20 Jul 11
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a disbelief or a lack of belief (merriam-webster and osford dictionaries both side with the former.
I've changed my position since and now hold the belief that when the baby is born it's mother is God, in as much as anyone/thing can be to an uncarved block...the child bonds with the mother before it is born and sees her as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSounds pretty whacked-out to me. What have you been smoking? 🙂
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis ...[text shortened]... se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSeems to me that you'd need to be able to choose a position in order to be categorised.
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis ...[text shortened]... se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI don't think babies can think of anything as god - since they inherently don't have a concept of what a god is.
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis ...[text shortened]... se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
That might be getting into too much detail- I do think that babies do simply see whomever their care giver is as the closest thing to a god that you could think of. When they are hungry or upset for another reason they cry and hope for that care giver to provide food and/or comfort.
I would say that still categorizes the child as being an atheist since they don't make a choice to believe or not believe.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI would say non-theist since at first there is not much interaction with the world except observation and feeling. Babies take in the world, start learning about it they minute they open their eyes. There is built in intelligence from day one but nothing like what we would call independent thought. Being thought of as atheist is assuming the person is taking a position on the subject when there is no thought about it one way or another, thus my term Non-theistic.
I don't think babies can think of anything as god - since they inherently don't have a concept of what a god is.
That might be getting into too much detail- I do think that babies do simply see whomever their care giver is as the closest thing to a god that you could think of. When they are hungry or upset for another reason they cry and hope for that ...[text shortened]... rizes the child as being an atheist since they don't make a choice to believe or not believe.
If that baby were to be brought up by wolves or some such in the forest with no contact with humans there is no development of language, there have been cases like that and that person seems to have no religious thoughts at all.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterIt would depend on how you interpret being an atheist - some people define atheism as "not believing in god" and some would define it as being somewhat certain that there is no god.
Is atheism a passive position?
I would say they could be said as being atheists if you can define them as not believing in god - since they don't, even though it's in no small part because they aren't even aware of what the concept is.
They couldn't be considered atheists if you defined it by having any sort of certainty of the existence of god since they don't have any real knowledge of anything. In fact, from what I've read babies aren't even aware that their hands are their own.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundBabies are implicit atheists. They have no conception of god and therefore do not, and cannot, believe in god.
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis ...[text shortened]... se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
As for defining a baby's mother as 'god', it's just word play. It's redefining god so as to make the concept even more incoherent than it is already. Mothers are obviously very important to babies, but they are not gods in any meaningful sense.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterAtheism can be a passive position. Anyone who has never heard of a god, or who is incapable of conceiving of a god, would be an implicit atheist. This contrasts with explicit atheists, who have heard of god, but do not believe in him (it). All babies are born implicit atheists. They grow up to become either explicit atheists or theists.
Is atheism a passive position? I don't think so, therefore I'd say babies are not born atheists. Nor are they born theists.
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI would say so. God is Just where ever he choses to send babies.
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis ...[text shortened]... se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
21 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettnonsense. being athiest or theist requires a level of cognisence and world awareness beyond the ability of infants.
Babies are implicit atheists. They have no conception of god and therefore do not, and cannot, believe in god.
As for defining a baby's mother as 'god', it's just word play. It's redefining god so as to make the concept even more incoherent than it is already. Mothers are obviously very important to babies, but they are not gods in any meaningful sense.