@TheMiddleWay babies are born knowing nothing but maybe they are born with a concept of god? They don’t know “mom” or “dog” or “tree” but maybe they know “god?”
Some say that the concept of atheist should not even exist because it it simply describes non-belief in a non-entity. Should we also have a word for non-belief in the Easter Bunny?
And yes cats are atheists.

@TheMiddleWay god is not an innate concept.its MADE UP. A newborn, or a cat, had not been indoctrinated with the concept of a “god.” It knows not of a god, it believes not in any god and therefore it is without a belief in god - therefore a-theist.

Again i gotta say that Killbot point is pretty spot on. Not a fan of being executed by AI. But he is a pretty good algorithm for pertinent points.

That is the wordiest description of agnostic that I've ever seen. Agnostic just means "no knowledge". Babies can only be agnostic, as they have no knowledge.

@nastynifty I copy and pasted this definition straight from the online Oxford dictionary when you google "Agnostic definition"

If we assume it's true that babies are agnostic, then that means they must claim neither faith nor disbelief in god or gods, babies do not therefore they can not be agnostic.

if we assume it is true that babies are not agnostic, then that means they know for a fact about the existence of god or gods, babies do not therefore they must be agnostic.

This is why no one wins arguing semantics.

@Jenn_S The question then becomes do you hold the same “lack of belief” vs “belief in a lack of” distinction for any mythical creature be it aliens, Bigfoot, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, etc.? It relates back to the idea that you can’t prove a negative (I know that true “proofs” only exist in mathematics, but for simplicity’s sake I’ll use the term in place of provide significant evidence for). I can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, there is just no reason to believe that they do. God is in the same category.

@TheMiddleWay Sorry - ridiculous!

For a new-born child to actively believe in the existence if god, that child must actually KNOW of the CONCEPT of god - and as a new-born child is not yet capable communicating such concepts, there is no means by which that child could have become aware of that concept.

So to say a new-born child does not actively believe in god is valid - because there is no available mechanism by which it could be otherwise.

@TheMiddleWay No no - that's the POINT.

An atheist is not someone who ACTIVELY EXPRESSES disbelief.

An atheist is just someone who is NOT A THEIST. And a theist ACTIVELY EXPRESSES positive belief in the existence if god. So to be a theist the child would have to express active belief in god - which he/she cannot. And not being a theist means he/she is an atheist, because atheist, MEANS 'not theist'.

@TheMiddleWay

Cats are not many things. They are not dogs, they are not opera singers and they are not 'active believers in the existence of god'.

If there was a word defined as 'not dog', then cats would certainly be that thing. If there was a word defined as 'not opera singer' then they would be that as well.

However there IS a word defined as not 'active believer in the existence of god' because there IS a word for such an active believer (theist) and atheist means 'not a theist'.

Anything that is not a theist is, by definition, an atheist. So are cats theists? No - therefore they are 'not theists' - and that's what an atheist is.

And so is the new-born child.

@TheMiddleWay

You misunderstand.

Theist/atheist is a matter of whether you believe in the existence of god or not. Gnostic/agnostic is a matter of whether you believe that existence or non existence can be PROVEN.

Does a pink fairy called Esmerelda live at the bottom of my garden?

I cannot PROVE she's not there - so I'm an 'Esmerelda agnostic', but that still doesn't mean I actually believe she is, so I am ALSO an 'Esmerelda atheist'.

You can be theist and gnostic (I actively believe god exists, and I believe his status is provable).

You can be theist and agnostic (I actively believe god exists, but I do not believe his status is provable).

You can be an atheist and a gnostic (I am not an active believer in god, and I believe his status is provable).

You can be an atheist and an agnostic (I am not an active believer in god, but I do not believe his status is provable).

Being a theist or atheist does not mean you can't be gnostic or agnostic AS WELL. The concepts are not mutually incompatible - in any combination. The terms refer to entirely different aspects of your perception of reality - theist/atheist refers to your belief in GOD, gnostic/agnostic refers to your belief in PROOF.

@TheMiddleWay

Atheist has exactly the same 'a (meaning 'not' ) plus something else' roots as 'amoral' (not moral), 'asymptomatic' (not symptomatic), 'apolitical' (not political), 'asexual' (not sexual) and so on.

Lots of people make all sorts of assumptions about what the word 'atheist' means, and add to it all sorts of other stuff that actually is nothing to do with the word atheist at all.

There is nothing in the word 'atheist' which says you actively disbelieve - only that you are not a theist, meaning you do NOT actively BELIEVE.

It really is a remarkably simple definition. Are you a theist? No? Then you are a 'non theist' - an atheist.

All the other assumed stuff - 'atheists are X', 'atheists are Y', 'atheists are Z' - are just that, assumed stuff. Not anything to do with the actual word atheist - just ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS that some, but not all, atheists may display in addition to their 'non theist-ness'.

And add to that "anti-theist" where a person actively is against believing in god/s. Babies can't be anti-theist, just like they can't be Catholic, Jewish or Muslim.

@TheMiddleWay

So basically all we're arguing about is the definition of a word.

You define 'atheist' as being 'active non believer' - and by that definition you are not an atheist, and neither are cats, and neither are new-born children.

I define 'atheist' as being 'not a theist' and by that definition you are an atheist, so are cats, and so are new-borns.

I'm sure both of us fervently believe our own definition correct, but ultimately this disagreement has nothing to do with the actual nature of you, me, cats, new-borns, or god - we're both just playing a game of 'I want to write the dictionary'.

@TheMiddleWay

'Except that by ascribing atheism to an object that cannot be atheistic'

I am not ascribing atheism to anything. I am taking a definition of atheism, and stating that a particular object either meets or does not meet that definition - this is EXACTLY the same as having a definition of 'human', and declaring a new-born child meets that definition and is therefore human.

It is no less valid to say 'a new-born child meets (my) definition of atheism - and therefore that new-born child is atheist' than it is to say 'a new-born child meets the definitition of a living thing - and therefore that new-born child is alive'.

Taking a definition of a word, and then saying something is correctly described by that word, is what we do every time we say X is Y. For all Xs and all Ys.

The word 'atheism' does not have 'magical properties' which means you can no longer say if someone or something meets the terms of its definition. It has a definition (about which we may disagree, but whatever that definition is, it has one) and you may ask the question 'does X meet the terms of that definition?' in exactly the same way as you can with any other word.

A new-born child does not meet the definition for a rock - so that child is not a rock, and saying that child is not a rock is not 'ascribing a status to that child that only the child themself should be allowed to ascribe'. It is simply a matter of correctly describing the child, by saying that child is not a rock.

@TheMiddleWay

Atheism is the 'property of an object' - either posessed by that object, or not possessed by that object.

Whether that object meets the definition is just a matter of comparing reality to the definition and saying 'Does it match?'

The answer is yes or no - like any and every other defined word, which either matches reality (and is therefore true) or does not (making it false).

Your whole position is that we can describe a child in all cases and ways EXCEPT whether that child is atheist.

We can call that child human (because it meets the definition of human), we can call it alive (because it meets the definition of alive), we can declare it is not a cat (because it does not meet the definition of cat), we can declare it is not a poem by William Shakespeare (because it does not meet the definition of a poem by William Shakespeare) - but for some miraculously unexplained reason, even if we have a definition of 'atheist', we are not permitted to compare the child to the definition and say whether or not they match.

So what characteristic does the word 'atheism' have, that makes it unjustified to compare its definition to a child and say 'match' or 'no match'?

@TheMiddleWay

But I can choose to call myself anything I want.

I can choose to call myself a human - and in doing so I am making a statement that actually correlates with the evidence. I call myself a human and guess what? I'm right.

I can choose to call myself a rabbit - and in doing so I am making a statement that does not correlate with the evidence. I call myself a rabbit and guess what? I'm wrong.

Truth depends on correlation to evidence - it does not depend of whether an individual human being 'wants it to be true'. The 'truth is what I want it to be' concept is exactly where religious delusion comes from - 'I want to believe in god, therefore my desire warps truth to match my wishes'.

Whether a person is an atheist is not their choice - they believe what they believe, and if those beliefs are consistent with the definition of atheism then they're an atheist. They may not know it, they may choose to deny it, they may not care - but being an atheist is a matter of what your beliefs about god are, not what you choose to declare yourself.

If your belief system is atheistic, then you are an atheist. The only way you're not an atheist is by BEING A THEIST.

@TheMiddleWay

Again - we are disagreeing about DEFINITIONS, not about what is actually real ir not.

You define words differently to the way I define words. This debate is purely about linguistic definition, and the application thereof.

@TheMiddleWay It IS the pedantry of some that produces discussions/debates such as this imho.
We are what WE decide to be BUT there are those who seemingly WISH to place labels upon us simply for their means and ends to attempt to rationalize everything and everyone.
I, personally, am an A-Theist in the true dictionary meaning of the word, ergo I live freely and happily WITHOUT any belief that a God/s or deities exist or have ever existed.

@TheMiddleWay To clarify, when I said ‘Stop arguing over...’ it was not a command or an expression condemning the discussion of semantics. It was more a remedy for the problem that was described. We of course need labels and discussion about them. The poll does’t really do much to answer the question about what how the labels are used.

You are quite correct, Kathleen. (In my opinion.)

@TheMiddleWay Well, for one example I have never EVER seen a new-born baby actually emerge from its mother praying or giving thanks for its safe arrival into this world to anyone, anything or God/Deity.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, I have seen over 164 babies I have helped to deliver express their discomfort by emerging from the womb which has a nice, comfortable ambient temp of around 37.2 degrees Celsius into a vast space that is at room temperature, less than that they had for most of the 40 weeks they were living in. They usually start crying from that uncomfortable temperature as well as the 'trauma' of being 'ejected' from the birth canal as well.
Babies do have cognitive responses, they also begin to learn a lot faster than we told to believe, for example they CAN differentiate immediately as to who is their mother by her personal smell, her voice, by her individual heart beat and even by the actual feel of her skin upon theirs.
The actual act of giving birth IS a marvelous thing BUT sadly demeaned and often dismissed by men quite often. That is why the old rule of fathers being disallowed from attending the birth was changed many years ago.

Why are you angry with the tooth fairy?

@Gareth I suggest you carefully read again, there's no anger at anyone not even at labels.

@Mofo1953 British humour?

@Gareth nope, ain't a brit.

@Mofo1953 How dare you impugn my heritage.

@Gareth it ain't all about you, I was talking about me.

@Mofo1953 ,,,and I was not.

@Gareth alrighty then!

Lol

@TheMiddleWay They still lack belief — the broader sense of atheism (as opposed to explicit, positive atheism which makes the active claim that no God or gods exist). There's no belief on which to hang the "implicit" moniker. It's the fact that they haven't the belief and haven't the conceptualization that makes it implicit.

There is an argument that could be made for implicit theism, which is even one I made 20+ years ago in college (though for a different purpose) when I was a believer: It could be said that we're hardwired to believe in the supernatural, as a coping mechanism (materialist explanation) or through divine agency (gnostic argument). While no active belief is present, it could be stated that babies have the wiring in place for belief and therefore there's implicit theism. There's still the problem that there's currently a lack of belief, but I can see that argument being made in good faith.

Ignosticism seems like it could fit loosely, in the sense that babies cannot understand so it's a meaningless question to them, but ignostics make the claim that the question itself is meaningless because the definitions for God are too vague, imprecise, or arbitrary, not because they lack the capacity to understand an otherwise cogent concept. But I get what you're saying. Maybe we could coin it "implicit ignosticism."

Atheism is a lack of religious belief. Whether you are informed about religion and made the choice to reject it or are totally oblivious to it as babies are, you lack religious belief and are therefore an atheist.

Laws have been passed in my lifetime chipping away at specific kinds of religious abuse/neglect of children....as far as that goes with teachers amongst MANDATORY REPORTERS the religious perpetrators have fought back watering down sex education and evolution biology classes textbooks promoting creationism as "science" there is a global movement to prohibit "hereditary religions" that sexually mutilate baby boys and young girls....we need to be VISIBLE INVITING CHILDREN out of the cults doing more than just "hope"

The recent Charleston Post&Courier story about the "conversion therapy" = anti-gay cult brainwashing is another example how the news media will NOT allow any hint of Atheism as the refuge for gays lesbians escaping cults....California and other states passed laws against perpetrators abusing gays/lesbians under age 18 but tax exemptions to these so called ministries only escalates religious abuse of sexual minorities who are adults