I understand that you say atheists do not believe in a god, and therefore babies fit within the definition of atheism. However, a baby lacks the capacity to either affirmatively believe in or deny the existence of a god.
Therefore, my question is, wouldn't a baby more accurately be described as an agnostic, since a baby does not (and cannot) express an opinion either way?
I'm not an atheist but I am going to answer this question anyway.
A baby is a totally innocent being born into a sinful world.
A baby should it die soon after birth, will go straight to Heaven as it does not have the capacity to understand the concept of salvation or sin. Therefore there is no reason for a newborn child to be "sprinkled" with water in the form of a so-called "baptism" to save it from hell if it is about to die.
Children are innocent until they reach an age of accountability and I would say that every child reaches this at a different age - it has to do with maturity - and then he can receive the word of God and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and either accept it or reject it.
I would say a baby can't be categorized at all. Theism, atheism and agnosticism are all based on individual's experiences and cognitive reasoning, including the interpretation of events and experiences. Since a baby does not possess the cognitive development necessary to assign him/herself such a nomenclature, I would say that, just for the moment, a baby's religious inclination or lack thereof has yet to be determined. Of course, some atheists will argue that, by strict definition, a baby is an atheist because he or she is lacking in any belief in a deity or god. I would argue that since atheism, like theism and agnosticism, is dependent upon on the ability to make that cognitive decision, that the baby is neither...after all, do we say that, politically speaking, that a baby is an independent since it has no association with any political party....or would we say we really can't assign any kind of political or apolitical association to an infant because the infant has not yet developed the cognitive ability to make an informed choice?
I've read here several times that some atheists somehow rationalize that babies are atheists. Silly. Babies are not agnostics, Christians, Jews, or Dallas Cowboy fans either. Neither the sprinkling of holy water nor hanging a football mobile over their crib makes it any different.
Developmentally, babies are incapable of abstract thought.
They pay attention to what they see, smell, taste, and touch. They are happiest when they are fed, comfortable, and sense mom or dad is nearby.
If you must put a label on a baby try this one...happy little genius. Then, treat them as if you believed in that label.
Geeze, guys. Pick on someone your own size.
No, because an agnostic acknowledges the POSSIBILITY of a god, just has no knowledge of one. Babies aren't into that kind of sophisticated thinking. They are atheists.
No, agnosticism is the view that gods are incomprehensible.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. And babies fit that definition.
Agnosticism is the premise that it is impossible to know whether god/s exist. It is not being unable to "express an opinion". It's unlikely that an infant could comprehend the concepts needed to be agnostic.
I don't consider babies to be anything with regards to belief or lack of belief. They are, technically, atheists or non-theists as they don't believe in god/s. I don't think that we should label them, though. With regards to belief systems, babies are born tabula rasa.
A better term would be irreligious, agnostics feel that there is not enough evidence to believe either way. Babies don't even know of, let alone understand, the concept of religion and gods
agnostics CAN
atheists simply DON'T
for the time being they are simply atheist.. but as time passes that may change.. or not.. it is their choice afterall
Well not even that, because agnostics (hopefully) think about both situations and come to the conclusion that a god is neither provable nor disprovable, I doubt babies can think to this degree.
Why not just leave them be, does it really matter what a baby believes?
Because they lack a belief in gods. One doesn't have to assert or even acknowledge that disbelief, or reject the attempts of people who try to force gods on others, to be an atheist. An adult living in the jungle who's never heard of any gods would be an atheist, too, even though he doesn't know he is one.
When I was a baby, I was agnostic.
atheism's a lack of belief in gods. simple as that. Though babies can't decide on their own, they still lack the belief in a god.
They can't believe in God.
Someone has to teach it to them.
They're not born with the understanding that they were created from a higher power. Someone tells them that.
Therefore, they are born atheist. With no belief in God.
babies ,depending on their developmental age cannot understand that an object exists if they cannot see it, put the toy under the blanket-it no longer exists.
if they cant do that,then they arent conceptualizing gods/religions. a baby will grow up believing whatever religion it is indoctrinated into-because parents teach this.
a baby brought up Muslim is not going to at age four-say no Jesus is the true messiah, I know/and vice versa
if child is not taught to believe in a god,then the child won't.
it doesnt matter if they are or not ... if they die before 12 they automatically go to heaven ...
Belief in god is belief in magic. Therefore all babies are born believing in god. IF a person matures properly they learn to accept reality and grow up. IF they don't mentally mature, they continue to believe in magic.
Babies are atheists. They have no knowledge of an idea of god and therefore do not believe in one.
Agnosticism can only be defined by consciously realizing that God cannot be proven. Babies lack the brain power to analyze this.
*edit* For once I agree with Fireball!! lol :)
Babies believe their parents and the dog are god.
Agnosticism implies doubt, and a new baby isn't to the point where he has doubts about the existence of anything. They don't even learn that their toys still exist when they can't see them until they're several months old.
In the case of the existence of toys (and people), we're talking about real, physical objects & people that they have seen and touched, nothing so esoteric as a God.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I asked this question and nobody could give me a good answer. Maybe you can.
"If a child is born in the woods in the middle of nowhere, and never introduced to God/Religion, grows up isolated as an atheist, lives his/her life as a good, moral person, yet an atheist, then dies atheist, does that person go to Hell? I mean, they would never know anything besides life without God/Religion, absolving them of any fault of non-belief. Isn't this proof that "God" is just a notion created by man?"
That's not what an agnostic is. You'd have to be a person who has the capacity to think to be an agnostic. Being an atheist doesn't require thought - it just means you lack belief in gods. Babies lack belief in gods, therefore they are atheist.
No, you're confusing the definitions.
"Atheism" means "no belief in deity" ("a" + "theism" = "without" + "belief in deity"). This is NOT necessarily the same thing as "ASSERTING there is no deity" (a position commonly referred to as "strong" atheism). It could mean simply lacking the belief in deity and making no assertions about it one way or another (a position commonly referred to as "weak" atheism). There's a difference between not holding a belief in some entity's existence, and asserting that entity's non-existence.
"Agnosticism", a term which was first coined by Professor T.H. Huxley in the 19th century, is the assertion that the nature or existence of God is unknown and ultimately unknowable. So "atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive terms.
And once again, babies are atheists by definition since they do not hold a belief in the concept of deity. Just as somebody living in a remote tribe in Africa would probably be an "a-ipodist" (having no knowledge and thus no belief in the existence of mp3 players).
Atheists, by definition, don't deny the existence of God - they *lack belief* in the existence of God, and so do babies.
Atheism does not have to be informed. If something does not believe in G-d(s), then it is an atheist.
My cat, Australopithecus, is also an atheist.
Peace.
You are entirely correct; "agnostic" would be the proper term. One cannot become an atheist until one has the capacity to do sophisticated analysis and actually does so.
A baby is completely devoid of god-belief, therefore they are atheists.
Edit: I agree with Fireball *feeling faint* lol
I have neverr heard an atheist make the claim that you are expressing here. Babies have no real though pattern at birth and really don't know anything about anything. And by the same token babies are also not born christian either.
No. An agnostic, upon looking at the evidence, has decided that they cannot decide. A theist has come to the conclusion that they believe in god. Someone who does not have a belief in any god is an atheist. Babies would fit the definition of atheist.
I consider babbies to be pleasant snacks before dinner.
Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint chosen by the person. Babies aren't that adept on philosophy. When I hear this claim it just shows me what foolish nonsense is being swallowed.
 What kind of aggressive tropical freshwater fish go together? I want a ghost fish, African cichlids etc?
 Desktop background not showing well? |
HOME
PRINT
Add to favorites