Are newborn babies atheists?

[talquin]

Given that the definition of atheist is one who doesn't hold a belief that a god (or gods) exist, it would follow that newborn babies are atheists.

 

[lesliedellow]

No more than they are football fans.

My dog doesn't believe in God. Is he an atheist?

 

[Ken-1122]

Given that the definition of atheist is one who doesn't hold a belief that a god (or gods) exist, it would follow that newborn babies are atheists.

If an atheist is defined as a non-believer; then yes babies (and dogs) are non-believers/atheists.

Ken

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I said no because I feel an atheist is someone who's looked at the evidence for gods and came to the conclusion that he doesn't believe they exist. Babies don't concern themselves with the question of whether gods exist or not.

They are not atheist or theist.

 

[talquin]

I said no because I feel an atheist is someone who's looked at the evidence for gods and came to the conclusion that he doesn't believe they exist. Babies don't concern themselves with the question of whether gods exist or not.

They are not atheist or theist.

Would you consider a newborn baby to fall into the category of those who don't hold a belief that a god exists?

 

[Ken-1122]

I said no because I feel an atheist is someone who's looked at the evidence for gods and came to the conclusion that he doesn't believe they exist

So what would you call a person who has not looked at the evidence; but still doesn't believe?

K

 

[talquin]

So what would you call a person who has not looked at the evidence; but still doesn't believe?

K

If atheist means to not hold the belief that a god exists, then it would be immaterial if they had looked at the evidence or not. But we could divide those two types of atheists into two categories:

1) implicit atheist - doesn't hold the belief that a god exists but hasn't considered any evidence
2) explicit atheist - doesn't hold the belief that a god exists but has considered evidence

 

[Ken-1122]

If atheist means to not hold the belief that a god exists, then it would be immaterial if they had looked at the evidence or not. But we could divide those two types of atheists into two categories:

1) implicit atheist - doesn't hold the belief that a god exists but hasn't considered any evidence
2) explicit atheist - doesn't hold the belief that a god exists but has considered evidence

So in other words; they're atheists, but it's just a matter of what type of atheist they are?

K

 

[Tree of Life]

Maybe. But this could also be misleading.

If babies are atheists in the way that you mean then they are also unscientific, don't believe in the existence of the past or future, don't believe in the existence of other persons, don't believe in any moral norms, don't believe in cause and effect, have no knowledge of logic, don't believe in language, etc...

To say that a baby is an atheist isn't saying much.

 

[Davian]

Given that the definition of atheist is one who doesn't hold a belief that a god (or gods) exist, it would follow that newborn babies are atheists.

Agreed.

 

[talquin]

Maybe. But this could also be misleading.

If babies are atheists in the way that you mean then they are also unscientific, don't believe in the existence of the past or future, don't believe in the existence of other persons, don't believe in any moral norms, don't believe in cause and effect, have no knowledge of logic, don't believe in language, etc...

To say that a baby is an atheist isn't saying much.

Why would it be misleading?

Let's say we were to divide all humans into two categories:

1) Those who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Those who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or those who don't fall into category #1)

Which one would newborn babies fall into?

 

[Davian]

Maybe. But this could also be misleading.

If babies are atheists in the way that you mean then they are also unscientific, don't believe in the existence of the past or future, don't believe in the existence of other persons, don't believe in any moral norms, don't believe in cause and effect, have no knowledge of logic, don't believe in language, etc...

To say that a baby is an atheist isn't saying much.

Sure. But to say that I am an atheist is not saying much either, which is why I do not self-identify with that label.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why would it be misleading?

It could be misleading because "atheism" usually implies some intentionality and this is not the case with babies.

Let's say we were to divide all humans into two categories:

1) Those who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Those who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or those who don't fall into category #10

Which one would newborn babies fall into?

I think those categories are inaccurate. According to my worldview it's more like:

1) Those who trust the Lord and submit to His lordship
2) Those who don't trust the Lord and rebel against his lordship

Babies, in that scheme, would fall into category 2. Unless we're talking about John the Baptist.

 

[talquin]

Why would it be misleading?

It could be misleading because "atheism" usually implies some intentionality and this is not the case with babies.

It implies some intentionality only if one doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Let's say we were to divide all humans into two categories:

1) Those who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Those who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or those who don't fall into category #10

Which one would newborn babies fall into?

I think those categories are inaccurate.

Why are they inaccurate?

If I were to present a dichotomy of:
1) Humans who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Humans who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or humans who don't fall into category #10)

Would that dichotomy encompass all human beings?

According to my worldview it's more like:

1) Those who trust the Lord and submit to His lordship
2) Those who don't trust the Lord and rebel against his lordship

That's not a full or true dichotomy. A full or true dichotomy would be:

1) Those who trust the Lord and submit to His lordship
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (or those who either don't trust the Lord or don't submit to His lordship)

Babies, in that scheme, would fall into category 2. Unless we're talking about John the Baptist.

Was John the Baptist a baby who trusted the Lord and submitted to His lordship?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why are they inaccurate?

If I were to present a dichotomy of:
1) Humans who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Humans who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or humans who don't fall into category #10)

Would that dichotomy encompass all human beings?

No. There are no human beings that are unaware of God's existence. In the case of babies I'm not entirely sure how aware they are.

That's not a full or true dichotomy. A full or true dichotomy would be:

1) Those who trust the Lord and submit to His lordship
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (or those who either don't trust the Lord or don't submit to His lordship)

If one doesn't trust the Lord and submit to his lordship then they patently mistrust him and rebel - at least according to scripture. Trusting God and obeying Him are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one and not the other.

Was John the Baptist a baby who trusted the Lord and submitted to His lordship?

It is said of him that he would be filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb.

 

[Strong in Him]

Given that the definition of atheist is one who doesn't hold a belief that a god (or gods) exist, it would follow that newborn babies are atheists.

I think that, literally, atheist means "no God" - a = no, or without, theist means a person who has a belief in God. So really, atheists are saying that they know there is no God. That is why apologists talk of atheists having faith - in spite of all testimonies and evidence to the contrary, they still claim to know that God doesn't exist.

Whether this is right or not, a baby isn't able to have, or express, faith. But the Holy Spirit can minister to anyone - and has done so.

 

[talquin]

If I were to present a dichotomy of:
1) Humans who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Humans who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or humans who don't fall into category #1)

Would that dichotomy encompass all human beings?

No. There are no human beings that are unaware of God's existence. In the case of babies I'm not entirely sure how aware they are.

So you're saying all human beings believe that God exists. If so, what real thing is it you are calling 'God'?

How would such a dichotomy not encompass all human beings. Again:
1) Humans who hold a belief that a god exists
2) Humans who don't hold a belief that a god exists (or humans who don't fall into category #1)

If a human doesn't fall into category #1, please explain why they wouldn't fall into category #2?

If one doesn't trust the Lord and submit to his lordship then they patently mistrust him and rebel - at least according to scripture. Trusting God and obeying Him are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one and not the other.

Please explain why if one doesn't trust something it means they are rebelling? Do you trust Superman? Probably not. So by your logic, that means you are rebelling against Superman.

Was John the Baptist a baby who trusted the Lord and submitted to His lordship?

It is said of him that he would be filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb.

Please give me a simple yes/no answer. Was John the Baptist a baby who trusted the Lord and submitted to His lordship?

 

[talquin]

I think that, literally, atheist means "no God" - a = no, or without, theist means a person who has a belief in God. So really, atheists are saying that they know there is no God. That is why apologists talk of atheists having faith - in spite of all testimonies and evidence to the contrary, they still claim to know that God doesn't exist.

An atheist is one who doesn't hold a belief that a god exists. Not holding a belief doesn't require faith. Atheism doesn't pertain to what one claims to know - it pertains to those who don't hold a belief that a god exists.

Whether this is right or not, a baby isn't able to have, or express, faith. But the Holy Spirit can minister to anyone - and has done so.

Please explain the process of the Holy Spirit ministering to a human.

 

[Davian]

It could be misleading because "atheism" usually implies some intentionality and this is not the case with babies.

I think those categories are inaccurate. According to my worldview it's more like:

1) Those who trust the Lord and submit to His lordship
2) Those who don't trust the Lord and rebel against his lordship

Babies, in that scheme, would fall into category 2. Unless we're talking about John the Baptist.

If we are free to define terms as we like, I will go with "theism" meaning "believing in things imaginary" thus dividing everyone into two groups:

1) Those that believe in things imaginary.
2) Those that do not.

Babies, in that scheme, would fall into category 2.

 

[True Scotsman]

It could be misleading because "atheism" usually implies some intentionality and this is not the case with babies.



I think those categories are inaccurate. According to my worldview it's more like:

1) Those who trust the Lord and submit to His lordship
2) Those who don't trust the Lord and rebel against his lordship

Babies, in that scheme, would fall into category 2. Unless we're talking about John the Baptist.

The only thing a baby is capable of rebelling against is the taking of its binkey and perhaps mashed green beens. A newborn baby has no concept of anything so how could it "trust in the lord and submit to its leadership. To a newborn these words have absolutely no meaning.