Do children start out atheist?

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 174
#121
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Because both theism and atheism are concepts derived of data acquisition, storage and  manipulation

That's why a baby cannot be atheist. Atheism is certainly not a default position like atheists like to assert. A neutral position would be one ignorant of knowledge or claims period. Not knowing is not the same as a disbelief of a proposition being put forward. 

On the other hand intuition of God apart from religious claims is a very real possibility for babies, I say that because of my own experience.  Intuition occurs without the need for conscious reasoning, it is instinctive. 
#122
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Sounds correct to me, thanks for the input. 
#123
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. This is atheism as defined by the Oxford dictionary of English an atheist is someone who lacks belief or disbelieves in the existence of a god or gods.


As such the traits necessary to be an atheist are to be a person and to lack belief or disbelief in a god or gods. To assert that infants aren't atheist would require the claim that infants aren't people, are aware of the concept of god (and accept it as true), or that it's possible to believe in something without being aware of the concept of it. This is of course a semantic argument. There seems to be a group of people who refuse to accept that by definition of the Oxford Dictionary of English anyone who doesn't actively believe in a god is an atheist. The real question does anyone assert infants believe in god(s)? If not then by my definition (the one in the Oxford dictionary), they are atheists.
#124
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods. This is atheism as defined by the Oxford dictionary of English an atheist is someone who lacks belief or disbelieves in the existence of a god or gods.

We went over that already, to have a disbelief or a lack of belief there needs to be an understanding of God. As I wrote above, atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the lack of belief in gods.....see the difference there?

As such the traits necessary to be an atheist are to be a person and to lack belief or disbelief in a god or gods.

Correct, which is why a baby cannot be atheist lol. They have no concept of God, therefore they cannot have a disbelief. 

To assert that infants aren't atheist would require the claim that infants aren't people, are aware of the concept of god

That's ridiculous....One has to be aware of the concept of God to reject that concept, or have a lack of belief in that concept, babies are not aware of concepts. That is why agnostic fits better. Because a baby simply doesn't know and are ignorant. Therefore atheism is not a default position. It is a chosen position, either by asserting or rejecting a belief. 

(and accept it as true), or that it's possible to believe in something without being aware of the concept of it. This is of course a semantic argument. There seems to be a group of people who refuse to accept that by definition of the Oxford Dictionary of English anyone who doesn't actively believe in a god is an atheist. The real question does anyone assert infants believe in god(s)?

No, the real question, or better question would be do babies have intuition or instinctiveness when it comes to God. They have no reasoning abilities. 

If not then by my definition (the one in the Oxford dictionary), they are atheists.

If you wish to be illogical and have no understanding of how terms are defined then I guess so. But we know that to disbelieve or have lack of belief IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, one has to be aware of such concepts. Again, atheism is not defined as lack of beliefs, it is defined as lack of belief IN the existence of GOD, or a rejection of that belief. 


#125
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
And that's precisely why babies are not atheists, a baby cannot choose to believe or disbelieve in Gods existence. They cannot have a lack of belief either obviously, because again, there first needs to be an understanding of what the counter position is.
 
Belief isn't passive, belief is active. Belief is (again according to the the Oxford dictionary)


1: An acceptance something exist or is true especially without one proof


1.1: Something one accepts as true or real a firmly held opinion.


1.2: A religious conviction.


2: (belief in) Trust, faith or confidence in (someone or something). 


None of these positions are possible towards something you're unaware of.


Do you assert that infants have belief in god(s)?


If not then how do you propose they don't lack (The state of being without or not having enough of something.) belief?

No where does the definition of atheism require an atheist be aware that some people belive in god(s). 

#126
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
@EtrnlVw
@RoderickSpode
@FLRW
@fauxlaw
Is the argument that there are three options instead of two as it comes to belief in god or gods?

1) Atheist
2) Theist
3) Inanimate Object

If there's a third 'neutral' position, does whatever is in that neutral position believe in god or gods?
#127
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic. That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category? we have two categories here with one being a default position, the other two being that of chosen positions, or negative or positive....again the term atheist can only exist if I come along as a theist, every time I say hey! God exists (because of so and so), you say hey, no god exists (because of so and so). Before I came along and said God exists, there was a neutral category. Both atheism and theism are philosophical positions because there first needs to be the ability to reason. 


#128
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Is the argument that there are three options instead of two as it comes to belief in god or gods?

Yes, because atheism can't exist until I make a claim that God exists (Theism). That's make a neutral position by default. Now we have three categories, positive, negative and neutral. Neutral being simply "not knowing" or ignorant of...

1) Atheist
2) Theist
3) Inanimate Object

I don't know what that means but I would say the 3 categories are Theism, Atheism and Agnostic. However a baby is not able to take philosophical positions. 

If there's a third 'neutral' position, does whatever is in that neutral position believe in god or gods?

Neither, it has no ability to understand concepts, or reject concepts. It neither believes nor disbelieves. 
#129
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
As I've been saying, I think "intuition" as opposed to belief (theism) or disbelief/lack of belief (atheism) ...would be a much better argument here. Because intuition occurs independent of conscious reasoning. Therefore there would be no need for any religious claims, and so could a baby have instinctive feelings about God?

In order to have a disbelief in the existence of God or a lack of belief in that, one must have an understanding of God. To be neutral of either side is to be agnostic. I put atheism then in the category of a positive assertion. Atheism doesn't come along until Theism does, therefore atheism is not a neutral position. 
#130
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ludofl3x
i completely concur with EtrnlVw in #127, 128. No need to reiterate, except to add that faith and belief are two separate concepts. Faith is a hope for things which are not seen, but which are true. It demands our active participation to achieve eventual knowledge of truth so that faith is no longer required. Belief, on the other hand makes no such demands of participation. We can believe and do nothing about it. Nothing will come of it, either, but that is the choice between exercising faith and mere belief. Belief has no exercise to it. A baby, and even a young child is not capable of such distinction.
#131
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
We went over that already, to have a disbelief or a lack of belief there needs to be an understanding of God. As I wrote above, atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the lack of belief in gods.....see the difference there?
Are you asserting then that one can have belief in the existence of gods, if they're unaware of gods, or the concept of gods?

Correct, which is why a baby cannot be atheist lol. They have no concept of God, therefore they cannot have a disbelief. 


I never said that they disbelieve in gods, simply that if they don't believe gods exist then by simple definition they lack belief in the existence of gods. To not lack belief in the existence of gods one must have belief in gods. Do you assert infants have belief in the existence of gods?

That's ridiculous....One has to be aware of the concept of God to reject that concept, or have a lack of belief in that concept, babies are not aware of concepts. That is why agnostic fits better. Because a baby simply doesn't know and are ignorant. Therefore atheism is not a default position. It is a chosen position, either by asserting or rejecting a belief. 
I will say I agree with with that statement. Though when it comes to lack of belief, please be so kind as to answer a couple of questions.

Do you assert that infants have belief in the existence of a god or gods? 

Do you accept that to be without a thing is to lack it?
#132
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
Are you asserting then that one can have belief in the existence of gods, if they're unaware of gods, or the concept of gods?

I'm asserting one must be aware of such a concept to either believe it or disbelieve it, and there is no such a thing as a lack of belief in God in a baby  without first a belief in God.  A baby cannot have a lack of belief in God because that asserts that a baby is deficient of something or does not have something....which creates a negative position. That's why there is a third category, a default position. Basically you have a scale, with atheism on the left, a neutral position in the middle and theism on the right. Because again, atheism cannot exist unless theism does. Both theism and atheism create such a contrast, and if there is a contrast of beliefs then that makes a middle ground. 

I never said that they disbelieve in gods,

But that is how it is defined, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". My claim is that there cannot be a disbelief or a lack of that belief, which would require the missing of something. A baby is not missing a belief in God, they simply can't have belief either way. Again which is why we have a neutral category.  

simply that if they don't believe gods exist then by simple definition they lack belief in the existence of gods.

They are not lacking anything, they are neither having nor missing something. 

To not lack belief in the existence of gods one must have belief in gods. Do you assert infants have belief in the existence of gods?

They neither have a belief nor a lack of belief.  And lets not pretend that atheism is not defined as a disbelief. 

Do you assert that infants have belief in the existence of a god or gods? 

I'm saying there is a default position, with theism and atheism being positions. 

Do you accept that to be without a thing is to lack it?

A baby is not missing anything or lacking anything, it is not deficient. It is in a neutral category. 






#133
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
Lack-
to be deficient or missing
to be short or have need of something
deficiency or absence of something needed
something missing or needed

A baby is not lacking belief in gods existence or disbelieving it, an atheist is. A baby is in a position of not missing anything, it is not lacking anything, and it does not disbelieve. It is agnostic if anything, do you make the claim agnosticism is not a usable term? if it is, could you please explain why a baby is not an agnostic? 

Agnostic-
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

A baby does not have a belief that god does not exist! 
#134
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic. That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category?
I actually agree with this. Though not the way you mean. Again citing the Oxford dictionary an agnostic is a person who believes nothing is known or can be known of  the existence or nature of god. Agnostism is separate from theism and atheism as it addresses knowledge not belief. It would ironically require one to have knowledge of the concept of god for them to believe we will never be able to know the nature or existence of God. Atheism however still only requires one not to believe gods exist.

we have two categories here with The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic.
I agree with the highlighted section. The word atheist wouldn't exist without the word theist, since if we look at its etymology, then we see it means theist. However atheists could exist if there had never been a theist. We circle back around to what it means to lack belief. Surely we lack (are without) belief in anything we don't even have a concept of? Do you want to assert it is possible to believe in a thing you don't even have a concept of? Or do you disagree that to be without something is to lack it?

That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category?
Yes, only atheism is neutral of the three positions, as it's the only one that doesn't require a positive or negative claim or position (theism is the claim god exists and agnosticism is the claim that we cannot know of gods nature or existence).


being a default position, the other two being that of chosen positions, or negative or positive....again the term atheist can only exist if I come along as a theist, every time I say hey! God exists (because of so and so), you say hey, no god exists (because of so and so).
Atheism isn't a negative position, it's simply the state of not taking the positive position in regards to the claims of gods existence. If you haven't heard the claim of gods existence. You cannot have taken a position and so are logically an atheist. To say that an atheist states 'no gods exist' isn't a necessity of atheism. All it takes is to lack belief. People who believe no god exists, people who don't accept either the positive or negative claim of gods existence and people who don't know of the concept of god are all atheists because they are all lacking in a belief of a god or gods.

Before I came along and said God exists, there was a neutral category. Both atheism and theism are philosophical positions because there first needs to be the ability to reason.

I have spoken with theists and atheists who have convinced me there doesn't need to be that much ability to reason on either side. That said. Atheism requires only that you're a person who lacks belief in the existence of a god. We come back to the same questions time and again. 

If you don't have something, do you lack it?



#135
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
To make this more clear, you should understand why the term atheist even exists. It's a term created in direct opposition to theist. One party says I believe God exists, the other party says I don't believe God exists (a lack of belief God exists). Both are a position...In other words, I don't have a belief that God exists, I believe that God does not exist.... that's not the same as having a neutral position. One believes and the other disbelieves, they are in contrast to one another. If there is no theism in a baby then there is no atheism in a baby, they are locked in a default position between the two. That's the simplest way I can break it down for you.
The misconception is coming from the misleading statement that atheism is to have lack of belief. But actually, more accurately they have disbelief in god, or a lack of belief in the existence of God as proposed by Theists (which a  baby has no understanding of). A-theism is a counter position to Theism. A baby cannot have a counter position to theism, which is why they are agnostic if anything. But again, I take the position that they cannot have any philosophical stances at all. Intuition though, is an entirely different matter.
Does that make sense to you? atheism is a philosophical assertion, not a default term or stance. 

#136
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
All it takes is to lack belief. 

That's basically where you go wrong here, more precisely it is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, as proposed by Theists.  If you have no concepts of the existence of God or gods, or have not heard of that, or has never been proposed to you.... then there can be no atheist, which is a counter to theism. Better put a counter position to theism. This means that there is a default position, neither being atheist (anti-theist) or theist (anti-atheist). 


Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

You cannot lack a belief in (or not have a belief in) the existence of God or gods without prior knowledge of that which you disbelieve in, or chose to not believe in. "I don't believe in the existence of God or gods". What do you not believe in? "that which is proposed by theism". 
#137
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
I have spoken with theists and atheists who have convinced me there doesn't need to be that much ability to reason on either side. 

That would be more of an intuition then, because intuition can occur without the ability to reason. That's why I said it would be a much better argument titled "can a baby have intuition of God"? 
I don't make any claim that a baby cannot have intuition of God, they may not have access to what God is proposed as by religion but in terms of feelings and instincts that is irrelevant. Like I said in this thread, I never made a transition from not believing in God (atheism) to believing in God (theism). So just as someone can claim they were never a Theist, I was never an Atheist. I was thinking about God in diapers and as far as I know there was never a time when I said "hey, I believe God exists" as opposed to "I have no belief that god exists, or a belief that god does not exist". Heck, babies don't even know what the term exist mean, so they can neither believe that God exists or disbelieve that God exists. 

#138
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
Atheism is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; refuting or repudiating the existence of gods, especially officially sanctioned gods"

"godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).


Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god (s)".



#139
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
A baby cannot reason within themselves that they have no belief in God, or that they "lack" belief in God. They cannot reason that they have one, in order that a baby have a belief in God or have a lack of belief in God (disbelieve) they first must have an understanding of that concept. Having a "lack" of belief in the existence of God is the same as not believing in God, or disbelieving in God. That is why the term "disbelief" is within the definition. Disbelief or lack of belief are being used synonymously. 
#140
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic. That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category? we have two categories here with one being a default position, the other two being that of chosen positions, or negative or positive....again the term atheist can only exist if I come along as a theist, every time I say hey! God exists (because of so and so), you say hey, no god exists (because of so and so). Before I came along and said God exists, there was a neutral category. Both atheism and theism are philosophical positions because there first needs to be the ability to reason. 
The term atheist can't exist without the term theist sure. But if there are people then by definition atheists would have to exist if there were no theists, since there would be people who lacked belief in god. Lack as defined in the Oxford dictionary of English (the dictionary we're drawing the definition of atheist we've been using from I might add for the sake of consistency)

NOUN
mass noun usually lack of
  • The state of being without or not having enough of something.
    ‘there is no lack of entertainment aboard ship’
Or possibly.

VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
  • Be without or deficient in.
    ‘the novel lacks imagination’
Notice that both of those state that being without something is to lack it. How can someone not have a belief in the existence of god or gods and not be without said belief?

#141
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm asserting one must be aware of such a concept to either believe it or disbelieve it, and there is no such a thing as a lack of belief in God in a baby  without first a belief in God.  A baby cannot have a lack of belief in God because that asserts that a baby is deficient of something or does not have something....which creates a negative position. That's why there is a third category, a default position. Basically you have a scale, with atheism on the left, a neutral position in the middle and theism on the right. Because again, atheism cannot exist unless theism does. Both theism and atheism create such a contrast, and if there is a contrast of beliefs then that makes a middle ground. 
Not true. Atheists can exist without theism or theists, if there are people who aren't theists then they are by definition atheists. They wouldn't know they were atheists, but they would fit the criteria to be atheists. They would be people who lack belief in god. I fail to see why this presents an issue for you. The Oxford dictionary defines an atheist as someone who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. The Oxford dictionary defines lack as:

NOUN
mass nounusually lack of
  • The state of being without or not having enough of something.
    ‘there is no lack of entertainment aboard ship’
VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
  • Be without or deficient in.
    ‘the novel lacks imagination’
Note that both the definitions for lack given accept that to be without something is to lack it. Are you suggesting that the Oxford Dictionary isn't using the Oxford Dictionaries definition of lack in its definition or atheist? Or are you suggesting that we can not believe in god while also not being without that belief?

But that is how it is defined, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". My claim is that there cannot be a disbelief or a lack of that belief, which would require the missing of something. A baby is not missing a belief in God, they simply can't have belief either way. Again which is why we have a neutral category.  
A baby is without belief in the existence of god. 

VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
  • Be without or deficient in.
    ‘the novel lacks imagination’
so by definition, infants lack belief in the existence of god unless you are saying they believe in the existence of god.



They are not lacking anything, they are neither having nor missing something. 

Then you wouldn't say that not having something is to be without it? You're really making some efforts at linguistic acrobatics at this point.


They neither have a belief nor a lack of belief.  And lets not pretend that atheism is not defined as a disbelief. 
I am pretending nothing. The fact is that by definition all that is required for one to be an atheist is that they be a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods, as defined by the Oxford dictionary. The oxford dictionary defines lack several ways, but they all include being without as sufficient. As such being a person and being without belief in the existence of god fits all the necessary criteria to be an atheist.

I'm saying there is a default position, with theism and atheism being positions. 
If the default position is anything other than the belief in the existence of a god or gods then it's a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, using definitions I've shown above cited from the same source as the definition for atheism we've both been using for a while and is as such atheism.

to be deficient or missing
to be short or have need of something
deficiency or absence of something needed
something missing or needed

A baby is not lacking belief in gods existence or disbelieving it, an atheist is. A baby is in a position of not missing anything, it is not lacking anything, and it does not disbelieve. It is agnostic if anything, do you make the claim agnosticism is not a usable term? if it is, could you please explain why a baby is not an agnostic? 

Where did you get that definition of lack? Because as I've shown above the oxford dictionary definition is clear that being without something is to lack it. Since the definition of atheism I've been using is drawn from the definition in the Oxford dictionary and you seem to have been using the same definition, it stands to reason that the oxford dictionary's definition of lack is what they mean. Or do you suppose they use a different definition for lack?

Agnostic

NOUN
  • A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Oxford Dictionary.

Notice that this is an active belief. Infants can't logically be agnostic any more than they can be theists unless they have a concept of god. Yet that can be without belief in the existence of any god, regardless of their knowledge of the concept of god. In fact if they have no concept of god, they can't help but be without belief in the existence of gods, that makes them atheists.
#142
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@amandragon01
Lack of belief is not the same as lack of belief in God. Once you add the words "in god" you've added content that needs to be understood. I can have lack of belief in general, but a lack of belief in fairies presupposes an understanding of that concept. This is simple to understand. For a baby to lack belief in God, it must have an understanding of God's existence. A baby therefore cannot deny the existence of God, or have a lack of belief in that. It simply does not know either way, and certainly has no understanding of existence or nonexistence. 

And the way I'm using agnostic is a person who simply does not know. But as I said many times now, I'd rather not claim that a baby can take any philosophical stance. So I'm not going to argue that a baby is agnostic at this point, but a baby is definitely in a default position. And the default position is not atheism because it is in contrast to Theism. 
#143
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
To make this more clear, you should understand why the term atheist even exists. It's a term created in direct opposition to theist. One party says I believe God exists, the other party says I don't believe God exists (a lack of belief God exists). Both are a position...In other words, I don't have a belief that God exists, I believe that God does not exist.... that's not the same as having a neutral position. One believes and the other disbelieves, they are in contrast to one another. If there is no theism in a baby then there is no atheism in a baby, they are locked in a default position between the two. That's the simplest way I can break it down for you.
No, the term atheist defines someone who isn't a theist. There's a subtle but important difference. Namely atheist covers lack of belief, lack of belief doesn't require knowledge of the claim, only that the claim not be accepted as true. This is supported by the definition we have both accepted.

The misconception is coming from the misleading statement that atheism is to have lack of belief. But actually, more accurately they have disbelief in god, or a lack of belief in the existence of God as proposed by Theists (which a  baby has no understanding of). A-theism is a counter position to Theism. A baby cannot have a counter position to theism, which is why they are agnostic if anything. But again, I take the position that they cannot have any philosophical stances at all. Intuition though, is an entirely different matter.
You have however accepted and used the definition of an atheist being a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. The misconception is actually coming from your misunderstanding of what lack means as defined by the oxford dictionary. To be without something is by the oxford dictionary definition to lack it. To lack belief in the existence of a god or gods is to be an atheist. So it follows that infants if they are unable to believe in a god or gods lack belief in the existence of a god or gods and that makes them atheists. You can twist and squirm around this as much as you like, but the fact is that we have been discussing all this time using a definition of atheism that certainly does include infants unless they believe gods exist... Or aren't people, I have no reason to believe either of those things, so short of moving goal posts and suddenly rejecting the definition we've been using for the duration of our discussion (and I clearly stated as the definition I was using in my original post) you have no argument against my position, which is fairly simple.

Infants are people who seem incapable of having a concept of god. Without the concept of god they are without (lack) belief in gods existence and so are atheists. This all follows clear definitions.

A baby cannot reason within themselves that they have no belief in God, or that they "lack" belief in God. They cannot reason that they have one, in order that a baby have a belief in God or have a lack of belief in God (disbelieve) they first must have an understanding of that concept. Having a "lack" of belief in the existence of God is the same as not believing in God, or disbelieving in God. That is why the term "disbelief" is within the definition. Disbelief or lack of belief are being used synonymously.
To lack something is to be without or deficient in. Why would the fact that they cannot reason within themselves prevent them from being without a belief in gods existence? You keep trying to twist that around, but being without belief in god means they lack belief in the existence of god, which fits nicely within the definition of an atheist. Why this is such a big deal for people I can't understand. It changes nothing, they no more or less believe in the existence of gods, they simply are atheists because they fit the definition of an atheist.

#144
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
Lack of belief is not the same as lack of belief in God. Once you add the words "in god" you've added content that needs to be understood. I can have lack of belief in general, but a lack of belief in fairies presupposes an understanding of that concept. This is simple to understand. For a baby to lack belief in God, it must have an understanding of God's existence. A baby therefore cannot deny the existence of God, or have a lack of belief in that. It simply does not know either way, and certainly has no understanding of existence or nonexistence. 
No. You haven't presupposed understanding of the concept, you have simply specified which concept is being addressed. You don't need to know about fairies to lack belief in them, in fact you can't help but lack belief in fairies if you don't know of the concept. I mean how could they possibly not lack that belief if they don't know the concept they're believing in? You don't have a concept of fairies, gods, dragons or anything else for that matter, then you cannot have belief in them so you must lack belief in them. Same for their existence.

As for infants taking a philosophical position. They're not, being an atheist doesn't necessitate taking a philosophical position at all, atheists can take philosophical positions, there are philosophical positions that are atheistic, but an atheist is simply someone who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods, this doesn't need to be a philosophical position at all, they don't need to have any reason or argument, they simply need to disbelieve or lack belief. Babies if they lack belief in the existence of god fit the criteria.



#145
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@amandragon01
The only requirement for one to be an atheist is to be a person and to not accept as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods.
Then babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods! Even by your revised definition, babies do not qualify.

Trees aren't people. 
Are unborn babies "people"?

I bet you believe unborn babies are not people and thus are pro-abortion. So babies are " people" when you want to label them atheists, but not "people" when you want to kill them for your convenience.

The reason that atheists restrict the definition to "people" is because people think. A reasonable restriction. But babies don't think. And neither do trees. So then, why is the definition restricted to people? If not because of thinking, then why?

If the restriction is due to the fact that only people think, then a baby cannot be included. Or perhaps you are saying babies magically become atheists the moment they exit the birth canal?
#146
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Is the argument that there are three options instead of two as it comes to belief in god or gods?
1) Atheist
2) Theist
3) Inanimate Object
I call trick play! The first 2 are beliefs, inanimate objects are not beliefs. You are attempting to conflate apples and babies. The correct 3 options are...

1. Agnostic - having no knowledge of god or gods. (gnosis referring to knowledge)
2. Atheist - Rejecting God or gods
3. Theist - Accepting god or gods

What about you? Are human zygotes "people"?
#147
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
On the other hand intuition of God apart from religious claims is a very real possibility for babies, I say that because of my own experience.  Intuition occurs without the need for conscious reasoning, it is instinctive. 
Which is why theists exist at all, given that babies start out as agnostic. For if everyone is born atheist, where do theists come from?

The bible agrees that men come with an intuition of God. They were created that way. That is why every culture on Earth throughout time has had a God story.
#148
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,076
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Spirituality is an internal electro-chemical response to an external stimulus.....Which might or might be suggestive of something else or might just be pure physiology at play....We can but speculate and we can but imagine.

One either is or isn't conditioned to believe.

Atheism by definition is lacking belief....But "atheism" has become something  of a loaded term for some  theists....They like to read more into it for the sake of argument.


#149
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Then babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods! Even by your revised definition, babies do not qualify.
You're wrong. By the simple law of non-contradiction if they haven't accepted the existence of a god or gods as true then they have not accepted the existence of a god or gods as true. If they haven't accepted the existence of a god or gods as true then they do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. That means they lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. 

Are unborn babies "people"?

I bet you believe unborn babies are not people and thus are pro-abortion. So babies are " people" when you want to label them atheists, but not "people" when you want to kill them for your convenience.
This is a red herring. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on abortion with you. I accept infants as people the only question now is do you?

The reason that atheists restrict the definition to "people" is because people think. A reasonable restriction. But babies don't think. And neither do trees. So then, why is the definition restricted to people? If not because of thinking, then why?

If the restriction is due to the fact that only people think, then a baby cannot be included. Or perhaps you are saying babies magically become atheists the moment they exit the birth canal?
Firstly how do you propose atheists restrict the definition to people? I have used a dictionary definition. The Oxford dictionary certainly isn't an atheist, can you show that its authors were or is this just supposition.

I say infants are people do you disagree?

#150
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@amandragon01
Then babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods! Even by your revised definition, babies do not qualify.

You're wrong.
I am completely correct that babies have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods.

By the simple law of non-contradiction if they haven't accepted the existence of a god or gods as true then they have not accepted the existence of a god or gods as true
Tautology in reference to a baby. Babies cannot accept or not accept any preposition.

If they haven't accepted the existence of a god or gods as true then they do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.
More tautology. Your argument is akin to, "Babies can't fly, so they aren't birds."

That means they lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. 
Babies have not rejected a belief in God. Babies cannot reject a belief in God. Babies lack a concept of God.

Are unborn babies "people"?

I bet you believe unborn babies are not people and thus are pro-abortion. So babies are " people" when you want to label them atheists, but not "people" when you want to kill them for your convenience.

This is a red herring. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate on abortion with you.
Of course you aren't. You would lose. The debate would not be about abortion but about the consistency of your belief that babies are people. Your claim that babies are people in this argument is ad-hoc. I know this because you deny "peoplehood" to babies in your abortion argument. Babies either are, or are not people. They don't change to suit your argument.

I accept infants as people the only question now is do you?
I did not ask about infants. I asked you, are unborn babies people.

The reason that atheists restrict the definition to "people" is because people think. A reasonable restriction. But babies don't think. And neither do trees. So then, why is the definition restricted to people? If not because of thinking, then why?

If the restriction is due to the fact that only people think, then a baby cannot be included. Or perhaps you are saying babies magically become atheists the moment they exit the birth canal?

Firstly how do you propose atheists restrict the definition to people? I have used a dictionary definition. The Oxford dictionary certainly isn't an atheist, can you show that its authors were or is this just supposition.
The religious leanings of the authors are immaterial. I've shown that babies do NOT qualify under of the definition YOU offered. Your definition required atheists to have had NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods. Babies have NOT done that. Babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods, a requirements of being an atheist by your definition.

I say infants are people do you disagree? 
I say infants are not atheists.