I've been thinking about this on and off throughout today. Lil baby in the womb is of no faith. So is the baby an atheist? Does it mean we're all born atheists? Is atheism therefore our default state of being? - and then as we grow and learn/are taught, we either remain in that default state or deviate?
Just something I've been pondering. Feel free to ponder along with me if you like(!) or answer some of the questions if you can or feel to.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Personally (and with no scientific data), I don't think babies are born atheist, Christian, gay, straight, thugs, angels or anything else. I think, as they're growing up, babies learn from others and that's what decides their faith, etc.
I think that babies are born pure. It is us individually and collectively as society that force belief systems and labels on them.
@Paul
Atheism is not a belief system.
I'll put in my 2¢ worth.
I agree, atheism is not a belief system, it is simply not accepting the truth of the existence of any gods. Likewise, it does not necessarily mean the rejection of all gods.
To become a theist, one has to do some learning . . . about what a god is, as well as going through some thinking process as to whether one is going to accept the concept of god that one has come to appreciate, as true. I could imagine a tribe of people on an island, a tribe which is isolated from all of humanity. That tribe may have never invented any gods. So the adults would be atheists, and atheists simply by default.
To me the key question is to ask: "Does the person believe that a god actually exists ?"
If the answer is YES, then the person is a theist.
If the answer is NOT YES, then the person is atheist.
A newborn baby, in the sense I've described is atheist.
So I guess that a baby that is atheist, is an atheist.
There are adults who know about the concept of "God", but don't consider it worthy of their thoughts. They are called apatheists.
Apatheism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Most atheists have considered the evidence and the arguments pro-"God", and have chosen to not accept.
A proportion have further chosen to reject.
I would consider these two groups to be CONSIDERED atheists, (they have come to their position by consideration).
Apatheists have not considered their position, and so have not accepted that a god actually exists - therefore they're NOT theists.
I would classify babies as default atheists. They do not hold a belief about the existence of any gods, so WE can't say that they hold any belief. That qualifies them as atheist, and thus, (I'm suggesting), as atheists.
Don't get me wrong, though, a baby's atheism is not important to world views, except to illustrate that to be a theist takes some learning, some supposed knowledge, and some decision making. There are probably people who claim to be theist, who are making a false claim, possibly without even realising it.
Since atheism is not strictly a belief system, just knowing that someone is an atheist tells you very little - they just don't believe in any gods. The stance of any individual considered atheist on all other issues than gods, has to be discovered by the rest of us through communication and discourse.
A subset of atheist make the claim that there are no gods. Those are the strong atheists, and their atheism is part of their belief system. But strong atheism is probably a minority position.
Most atheists would say that they are as yet unconvinced on the question of the existence of "God" or any gods. These are the weak atheists, (not weaklings, but they take a weaker position on the truth of the god question).
Cheers, Mu.
IYes, in my opinion babies are born atheist, like any other animal. Only later society force themto decide for one religion or another, or for no religion at all.
I'm A Believer 2: I hear your viewpoint. I guess I was thinking about atheism in particular because (as I understand it) it's the absence of belief/faith. And I'm thinking babies are more likely to have the absence rather than the presence of faith. But, yes, without the data to prove it either way, it's just speculation on my part.
paw42uk/Mirta: I hear you both. | paw42uk: Is atheism a belief system, do you think?
Why would they be? Being an atheist or non-atheist is a matter of choice. Unborn and newborn babies can't really decide on this. It's up to the parents how they raise him or her, and eventually it will be up to him or her what faith to choose or not choose.
dtommy79: I thought about that earlier (choice/decision) and was going to include it in my initial question - that if atheism is a conscious choice, then babies can't be atheists because they obviously can't choose either way. But on the other hand, if it's the absence of faith, then maybe they are because even without choosing it, their default state is to be of no belief/faith.
Babies are born atheist, they have a lack of belief in any god or gods.
If they can't choose then they don't believe in any deities, now what do we call people who don't believe in any deity or deities?
Well, I think they are neither. They can't choose until they mature enough. You have to choose to be an atheist or a believer. It's not atheism or religion that choose you.
You can't be neither, it's either a belief you hold or don't. Conscious choice is needed only to believe, if you are unaware of the choice then the belief is absent, then you are by definition an atheist. Though why this matters is lost on me.
In my understanding, being an atheist means that you don't believe in God or Jesus (and mind you, my knowledge of atheism is thin). How can a baby have the ability to believe or not believe in anything?
"How can a baby have the ability to believe or not believe in "
It can't and so lacks belief in a deity.
Oxford English dictionary
Atheism
Noun
disbelief or **lack of belief** in the existence of God or gods.
A baby lacks such beliefs, and therefore is atheistic.
In answer to ONWEM yes I believe atheism can be described as a belief system. It is a strong belief in the non existence of Deity, but is non the less still a belief and as such has acceptance within some religious belief systems.
@Paul
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Nonsense, why do theists misrepresent atheism like this? What is it they hope to gain? Atheism is the absence of a single belief nothing more and nothing less. An atheist may have a belief system, and their atheism may inform part of it, but no atheism is not a belief system.
The lack or absence of a belief is axiomatically not a belief.
Mmmh, finally I agree with you, atheism is a sort of belief system. Maybe really they're neither...
@Mirta
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
To paraphrase an old saying: "Atheism is a belief system, like baldness is a colour of hair".
Cheers from Mu.
I believe atheism is a lack of belief, my belief system is that of a Humanist, I refrain from calling myself an atheist as it is my lack of views on the world, not my views upon it. For atheism to be a belief system, you must accept that the natural state of any idea is existence until proved otherwise. I do not believe this is sound logic, so yes, babies are born atheist. They have no conception of God until taught and labelled a 'Christian child' or 'Jewish child'. Some atheists certainly act as if 'atheism' is their defining characteristic, but I find most of these are simply angry to have been fooled for so long by a system of belief that was ingrained into them as children. I don't blame them, but it causes confusion on the notion of what a belief system is. To summarise: You don't call someone who lacks belief in unicorns an 'a-unicornist', because we all assume unicorns are made-up. I simply feel the same about God.
Its mystery. The only age group that can tell us all if they are of no faith is the babies themselves. We shouldn't all agree They're of no faith since we personally can provide scientific or human evidenp to back up the claim They're of no faith. Remember if a baby dies even a min after birth ( do not wish this for any parent) he or she will be judged according to the Christian faith.
For me, unborn babies are not atheists or theists or agnostics. They are not aware of anything yet. They don't understand anything and they can't decide yet. Once they are born and they are baptized to whatever religion their parents have, they become a part of that religion. But for me, a person only becomes a part of a religion or an atheist when he/she has decided for himself/herself what he truly believes in.
A baby is not an atheist like we are. They are born without knowledge of religion, and unless explained to them the term can be untouched without any issues. I for one plan on my children not beeing auto-indoctrinated at birth/baptism. As Rider also states; the parents take their religious choice for them. If there really was a god, he would probably make sure babies came with the whole religion package pre-installed. So no; until humanity gets to ruin them with religion, a baby is as happily unknowing of religion as some are of evolution.
.
I'd say babies are agnostic - they neither believe, or disbelieve.
Sammy Shazaam
I'd say babies are agnostic - they neither believe, or disbelieve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not agnosticism, and it's impossible to both not believe and not not believe.
Agnosticism
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Agnosticism and theism require cognisance, and the ability to reason, and babies don't possess this ability so they can be neither. No knowledge is required for a belief to absent, so they are atheists.
Again I'm at a loss as to why this important, or even relevant.
Hey, Sheldon. For what it is worth, you are debating with "ghosts". Check their post dates. Those folks haven't been around in over five years. *chuckle*
I thought I was doing quite well, damn it. Thought I had them all dumbstruck, I've been walking around in work all day looking cocky as fuck. That'll teach me.
@Sheldon
Hey, you were doing GREAT! It was just a shame that they aren't around to respond. LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon
That's not agnosticism, and it's impossible to both not believe and not not believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agnosticism
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Agnosticism and theism require cognisance, and the ability to reason, and babies don't possess this ability so they can be neither. No knowledge is required for a belief to absent, so they are atheists.
Again I'm at a loss as to why this important, or even relevant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================
Mutorc S'yriah :-
That is only one definition of agnosticism, Sheldon, see . . .
===============================================
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
Found at: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic?s=t
===============================================
There is hard agnosticism in which a person holds that one can never know.
There is soft agnosticism, in one says one does not have enough knowledge or confirmation (yet).
I classify myself in the latter category. If was a hard agnostic, then I would be in the position of holding that the consideration of arguments and evidence would always be fruitless. I'm not, and I don't.
So on the question of gods, I: "hold neither of two opposing positions on a topic". I'm agnostic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon
. . . it's impossible to both not believe and not not believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right, Sheldon. "Not not believe" is a double negative, and boils down to "believe".
So that boils down to . . . it's impossible to both {not believe} and {believe}.
All the best, Mu.
Pages