Interesting video.Until humans are able to communicate clearly with infants who are non verbal, we will not know what babies believe in. All we can do is make assumptions and BELIEVE that we are right in such assumptions. The closet we can get to a real understanding is speaking with a very small child who comes from a household that doesn't teach theism or atheism. A child raised in such an environment would be able to help us to understand the belief or disbelief of children.
Issues like this are frustrating. It seems both sides have been talking past eachother the whole time because they are both defining the word differently and insisting that is the only correct interpretation.
Babies are agnostics... probably. also I agree with the comment below who gives a shit? Isn't part of growing up using you better cognitive faculties to have a more informed decsions on what your believes are?
The biggest value found in getting people to accept atheism as the default position is that it reiterates and demonstrates the fact that belief is something we come into - A process of change.
That being said, it gives a lot of weight to the act of questioning how we come to believe things, and why people turn religious - Which in my experience is often something religious people don't like to think about in too much detail, because the dubious nature of their conversion becomes so apparent.
I'm sorry, but in order to 'become' an Atheist, one must first understand, at least to some extent, the concept of Theism, before deciding to reject it.....and of course, babies don't fall into this category.
In fact the opposite is true, they're actually born with a predisposition to believing in God, therefore the argument is not only flawed on every level, it also makes anyone putting it forward as a serious issue, look as desperate as a Democrat in Col Gaddafi's propaganda ministry.
I do not define atheism as a "rejection" of theism. There, no doubt exist god concepts that I have no knowledge or understanding of, yet I still do not believe them. I am still atheistic towards them. Second, a PREDISPOSITION towards belief is NOT the same as a BELIEF. Thirdly, I never made the argument that babies should be labeled primarily as atheists. Only that they disbelief in gods.
If you are unaware of a certain concept, then you are clearly ignorant of, or at least agnostic toward, the doctrines and precepts which underpin the belief system in question, so how is it possible for anyone to ever come out against a Philosophical/Theological paradigm of which they have no knowledge?
I'm struggling to understand your logic on this one.
In other words, you are openly admitting that Atheism is nothing more than a completely vacuous, uninformed / ill-informed, state of being.
And do you know what, i agree with you entirely, what an excellent example babies make in graphically illustrating so profoundly, the sheer absence of intellect which overtly defines the mind of an average Atheist.
So as a Theist, i'd like to thank you for highlighting this glaring paradox of modern thinking. :)
babies are not fully developed, so you cant label them anything. babies are not atheists...nor are they christians. its preposterous to label an infant or small child with something that they couldnt possibly fully understand to the point of rationalizing. Dawkins makes this point about how children are labeled by their parents religion. So if he is against this for logical reasons, then its obvious children couldnt be called atheists.
@SeerSucker1981 i have to be honest.. i dont know who started this concept, be it bionicdance or someone else...but this is just silly. im sorry. please dont stick to this topic if you want to be taken seriously. are we really going to sit around arguing and philosophizing about what religious beliefs a fuckin baby has?
"are we really going to sit around arguing and philosophizing about what religious beliefs a fuckin baby has?"
That's because atheism is not a religious belief. And this argument of babies being atheists is incredibly important, as it points out in simple terms to theists that their position is NOT the default, rather religious beliefs are a form of irrational, dangerous conditioning that causes people to have to deconvert and "clean out" our minds to get back to normalcy.
"its preposterous to label an infant or small child with something that they couldnt possibly fully understand to the point of rationalizing. "
You're misunderstanding the argument. Atheism is not a position you take if there is no theism to respond to. If theism is not presented to a child, the child would be an atheist. It's like if you build a car but didn't paint it, it would be the color of whatever metal/plastic was exposed.
@TheTexanCanadian YOU are missing the point. Atheism is a stance. It's rational skepticism, and demand for a burden of proof. Babies are nothing. They are babies. Theism and religious belief is created by adults. That baby might not believe in anything, but if it is not corrected as it grows to understand the world, it can end up believing in anything. It becomes susceptible to belief in whatever makes it feel better about the world around it.
A baby has to be taught theistic beliefs. Rational skepticism is NOT atheism. A burden of proof is only necessary if a parent is making a claim to which the child would be answering.
You haven't disproved any of my points here; atheism is not a stance, it is lack of a stance; it is a blank sheet of paper, a bald head, an empty box. It is literally the absence of belief in a god. If no god is posed to the child, atheism would simply have no reason to be mentioned at all.
@TheTexanCanadian in the real world, atheism is a stance. And you are ignoring human behavior...without education, all people are susceptible to create theistic beliefs to explain the world around them, or to explain their purpose. They will create reasons for their existence. Theism was created by adults, not babies. A child growing up without religious indoctrination can just as easily join and believe in a religion as an adult. it happens all the time.
Do you distinguish between ancient mythologies and modern religion in terms of theistic claims? How much of that distinction is based on your learned beliefs as a child and your own innate ability to assess the reality around you? Can you honestly say that theistic teachings when presented in the modern world as valid are on the same footing as math or physics? How a cup is filled has nothing to do with whether or not it was originally empty.
Respond to this video... Just as children are taught to believe in theism, a child would still have to be taught science and rational thought to reject theism. instruction and education would still have to be administered to avoid irrational beliefs and theistic beliefs.
There are different definitions of atheism, and I think it's important to acknowledge that, otherwise we're doing the same thing Christians do when they swap definitions of "god" between Jesus and "nature". Negative atheism is what you described, the non-acceptance of the claim that "there are gods". But positive atheism is the assertion "there aren't any gods", which is what most self-labelled atheists are, so it seems questionable to label babies this way. I'd prefer to call them "secular".
“Atheism is just simply the lack of belief in a deity”
Maybe your atheism, but not mine. I’m an atheist because I would only accept less than even odds on existence of a deity; not because I have a belief shaped hole in my psychology. And it seems odd to have to attribute psychological traits to non-living things in order to fulfill your definition.
Well put, this really isn't rocket science. What I find most weird is how some atheists came out and seem to have problems with the inanimate objects thing or with the notion that one can be an atheist with respect to the thousands of religions we have never heard of.
I don't even know what kind of supernatural claims I lack a belief of, and in that sense with respect to a lot of religions I'm not that different than a baby actually.
Even if the claim that we'd have to refer to all non-humans as atheists is true... so what? I do this anyway. I proudly introduce my dogs as Atheists. :) I would argue that ALL atheists (except those more arrogant than Dawkins, who has stated that he himself feels this way) define themselves through their lack of a positive belief, rather than their existing negative belief. I did so when I was an atheist. I've since become an Agnostic Anti-theist. :P
I think this argument is just another symptom with many people's indefatigable need to categorise everyone and everything.
It's quite obvious this argument stems from people wanting to distinguish their children as natural-born Christians/Muslims/Hindus, if people are aware that this is a ridiculous argument, why are they trying to counter it with an equally cheap argument?
Babies are generalized theists. Modern science has shown that babies have an expectation of intelligent causation. If a ball rolls by, they look to see who rolled it. Their whole world seems controlled by intelligent beings. They have to learn that some things aren't so controlled. They start off generalized theists. They assume an intelligence is responsible for everything.
I have been making the argument that the only usefulness in saying atheists are babies is when A) somebody makes the claim that baby X is a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu etc. or B) somebody makes the argument that atheism is a positive assertion. I now have to add C) when somebody claims atheism is unnatural. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Otherwise, I still maintain that it's meaningless to simply make the statement absent context.
You should check out Theo Warner's video on this subject. I'm okay with rocks being atheist... but I do have a problem with Saints being classified as atheists. Some famous theologians don't claim to have a full or robust concept of God. This is called negative theology and it's pretty widely held. I think this issue is more complicated than people are giving it credit.
A lot of atheists on youtube seem to think that if atheism means "lack of belief in God" then that makes rocks and trees atheists. But rocks and trees can't be compared to babies because they don't even have minds. A person begins life with no knowledge of God or politics, but they learn about both later on, while a rock's knowledge of God and politics can't change. We are talking about the starting point of human knowledge as a baby, which is clearly not that same as the state of a rock.
Atheism : a lack of believe *after* consideration of claims or arguments for the existence god(s).
Babies lack believe a priori, whereas that definition is a posteriori. The whole 'babies are atheists' hubbub is simply the lack of that important nuance.
@iamgoddard "Atheism : a lack of believe *after* consideration of claims or arguments for the existence god(s)."
Then are people who grew up in a household which just didn't push on them a religious belief not atheists? They don't necessarily consider the claims of religion, and yet don't accept the claims that deities exist. What are they?
@Cyrathil, is consideration of god claims is a requirement for being an atheist (as I suggested), and someone doesn't consider them, then they're not an atheist. They might be undefined.
@iamgoddard That's my problem with your definition. I don't see it as any better than the "Lack of belief." definition. I see no problem with just specifying a priori or not when the situation comes up, because honestly it's never come up before for me.
@Cyrathil, what problem with my definition was cited? That people who don't define themselves as atheists but aren't theists can't be defined by others as atheists? That's not a real problem unless inflating the number of atheists is an objective.
The problem of not articulating the a-priori / a-posteriori distinction I noted wrt to considering claims of god(s) is exactly this whole silly "are babies atheists" squabble.
@iamgoddard "That people who don't define themselves as atheists"
As I think about it, the numbers are almost inconsequential, and it'd devolve into a bullshit semantics argument on my part, so I'll cede.
But I will say that deciding your argument based on the silliness of "are babies atheists" isn't really going to do much. Either way we're fighting off silly arguments, whether it's from a theist or another atheist is about all that changes.
Great video with a well thought out argument about "implicit atheism" in a baby, of course one can also go a step further & declare that there is no atheism in a baby nor any other kind of 'ism' because babies are born with no implicit knowledge of anything at all such as theories or concepts; they are just blank slates - implicitly.
I would disagree. I would say the baby is a pure agnostic. The baby may not have a religion but that is because he/she is completely without knowledge of such concepts. He/she is not an atheist nor a theist the baby is just completely agnostic on the issue.
@Christ724 To be an atheist you would have to know the concept of god and reject that concept, just like in order to be a theist, you would have to have a concept of a god, and accept that concept.
Theists are opposed to acknowledging the implicit atheism of infants precisely because it underscores the stupidity of the "prove atheism" line of argument.
W/o that obfuscation, theists know they're up sh@t creek, argumentatively.
Actually I have to disagree with you that babies are atheists cuz when my baby momma was in the hospital and she was hungry she said "lawd I need someting to eat" I was there and I swear I heard my baby in her stomach say "amen"
Interesting video.Until humans are able to communicate clearly with infants who are non verbal, we will not know what babies believe in. All we can do is make assumptions and BELIEVE that we are right in such assumptions. The closet we can get to a real understanding is speaking with a very small child who comes from a household that doesn't teach theism or atheism. A child raised in such an environment would be able to help us to understand the belief or disbelief of children.
nocturne1980 1 month ago
0:27 "atheism is the lack in belief of a deity"
lol so technically EVERYONE is an Atheist. For example if a Christian doesn't believe in Zeus, they are atheistic to that god.
kayak2004 1 month ago
The correct analogy here is that atheists think like babies.
1980PintoMan 1 month ago
Are retarded babies atheists?
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne LOL xD
BronyEditor 1 month ago
I just found your videos and I must say they are very good. Intelligent and Thought Provoking Thank You
evileros1960 2 months ago
The play button might be a virgin but go to any Dubstep video & you'll see the replay button get raped
ThePariahLivesOn 3 months ago
that's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, how is it that anyone could KNOW what a baby thinks ? hmmm fail
raw5069 4 months ago
Issues like this are frustrating. It seems both sides have been talking past eachother the whole time because they are both defining the word differently and insisting that is the only correct interpretation.
alexkidd3d 5 months ago
Babies are agnostics... probably. also I agree with the comment below who gives a shit? Isn't part of growing up using you better cognitive faculties to have a more informed decsions on what your believes are?
XXGDUBSXX 5 months ago
If babies are atheists so are cats?
Who gives a shit.
gulbirk 5 months ago
And you were right, so many trolls on Youtube! Aye, it's like you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a trolling opossum!
BlueTuesdayExpress 6 months ago
Nice Vid Malenkii Kropotkin!!! Iz Denisovitcha!
BlueTuesdayExpress 6 months ago
The biggest value found in getting people to accept atheism as the default position is that it reiterates and demonstrates the fact that belief is something we come into - A process of change.
That being said, it gives a lot of weight to the act of questioning how we come to believe things, and why people turn religious - Which in my experience is often something religious people don't like to think about in too much detail, because the dubious nature of their conversion becomes so apparent.
hian 6 months ago
"[Atheism] is one idea" - you
So babies have ideas in regard to claims they have no concept of namely theism? I call bullsh- well I think you're wrong.
TheFunkyTheist 6 months ago
I'm sorry, but in order to 'become' an Atheist, one must first understand, at least to some extent, the concept of Theism, before deciding to reject it.....and of course, babies don't fall into this category.
In fact the opposite is true, they're actually born with a predisposition to believing in God, therefore the argument is not only flawed on every level, it also makes anyone putting it forward as a serious issue, look as desperate as a Democrat in Col Gaddafi's propaganda ministry.
DastardlyDawkins 6 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins
I do not define atheism as a "rejection" of theism. There, no doubt exist god concepts that I have no knowledge or understanding of, yet I still do not believe them. I am still atheistic towards them. Second, a PREDISPOSITION towards belief is NOT the same as a BELIEF. Thirdly, I never made the argument that babies should be labeled primarily as atheists. Only that they disbelief in gods.
LittleKropotkin 6 months ago 2
@LittleKropotkin
If you are unaware of a certain concept, then you are clearly ignorant of, or at least agnostic toward, the doctrines and precepts which underpin the belief system in question, so how is it possible for anyone to ever come out against a Philosophical/Theological paradigm of which they have no knowledge?
I'm struggling to understand your logic on this one.
DastardlyDawkins 6 months ago
@LittleKropotkin
In other words, you are openly admitting that Atheism is nothing more than a completely vacuous, uninformed / ill-informed, state of being.
And do you know what, i agree with you entirely, what an excellent example babies make in graphically illustrating so profoundly, the sheer absence of intellect which overtly defines the mind of an average Atheist.
So as a Theist, i'd like to thank you for highlighting this glaring paradox of modern thinking. :)
DastardlyDawkins 6 months ago
@LittleKropotkin You should buy a dictionary.
bigbaddeerhunter 3 months ago
babies are not fully developed, so you cant label them anything. babies are not atheists...nor are they christians. its preposterous to label an infant or small child with something that they couldnt possibly fully understand to the point of rationalizing. Dawkins makes this point about how children are labeled by their parents religion. So if he is against this for logical reasons, then its obvious children couldnt be called atheists.
SeerSucker1981 7 months ago
@SeerSucker1981 i have to be honest.. i dont know who started this concept, be it bionicdance or someone else...but this is just silly. im sorry. please dont stick to this topic if you want to be taken seriously. are we really going to sit around arguing and philosophizing about what religious beliefs a fuckin baby has?
SeerSucker1981 7 months ago
@SeerSucker1981
"are we really going to sit around arguing and philosophizing about what religious beliefs a fuckin baby has?"
That's because atheism is not a religious belief. And this argument of babies being atheists is incredibly important, as it points out in simple terms to theists that their position is NOT the default, rather religious beliefs are a form of irrational, dangerous conditioning that causes people to have to deconvert and "clean out" our minds to get back to normalcy.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@SeerSucker1981
"its preposterous to label an infant or small child with something that they couldnt possibly fully understand to the point of rationalizing. "
You're misunderstanding the argument. Atheism is not a position you take if there is no theism to respond to. If theism is not presented to a child, the child would be an atheist. It's like if you build a car but didn't paint it, it would be the color of whatever metal/plastic was exposed.
Therefore obviously babies are atheists.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian YOU are missing the point. Atheism is a stance. It's rational skepticism, and demand for a burden of proof. Babies are nothing. They are babies. Theism and religious belief is created by adults. That baby might not believe in anything, but if it is not corrected as it grows to understand the world, it can end up believing in anything. It becomes susceptible to belief in whatever makes it feel better about the world around it.
SeerSucker1981 6 months ago
@SeerSucker1981
A baby has to be taught theistic beliefs. Rational skepticism is NOT atheism. A burden of proof is only necessary if a parent is making a claim to which the child would be answering.
You haven't disproved any of my points here; atheism is not a stance, it is lack of a stance; it is a blank sheet of paper, a bald head, an empty box. It is literally the absence of belief in a god. If no god is posed to the child, atheism would simply have no reason to be mentioned at all.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian in the real world, atheism is a stance. And you are ignoring human behavior...without education, all people are susceptible to create theistic beliefs to explain the world around them, or to explain their purpose. They will create reasons for their existence. Theism was created by adults, not babies. A child growing up without religious indoctrination can just as easily join and believe in a religion as an adult. it happens all the time.
SeerSucker1981 6 months ago
@SeerSucker1981
Do you distinguish between ancient mythologies and modern religion in terms of theistic claims? How much of that distinction is based on your learned beliefs as a child and your own innate ability to assess the reality around you? Can you honestly say that theistic teachings when presented in the modern world as valid are on the same footing as math or physics? How a cup is filled has nothing to do with whether or not it was originally empty.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian scientology is catching on and getting alot of converts. buddhism still does, and gets alot of agnostics and even some atheists.
SeerSucker1981 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Just as children are taught to believe in theism, a child would still have to be taught science and rational thought to reject theism. instruction and education would still have to be administered to avoid irrational beliefs and theistic beliefs.
SeerSucker1981 6 months ago
I don't consider babies atheist. But I do consider a lot of atheists babies.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
the key part is ath IST it have to be a person
futuju 7 months ago
Male Christians love Jesus = gay
evo2029 7 months ago
There are different definitions of atheism, and I think it's important to acknowledge that, otherwise we're doing the same thing Christians do when they swap definitions of "god" between Jesus and "nature". Negative atheism is what you described, the non-acceptance of the claim that "there are gods". But positive atheism is the assertion "there aren't any gods", which is what most self-labelled atheists are, so it seems questionable to label babies this way. I'd prefer to call them "secular".
angelwhite 7 months ago
“Atheism is just simply the lack of belief in a deity”
Maybe your atheism, but not mine. I’m an atheist because I would only accept less than even odds on existence of a deity; not because I have a belief shaped hole in my psychology. And it seems odd to have to attribute psychological traits to non-living things in order to fulfill your definition.
wisdominnature7 7 months ago
Hroom, hm, Treebeard a'lttle offended hrmm!
THEHARMONIKZ 7 months ago
Well put, this really isn't rocket science. What I find most weird is how some atheists came out and seem to have problems with the inanimate objects thing or with the notion that one can be an atheist with respect to the thousands of religions we have never heard of.
I don't even know what kind of supernatural claims I lack a belief of, and in that sense with respect to a lot of religions I'm not that different than a baby actually.
socrates856 7 months ago
Even if the claim that we'd have to refer to all non-humans as atheists is true... so what? I do this anyway. I proudly introduce my dogs as Atheists. :) I would argue that ALL atheists (except those more arrogant than Dawkins, who has stated that he himself feels this way) define themselves through their lack of a positive belief, rather than their existing negative belief. I did so when I was an atheist. I've since become an Agnostic Anti-theist. :P
Marcownz747 7 months ago
Thanks you! You covered everything I wish I could of said. And you said it with charm and weight I don't think I could of done!
Just what I want to know is why ain't those criticizing Bionicdance not going after QualiaSoup or allbabiesareathiests for saying much the same thing!
opaldragon75 7 months ago
Theists are babies
evo2029 7 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@evo2029, good point! Theists are mental babies looking for sky parents.
iamgoddard 7 months ago
@evo2029 And logically it follows from that that theists are atheists. Hmm, think one of the premises has a problem here.
Maxdwolf 7 months ago
@Maxdwolf And somebody doesn't know what a joke or insult is. If his statement were a legitimate claim, that'd be one thing. It clearly wasn't.
Marcownz747 7 months ago
@Marcownz747 And someone else doesn't recognize a legitimate use of mockery. :p
Maxdwolf 7 months ago
I think this argument is just another symptom with many people's indefatigable need to categorise everyone and everything.
It's quite obvious this argument stems from people wanting to distinguish their children as natural-born Christians/Muslims/Hindus, if people are aware that this is a ridiculous argument, why are they trying to counter it with an equally cheap argument?
ShallowBeThyGames 7 months ago
did you see dgeypscun's video on the subject? I liked his thoughts.
FreeThinkingCrusader 7 months ago
Great video I subbed :D
Botzu 7 months ago
Some people commenting here are confusing "formal" and "material" atheism.
Infants are material atheists. So are rare persons who never hear about theological claims.
Persons aware of "god claims" but rejecting them are formal atheists.
RemoveYourChains 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Babies are generalized theists. Modern science has shown that babies have an expectation of intelligent causation. If a ball rolls by, they look to see who rolled it. Their whole world seems controlled by intelligent beings. They have to learn that some things aren't so controlled. They start off generalized theists. They assume an intelligence is responsible for everything.
74BobLilly 7 months ago
I have been making the argument that the only usefulness in saying atheists are babies is when A) somebody makes the claim that baby X is a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu etc. or B) somebody makes the argument that atheism is a positive assertion. I now have to add C) when somebody claims atheism is unnatural. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Otherwise, I still maintain that it's meaningless to simply make the statement absent context.
gamutman 7 months ago
You should check out Theo Warner's video on this subject. I'm okay with rocks being atheist... but I do have a problem with Saints being classified as atheists. Some famous theologians don't claim to have a full or robust concept of God. This is called negative theology and it's pretty widely held. I think this issue is more complicated than people are giving it credit.
MichaelPayton67 7 months ago
The play button isn't a virgin to me ;) ....wait, was that creepy?
jadedtwin 7 months ago
I'm a virgin and not human ^_^
PinkProgram 7 months ago
A lot of atheists on youtube seem to think that if atheism means "lack of belief in God" then that makes rocks and trees atheists. But rocks and trees can't be compared to babies because they don't even have minds. A person begins life with no knowledge of God or politics, but they learn about both later on, while a rock's knowledge of God and politics can't change. We are talking about the starting point of human knowledge as a baby, which is clearly not that same as the state of a rock.
shrikechan 7 months ago
Atheism : a lack of believe *after* consideration of claims or arguments for the existence god(s).
Babies lack believe a priori, whereas that definition is a posteriori. The whole 'babies are atheists' hubbub is simply the lack of that important nuance.
iamgoddard 7 months ago
@iamgoddard "Atheism : a lack of believe *after* consideration of claims or arguments for the existence god(s)."
Then are people who grew up in a household which just didn't push on them a religious belief not atheists? They don't necessarily consider the claims of religion, and yet don't accept the claims that deities exist. What are they?
Cyrathil 7 months ago
@Cyrathil, is consideration of god claims is a requirement for being an atheist (as I suggested), and someone doesn't consider them, then they're not an atheist. They might be undefined.
iamgoddard 7 months ago
@iamgoddard That's my problem with your definition. I don't see it as any better than the "Lack of belief." definition. I see no problem with just specifying a priori or not when the situation comes up, because honestly it's never come up before for me.
Cyrathil 7 months ago
@Cyrathil, what problem with my definition was cited? That people who don't define themselves as atheists but aren't theists can't be defined by others as atheists? That's not a real problem unless inflating the number of atheists is an objective.
The problem of not articulating the a-priori / a-posteriori distinction I noted wrt to considering claims of god(s) is exactly this whole silly "are babies atheists" squabble.
iamgoddard 7 months ago
@iamgoddard "That people who don't define themselves as atheists"
As I think about it, the numbers are almost inconsequential, and it'd devolve into a bullshit semantics argument on my part, so I'll cede.
But I will say that deciding your argument based on the silliness of "are babies atheists" isn't really going to do much. Either way we're fighting off silly arguments, whether it's from a theist or another atheist is about all that changes.
Cyrathil 7 months ago
I meant : IF consideration of god claims ...
iamgoddard 7 months ago
Enjoyed you two cents. I, like you, think that some theist, don't understand what atheist means. Yet, they are atheist to all the other gods.
Peace
CBTENGR100 7 months ago
Also they're tasty.
Mmm babies.
Arikiel 7 months ago
Great video with a well thought out argument about "implicit atheism" in a baby, of course one can also go a step further & declare that there is no atheism in a baby nor any other kind of 'ism' because babies are born with no implicit knowledge of anything at all such as theories or concepts; they are just blank slates - implicitly.
FreeformTao 7 months ago
I would disagree. I would say the baby is a pure agnostic. The baby may not have a religion but that is because he/she is completely without knowledge of such concepts. He/she is not an atheist nor a theist the baby is just completely agnostic on the issue.
Christ724 7 months ago
@Christ724 What's agnostic according to you?
craigdavid00 7 months ago
@Christ724 To be an atheist you would have to know the concept of god and reject that concept, just like in order to be a theist, you would have to have a concept of a god, and accept that concept.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago
@dangerouslytalented Exactly
Christ724 7 months ago
Theists are opposed to acknowledging the implicit atheism of infants precisely because it underscores the stupidity of the "prove atheism" line of argument.
W/o that obfuscation, theists know they're up sh@t creek, argumentatively.
RemoveYourChains 7 months ago
Actually I have to disagree with you that babies are atheists cuz when my baby momma was in the hospital and she was hungry she said "lawd I need someting to eat" I was there and I swear I heard my baby in her stomach say "amen"
Raskolnikhov 7 months ago