainly some people have claimed that babies (and in fact everyone) know that their version of god exists, so maybe babies are all born [insert denomination here].

Does it matter? I'm not sure I see the point of this question.

[–]Progle 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This also means that all agnostics are ex-atheists as well as anyone other than the position "atheism".

Are chimpanzees atheist? People are born without religion the same way that they are born without language. Just because they don't have it by default doesn't imply that it's bad. I agree that the lack of belief thing is blown out of proportion. I also think that religion is the default setting of the brain - in places where it doesn't exist, it ends up getting invented. That doesn't imply that theism is correct though.

[–]hurricanelanternanti-theist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes everyone is born without a god belief (so all babies are atheists). Yes the null position is "right"' until replicable verifiable evidence is presented that supports any assertion. And yes, 'agnostics' are atheists.

[–]stp2007 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Lack of a belief" doesn't imply that atheism is true.

However lacking a belief due to insufficient credible evidence is a more valid stance then accepting the belief.

[–]Ozzimo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Babies are born sponges.

They are genetically disposed to follow the parents and imitate what they do (and say). They will become what the adults around them, make them. It's one of the many reasons that early childhood education is so important.

[–]davidkscot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The main point the whole "lack of belief" thing tends to be about isn't "the 'default' state of babies" (although I have heard that sort of discussion before).

The "lack of belief" tends to be argued about a lot as it has implications about who has the burden of proof.

The person making a claim has the burden of proof. If atheism is "lack of belief" it means that atheists are not making a claim, so they don't have the burden of proof. Some people don't accept that this is the definition and instead prefer to define atheism as the claim "there is no god" which would have a burden of proof.

Please note in the description above I deliberately tried to present both sides equally without implying either is correct, because the point I'm making is not about which of these definitions might be correct, but rather that this tends to be the key issue, rather than "the 'default' state of babies", which is what your argument seemed to imply was the issue which was causing the quantity of discussion about this topic.

[–]spaceghotiagnostic atheist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Babies are not born believing anything either positive or negative. The "babies are born atheist" argument is a response to people saying "I was born Christian" or "I was born Hindu." No, we're not born anything, we're blank slates when we're born and take on the beliefs and attitudes taught to us by our parents and teachers.

[–]nomelonnolemon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just a small question, if we hold atheism to be a very broad explanation for any person or personification that is "non-religious" how does it lead to absurd conclusions?

When compared to the vast and wide definition of being a "theist" this definition of atheism doesn't seem to be any different or have any less explanatory power, in fact it seems on par? What are you having trouble grasping about this type of definition?

[–]websnarfatheist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If all babies are born atheist, then it's safe to say that all theists are ex-atheists

Correct.

and further that all atheists cannot be ex-Chistian

All ANYTHING cannot be ex-Christian. Christianity is achieved solely by indoctrination. Very few people with Islamic parents ever become Christian, much less ex-Christian.

since they are just going back to the "default position".

Well ... an person who transitions from Christian to atheism can still be considered an ex-Christian. It's just that their path went from atheist to Christian back to atheism again.

The whole "lack of belief" thing is blown out of proportion, especially in online apologetics and leads to absurd conclusions.

First of all, there is no such thing as atheist apologetics. Secondly, the only people who have difficulty understanding the whole atheism = "lack of belief" thing are non-atheists.

[–]IsntThatSpecia1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

So, we can't prove the Christian god exists so instead will resort to strawman attacks?

I would say this is a new line of apologetics but it's probably as old as the Bible.

Have you been reading up on JEDP theory? I was reading a Catholic source the other day that said "even if JEDP is right, it's still wrong because the Bible in infallible."

This does not bode well to apologists because anyone with a little common sense will say "uh, the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so?"

[–]Rushdoony4ever -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

human nature enjoys hyper-agency.

humans don't like the idea of dying.

humans don't like to say "i don't know".

So even if we were born into a religious-free society, we will invent agency/comfort/answers. And they will all be different.

But there will always be some people that say, "no, I don't believe you without evidence."

[–]TrottingTortoisestoned panpsychist hippie -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As someone else who enjoys a strange adaptation of statistical terms to other areas, atheism is the null hypothesis. "Null" means without, so it is a hypothesis that God is null. This is why babies are atheists, because the birth canal leaves thinking mther is divine but upon breast feeding they realize she is mortal - no God.

Theism hypotheiss is when the baby has grown to the age of reason (once wearing laced shoes) and investigates to find God is real after all.

So yes this is the common theory whoch is why baby are atheist. I am not an expert but hope this has helped.