…unlike theists, who are growing worldwide as a percentage of the population as well as in absolute numbers, according to Pew Research..

Newborn babies don't have the ability to identify themselves as agnostic because they are not capable of processing thoughts on whether a god exists or not. They are not capable of having 'thoughts' in the first place.

@Ryo1 Of course they don't identify as anything. I was just being a bit tongue-in-cheek, playing with the Greek etymology of the term agnostic, i.e. not knowing.

@Flyingsaucesir You dodge well.

@Ryo1 You troll transparently.

I would think of the baby as Schrodinger's cat.

The definition is : In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, (atheist, believer or agnostic) while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur.

This explains the lack of general knowledge (not having seen a cat), the lack of intelligence thru experience and experiments, and lack maturity in general, and a creator in specifics.

Atheism is belief that there is (are) no god(s). I doubt the issue ever crosses a newborn's mind.

In order to identify yourself as atheist or agnostic, you have to have the premise that a god exists. Newborn babies are incapable of having logical and rational thoughts. They don't even have the awareness of their own exisatance. Labeling whether a baby is to be theist or atheists, or whatever, is what adults do for the baby, not by the baby itself.

@Flyingsaucesir No - to be theist is to believe in at least one god(dess). To be atheist is to not be theist.

There is no requirement for an atheist to actively NOT believe in god(s), indeed there is no requirement to know of the conceot of god(s) - all an atheist has to do is not be someone who actively believes.

@ToakReon I just had this debate a cople days ago, and it ended with my supplying definitions of the word "atheist" that say it is belief in the non-existence of a deity. And that was not the first time. Do I have to repeat the task again? I'm beginning to feel like Sysephus.

@Flyingsaucesir You may repeat as much as you like. 'A' - as in 'amoral', not moral. 'Theist'.

It really is very simple.

@ToakReon Maybe not as simple as you think.

@Flyingsaucesir No, it really is that simple. It's just that many people have chosen to use the term 'atheist' and apply to it their own modified meanings.

Then you get impassioned discussion (argument) that CLAIMS to be about god and his existence/non-existence, but is actually nothing of the sort. Just two people with different definitions of words, unable to agree on what those words mean.

"If you're an atheist then bla, bla, bla."

"No, if you're an atheist then blo, blo, blo."

Great - an argument about English usage. About word definition. An argument that explores and debates nothing whatever about the reality of god and whether he's actually there.

And yes, I'm guilty myself. I've engaged in such an argument with you, even though I recognise that the argument is ultimately meaningless, pointless and of no value.

@ToakReon I would not say pointless. It is important to have good, clear definitions for things. The field of semantics is far more important than any discussion of the existence of an imaginary entity for which there never has, nor is there ever likely to be, a shred of credible evidence. Semantics has practical application. God is pure speculation. I entreat you to read this article, then tell me if you still think that the definition of "atheist" is a simple matter.
[plato.stanford.edu]

Yes, the author further clarifies his statement in the longer, linked version.

As far as beliefs are concerned I do think that we are born a blank sheet yes. But we are not a complete blank sheet, we are born with instincts, emotions, drives and hungers, which are hard wired, for without those we would just sit passive, until we faded away.

We are born with a tendency toward agency detection which may and often does misfire. It’s sort of like that theory of mind some folks tout. We model what we presume is going through the minds of others. It’s a minor step to anthropomorphize as animism or even theism, that there is a being like us behind the curtain of existence.

I agree with clarification of the meaning of a word(s) or concept at the outset, however, as you well know, words and concepts are often parroted by the speaker or writer as though they contained the weight of a universal truth and often merely reflect beliefs.

@ASTRALMAX Yes linguistic sophistry, the belief that language is a source of truth and wisdom, or even that others can be fooled into thinking it is. Is a very common failing or dishonesty.

@Fernapple The Second Sin by Thomas Szasz is freely available online for download in Pdf format. It is a highly condensed version of his works and can be read in one sitting, see the chapter on language.

“If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself.” George Orwell

Any behavior that any species (especially our own) consistently exhibits across time and across location, which has measurable consequences, especially sometimes destructive ones, should be the subject of scientific and philosophical scrutiny, regardless of, and perhaps especially because of, its apparent absurdity upon casual observation. Nothing should be off-limits to science.

And the definitions of words are the foundations of our communication and understanding of these elusive subjects.

If people weren’t torturing and killing each other over these misunderstandings it might be different, but they are, and probably will, well into the future.

@skado Atheist babies is obviously flawed logic.

Scientific evaluation of cognitive belief is valuable.

Focus on the existence or otherwise of supernatural beings was perhaps too narrow and as limited as the intent of the article to dismiss belief in gods.

Is religiosity really just a cultural construct attaching to the innate trait of an ability and desire to learn about the world?

@waitingforgodo
I would guess that trait surely figures in to the cocktail. I think there may be several more. Not least among them the cultural need, in post agricultural revolution times, to counterbalance the evolutionary mismatch generated by moving from nomadic to agrarian lifestyles. And at least a half dozen other genetic, cultural, and environmental influences.

@skado My Home and Garden magazine madness is cultural and convenient but is that desire for comfort an evolutionary mismatch?

Societal imperatives are profound but unless and until the god gene is gleaned from the genome some may consider religion a belief and behaviour that is learned rather than being innate.

@waitingforgodo
Mismatch is between organism and environment. Traits that evolved in one environment being maladaptive in a new or changed environment.

Religions are not about gods. Gods are a superfluous and interchangeable means to an end. Some religions use them - some don’t. All religions provide counterbalance to mismatch. The specific means are learned. The need and aptitude are innate.

I’m with you up to the point of what to do about it. All evidence I have seen suggests that the religious impulse is not only innate, but innate at the level of group, rather than at individual, selection. So I doubt it can ever be confined to individual behavior. For this reason I support a reform, rather than an abolition approach. Religion has always changed with the times, so it can again, but it has never gone away or been an individual-only, rather than a social, practice.