There are many in the atheist community who don’t feel that newborn babies should be called atheists. And their reasoning makes sense. If so, then what would be the most appropriate term for humans who don’t hold the belief that a god exists?
Agnostic = “no opinion yet” (includes infants).
Hard Agnostic = “it can never be known by anyone ever” (requires judgement and attitude).
If Agnostic means “no opinion yet”, then what word would be used for “I am not certain of my belief” as opposed to “I am certain of my belief”?
What’s wrong with atheist? It’s the truth! Newborns do not hold a believe in God. They are ipso facto atheists.
Different terminology applies in the following circumstances:
A) A newborn baby sucks on its mother’s nipples, matures and then stops sucking on its mother’s nipples.
B) A 43 year old man sucks on his mother’s nipples, matures and then stops sucking on his mother’s nipples.
My kettle does not hold a belief in God either, would you call it an atheist?
An atheist holds the belief that their is no God or gods… or put another way “a disbelief in God or gods.”
This implies a somewhat wilful process of having a belief or disbelief.
As with the nipple scenario, why apply mature terms to immature people. The terms atheist or theist simply do not apply where there is no wilful belief or disbelief.
“Uncertain”, “weakly faithful”, “questioning”, “wavering”.
James is right.
They should be called agnostics, simply because they do not have any opinion about the existence of the god.
As soon as they form an opinion of either side, they have to be classified either as theists or atheists.
Agnosticism means either one does not know or unable to decide, for whatever reasons.
With love,
Sanjay
No, GiB.
It is true that infants do not have belief on the god but it is also truth that they do not have any disbelief in the god either.
Can you consider them theists just because of that?
Either ignorance or confusion is not the same as disbelief. They are entirely different positions.
With love,
Sanjay
Agnosticism is a belief in the unknowability of the existence or non-existence of God or gods.
Newborns do not hold this belief nor do they hold a disbelief of this belief.
It would be like asking, do newborns believe the Earth orbits the Sun?
It is an unwise question to ask.
Or you could just call them ignorant.
I guess it depends on what position a person takes, but agnosticism is still a wilful choice (which may or may not be based on ignorance).
A newborn does not fit into any of those definitions (has no disbelief, is not skeptical, is not doubtful or noncommittal).
The ignorance or insight, in itself, does not define agnostics, atheists, or theists (the wilful choice to hold a belief/disbelief is what defines them).
“Noncommittal” could keep the air clear.
But no matter what word you choose, it will gain a connotation that will become a presumed definition as it is used for political advantage.
Let’s say we were to divide all humans into two categories:
- Those who believe that a god exists (I believe the proper definition for this is a theist)
- All humans who don’t fall into category #1.
What would be an appropriate word to describe those in category #2?
Atheism is a neutral position. Theism is a position in which one holds a belief that a god exists.
Agnostic means one is not sure of their belief. Gnostic means one is sure of their belief.
Technically, a newborn baby is an agnostic atheist. Their atheism is implicit, as opposed to explicit, which would be the case with an atheist who knows what a god is.
Let’s say we were to divide all humans into two categories:
- Those who believe that a god exists (I believe the proper definition for this is a theist)
- All humans who don’t fall into category #1.
What would be an appropriate word to describe those in category #2?
—^^^ as I said … used for political gain.
There is no appropriate word. You need to study set theory.
You need to study set theory and the meanings of words (and the meaning of the prefix “a”)
Yes, it will (that is certain).
Actually this is not a good way to sum up the issue. Newborns do not have beliefs, per se, in anything. But…check this out…
sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 103828.htm
And children, myself included, tend to be animistic, to some degree pantheistic and have to be taught otherwise. I also put forward the idea of reincarnation in an atheist/agnostic household when I was three, much to the shock of my mother - when a friend of mine died.
Ok, I get it. But I think the defining marker here is an ability to declare one’s self atheist or theist (i.e. to know what the terms mean). But if the newborn is like a kettle, then whatever term Mutcer needs to label the baby with should also work for the kettle.
While I intuitively feel that the study is right, my experience with these sorts of studies is that they are wanting for a more rigorous methodology and a more direct logic for drawing the conclusions they draw.
Yes, a cattle is as good agnostic as the infants are.
Unsure for whatever reasons - agnostic.
Sure for whatever reasons - either theist or atheist.
I do not see any confusion at all in the definitions. They are as simple and clear as can be.
Infants and cattle are agnostic because they do not have any capacity to decide.
I am sorry to say but it seems to me that the problem with Mucter is that he wants to ensure that atheism should be considered either natural/default or more rational philosophical position. Thus, he keep digging up such issues. Though, the fact of the matter is that agnosticm is the most scientific and rational approach between the three options, at least 99% of the people.
Do not believe/disbeive unless you are not absolutely sure of anything and got all answers. Keep a window open till then. That is science and agnosticm as well.
With love,
Sanjay
Sanjay,
You do realize that many define “atheism” as simply a lack of belief in God, don’t you? Atheism is often misunderstood as a firm stance on the non-existence of God (although the great majority of atheists are, IMO, of this variety), but strictly speaking, it just means no-belief-in-God: a-theistic.
IOW, the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” are often redundant, and I’ve sometimes had difficulty telling the difference. (I suppose the difference is that when someone says “I’m agnostic” you know for sure that he/she is unsure, whereas if someone says “I’m atheist” you’re not sure if he’s agnostic or really believes there is no God).
Given that you have no problem calling an infant agnostic on the basis that it literally doesn’t know, why wouldn’t you have trouble calling it atheist on the basis that it literally doesn’t believe? In my response to Jr Wells, I suggested that we reserve these terms for those who can actually declare themselves atheist and know what the term means. I’m sure the same would apply to agnostic.
BTW, kettle != cattle ← Cattle are typically farm animals that graze and are used for milk and eventually eaten; kettle is something you boil water in to make tea.