Are Human babies atheists?

[ZombieHorde]

Relax, it's just a DU poll.

[beam me up scottie]

1. If a-theism means without a belief in god(s), then, yes, of course they are.

I was born an atheist and still am.

If you're serious about this, you need to define atheism.

[htuttle]

2. Human babies believe in a mother goddess

...but they get really pissed off when they feel their deity has let them down.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. no, they believe in tits.

to be perfectly frank. er, surely.

[htuttle]

31. Succinctly put.

:)

[LostInAnomie]

3. Babies are Tabula Rasa.

Trying to gauge their views on God is like trying to gauge a caveman's views on Quantum Physics.

[ZombieHorde]

7. OK, first of all...

Carl is one of my favorite cartoon characters. Super awesome!

Second of all...

I am not so sure about babies minds being tabula rasa. They have experiences and thoughts in the womb. They masturbate in the womb.

Third of all...

God is much simpler than quantum physics. Few people are experts on the subject of quantum physics, most adults are experts on god.

[LostInAnomie]

9. The quantum physics comparison...

... refers to the fact that in both instances they are unaware of the school of thought. Cavemen don't believe or disbelieve in Quantum Physics because because they aren't aware of the concept. The same applies to babies. They have no thoughts on God because the concept hasn't been introduced to them.

The thoughts and experiences they have in the womb are not based on much beyond sensation. They know what they like and dislike and that is basically the full scope of their thoughts. They don't apply these experiences towards a morality or anything higher because they have no concept of morality. God, morality, right and wrong are all concepts that we introduce and ingrain into our children.

[ZombieHorde]

12. You seem to believe that they are godless...

For some people, godless = atheist. For others it does not. My guess is that both sides are there for political reasons.

[LostInAnomie]

14. They are godless...

... but that doesn't necessarily imply that they are atheists.

Being an atheist implies that you don't believe in God. Since babies don't have a concept of God they neither believe nor disbelieve.

[ZombieHorde]

16. I just asked my wife, she agrees with you.

But I am not so sure. It all comes down to semantics I guess.

[LostInAnomie]

18. Then reverse the question.

"Do you think babies are born with an innate belief in God?"

[ZombieHorde]

20. No, I think that babies are godless.

On this we agree. But does godless = atheist? I am aware that this is just semantics.

I posted a poll about this on the atheist board a few minutes ago if you are interested. So far, no votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x33532

[LostInAnomie]

21. Then it really is just a matter of...

... if you think disbelief = no concept of.

[ZombieHorde]

23. No, it's a matter of...

Does godless = atheist.

"Disbelief = no concept of" is to (do you use "too" in this situation? I don't remember.) broad for me.

[LostInAnomie]

24. Well, atheists have made an informed decision...

... and chosen a side in respects to belief in God. They have chosen to not believe, as opposed to believing.

Babies on the other hand have not made a decision. If you were going to throw a label on them the closest you could get would be agnostic. Although, I don't believe that fits either since agnostics by definition are aware of the concept of God.

[uberllama42]

36. It's "too"

I'm a copy editor and recovering grammar Nazi. Thanks for the fix.

[ZombieHorde]

44. No, thank you. My little "to" vs "too" mystery was bothering me.

[sakabatou]

4. Either Atheist or Agnostic

[salvorhardin]

17. Exclusive or Inclusive Or?

It's possible to be both atheist AND agnostic you know. IMHO, an infant would be both without belief AND without knowledge of god(s).

[sakabatou]

22. Both

But he or she might choose later on in life decidedly.

[jobycom]

5. Reminds me of the burning question pondered by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II

Who ruled Italy and Germany, and was reported to be more Muslim than Christian, because of his Sicilian roots. He was asked whether babies were born Christian, Jew, or Muslim, so he took three babies--one from parents of each religion--and raised them in a nursery completely free of any religious influence whatsover. All three died of neglect.

At another time he nailed a prisoner into a barrel to see if A) the man's soul would be trapped in the barrel, or B) the soul could be seen exiting the barrel. He observed neither, but had a smelly barrel.

Both of those stories were told by Fred's enemies, and are probably both false. Fred was known for being eccentric, seeming to prefer scientific observation to any religion, and was even rumored to not believe in any god, so his enemies created a lot of stories about him to give examples of what godlessness would cause a man to do. Stories aside, he was an especially capable ruler who once went on a papal-decreed crusade to retake Jerusalem, and rather than storm the city and slay many infidel, he worked out a diplomatic solution giving him Jerusalem. The pope was very angry at the lack of dead Muslims, however.

[happyslug]

15. Two comments

As to the babies I heard it was to find out what was the native human language, thus the mothers could NOT talk to the babies, so that the babies would NOT learn their mother's language instead would speak whatever was the Human Native language. The problem was all the babies died, for babies need interaction with their mothers (and other people, including their fathers) to be come "Human".

Second as to the his view on religion he died in the cloak of a Cistercian Monk. He had been raised by a man who later became Pope (and who arranged his first marriage, a happy marriage by all accounts). He tolerated Moslems in the Southern Italy part of his Empire, and used them as a source of Troops, but this seems to be more do to the fact such moslems could NOT be excommunication by the Pope then any other factor. His big role was the fight between the papacy and the Emperor-ship over who was to be the most powerful force in Europe. He seems to have adopted the Roman Imperial/Byzantine view that the Church should be under the Control of the Emperor, a position rejected by the papacy (but later endorsed by Martin Luther during the Reformation). Given that most people capable of writing at the time were tied in with the Papacy, the attitude to Frederick is hostile in most such writings.

While tolerate of Jews and Moslems, he persecuted Christian heretics whenever they appeared. He did do the Sixth Crusade and was ex-communicated for it, do to refusing to share the credit with the papacy more than anything else (i.e. part of this fight with the papacy). The vast majority of his subjects seems to accept him as a good Christian and the accusation of being anything else was part of the fight between himself and the popes of his time period (With both sides being used by the growing City states of Italy to make themselves independent of both).

His biggest problem was his attempts to form Italy as the base of his Empire, instead of Germany. This was the key to his fight with the Italian Cities and the papacy. Charles IV would undo all of this when he become Emperor in the 1400s, abandoning Italy to the Italian States and the papacy, which in turn was torn apart during the Reformation. Italy was NOT ready for unity will the 1800s. Most Italians preferred their City States independent of everyone else, which is why Charles IV abandoned it and what Frederick II was fighting in his conflict with the Papacy.

For more see:
Frederic II, Emperor 1215-1250 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/06255a.htm

Cistercian monks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistercian

Charles IV(Emperor 1346-1378)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
http://www.myczechrepublic.com/czech-history/king-charles-IV.html

[jobycom]

25. Which is what I said, only filled out more.

The language experiment was to determine the natural religion, since Hebrew, Latin or Greek, or Arabic represented the religions. Or at least that's the implication of the Christian cleric telling the story, as a means of undermining Frederick's Christianity.

Speculation about his religious beliefs were as rampant then as now. As the Holy Roman Emperor, he had to be confirmed by the Christian pope for legitimacy, which meant he had to claim to be Christian, whether he was or not. Even emperors were politicians, especially HREs, since the office was unnatural, and only created by a nominal obeyance to the pope. His barons would have rejected him otherwise.

From one of your links: "Frederick was also interested in the stars, and his court was host to many astrologers and astronomers. He often sent letters to the leading scholars of the time (not only in Europe) asking for solutions to questions of science, mathematics and physics."

Wikipedia's conclusion: Frederick II was considered one of the foremost European Christian monarchs of the Middle Ages. This reputation was present even in Frederick's era, even though many of his contemporaries, because of his lifelong interest in Islam, saw in him "the Hammer of Christianity", or at the very least a dissenter from Christendom. Many modern medievalists view this notion of Frederick as an anti-Christian as false, holding that Frederick understood himself as a Christian monarch in the sense of a Byzantine emperor, thus as God's Viceroy on earth. Other scholars view him as holding all religion in contempt, citing his rationalism and penchant for blasphemy. Whatever his personal feelings toward religion, certainly submission to the pope did not enter into the matter.

There's no way of knowing his personal religiosity. The anecdotes are unreliable, and written, as you said, by his critics. He ruled as a Christian, but struggled against the pope over secular control--that's the important aspect of his history, really. His personal beliefs are unknowable. Which is why I said the stories about his belief were rumors.

I always compared him to Al Gore. Maligned and misrepresented, undermined by vicious rumor, yet far ahead of his time in intellect, insight and ability. Gore's another one with that religious ambiguity.

[Speck Tater]

6. Impossible to answer.

For all we know, they might be close enough to the event to remember their last visit to "heaven" between lives.

Ya never know.

So any answer other than "unknowable" is just a dogmatic statement based on faith alone.

[ZombieHorde]

11. I understand where you are comming from, but it doesn't work out in real life.

A person can not live their lives as if anything could be true. Though when I was younger, I believed that one could.


-We are all better off because of the Iraq war.

-It could be a coincidence that people die when they go a long time without breathing, we can not know that people need air to survive. It is possible that there is an evil wizard that kills some of those who go a short while without breathing. What a jerk!11!

-Poor people are better off without universal health care.

-If a person eats more than four crayons in a day, they will become racist. They will tell others and themselves otherwise, but they are fooling no one.

-Public education makes children gay, which is the worst thing that could happen to a child.

-Killing children makes them reincarnate as snow.

-Drilling in ANWAR will help all of the animals who live there.


I could go on and on.

I don't think that it is dogmatic to reject some stories as false.

In fact, your statement:

"So any answer other than "unknowable" is just a dogmatic statement based on faith alone."

May be considered dogmatic by it's own stance.

[Speck Tater]

28. Fair enough. We HAVE to take something on faith, or we have no starting point.

Consider the old "Brain in a Vat" thought experiment.

---quote---
In philosophy, the brain in a vat is any of a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. It is drawn from the idea, common to many science fiction stories, that a mad scientist might remove a person's brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating a virtual reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.

The simplest use of brain-in-a-vat scenarios is as an argument for philosophical skepticism and Solipsism. A simple version of this runs as follows: Since the brain in a vat gives and receives the exact same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since, the argument says, you cannot know whether you are a brain in a vat, then you cannot know whether most of your beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out your being a brain in a vat, you cannot have good grounds for believing any of the things you believe; you certainly cannot know them.
---/quote---

more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

Personally, I find it interesting to take my variation on the brain in the vat scenario as my basic assumption. We are not physical brains in a vat, as in The Matrix, but rather, non-corporeal entities living in some other reality, and what we think of as reality is just a vast computer simulation.

Still, while we are playing this game we call reality, we MUST play by the rules as they are constructed within this reality game, so in the final analysis, our only rational course of action is to act as if this simulation game actually is real.

My belief in this disembodied version of the brain in the vat is not based on whether it is provable or not, which it isn't, but simply on the basis that it is (1) fun to believe, and (2) cannot be falsified. This lack of falsifiability gives me artistic license to believe it just for the fun of it, as long as I continue to ACT as if this simulation is "reality".

And you have to admit that were this world view to be true then all the mystery goes away where "afterlife" and "reincarnation" are concerned, since they would have utterly rational explanations within that context.

[skepticscott]

34. I don't know that the resolution to this requires "faith"

at least in any way that I would define that word. As you point out, the "brain in a vat" scenario cannot be falsified, and there is no test, observation or experiment we can make that would let us decide whether the scenario where the everyday reality we experience is all there is or the "brain in a vat" scenario is the more likely, since the results of any such test could always just be part of the simulation. I (and most other sane people) choose to live as if the "everyday reality" scenario is true, but I don't take it "on faith" that it is, because I freely acknowledge that the other is just as likely to be the case, and I simply can't know.

I like to equate it to the varying systems of geometry, such as Euclidean or Lobaschevskian, which are all internally self-consistent and equally valid, though they have different rules. We don't take it "on faith" that one or the other is correct, we simply have to choose which one we prefer to conduct our (geometrical) business in for any particular situation.

[TexasProgresive]

8. Babies believe in god because they believe they are god.

[rzemanfl]

10. Logically, babies must believe they are omnipotent. All their

needs are met for them by warm beings who feed, change, bathe and comfort them. They are the center of their tiny universe and have no idea what they can't do.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Until they feel pain and fear.

Which they do.

[rzemanfl]

33. I'll agree on pain, not so sure about fear. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

40. Pain can cause fear in children and adults, so it may for babies as well.

Loud noises can make a baby cry, which may be fear.

[Q3JR4]

26. To paraphrase a certain

evolutionary biologist I'm quite fond of religion is a mind virus transmitted from parents to child; just like racism, eating habits, and some people's political views.

Q3JR4.

[and-justice-for-all]

27. Babies know nothing of any ideology...

they are taught them.

[Azooz]

29. Where do parents come from?

Great line, not mine :)

There are no atheists in the womb, it's after they are born that they start to forget what instincts they had about it. The Dali Lama is raised without his parents around 24/7, it's to minimize what he forgets from his baby days. I know nothing about his holiness and mean no disrespect, it is just that he looks so baby like.

Maybe 6 billion babies past and maybe six billion babies future - most get parents and most grow to be parents to - that is their religion and they know exactly how to be babies and have nothing to learn to be "better" babies - as they get older they chose their own paths but as babies they know all there is to know.

Bow humans to the might baby! Kiss it's holy belly - clean that there diaper filled with it's little miracles and bring that nice soft thing closer to it's drooling lips!

Are Human parents atheists?
Baby got Milk? Blanket? Soft things? bouncy thingy? Soothing thingy? night time thingy? Parent answers when called? Silent when baby sleeping? Around when wanted? Baby has strict codes, do and donts and it sticks to them totaly - parents must heed the baby comendments to or be atheists themselves.

Sorry for the extra suger, but baby likes cute :)

[cosmik debris]

30. Have you met Boojatta?

You'll like Boojatta.

[beam me up scottie]

32. !

:D

[Book Lover]

37. dude!

:thumbsup:

[knitter4democracy]

35. It depends on the baby.

My daughter loved church from day one. She would sleep most peacefully in church or when I sang hymns to her, and she loved being there. She still does and wasn't happy Hubby and I didn't feel well enough to go this morning. My son, though, he hated church. He'd fall asleep to me singing hymns, but he'd cry and fuss when we were in church. He took a strong hatred to Communion (tasted bad) pretty early on and didn't start taking it again until recently (his choice). He was fine with not going this morning.

Liking church and hymns and prayer may or may not show a belief in God, but it's all the observable behavior I could think of. Since babies can't talk, you have to read their behavior to know what they're thinking.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I think some people are naturally mystical

I know two people who became religious as adults despite the best efforts of their parents.

[knitter4democracy]

39. I think so, too.

My dad was entirely against my becoming a Christian, but it's where I'm most comfortable.

[ZombieHorde]

41. What attracted you to the Christian path?

[knitter4democracy]

42. My mom's church started it.

My parents were divorced, and life at my dad's house was bad. When my mom converted when I was 10, her church became a safe place for me. There was several older couples who, in effect became grandparents, and I really needed their unconditional love. In middle school, I turned away from the faith, mostly because I was so mad at God for my crappy life, but then Mom dragged me to a terrible teen revival (I still remember what a joke the preacher was). I had a very powerful religious experience, and I've been a Christian since. I couldn't explain away what happened very easily, and I knew I felt better than I had in ages, so I stayed with it.

[ZombieHorde]

43. I am glad that you got through your hard times.

I don't know why, but I find conversion stories interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[knitter4democracy]

45. Thanks.

Oh, and have you read World War Z? A bit disturbing, that one. A friend talked me into going to a book signing, as we're in the Zombie Prom Date Knitters group. Quite fun. :)

[ZombieHorde]

46. Zombie Prom Date Knitters group

I don't knit, but if I did, your group sounds awesome!

[knitter4democracy]

47. We're more than a little loud, but we're fun!

:D

Here's our leader's blog: http://knitwithsnotforyou.blogspot.com (it's really funny!).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. No, because if asked "does God exist", they won't answer "no".

The basic difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist is in the answer they'll give if you shake them awake at three in the morning, shine a bright light in their eyes, and yell in their ear "does God exist", without giving them a chance to consider or nuance their answer?

If you say "yes" you're a theist, if you say "maybe" or "I don't know" you're an agnostic, and if you say "no" you're an atheist.

A baby (for the sake of the argument, one old enough to talk) will say "I don't know" rather than "no", because they won't know what a God is.

[cosmik debris]

49. You left out one option

The question "does god exist?" has more that 3 answers.

You may answer "yes", "no", "maybe", or "Huh?".

Many people leave out the "huh?" answer because they assume that there is an acceptable and universally understood definition of "god". But many of us atheists don't have a clue what you mean when you say "god" because the definition keeps shifting according to the POV of the speaker.

So the baby in your example might very well say "huh?" instead of "I don't know" because the baby will be as confused as many others are about WTF you are talking about.

[beam me up scottie]

50. I've asked that same question repeatedly: Define God

Never received a satisfactory answer.

All they have to do is prove their god exists and I'll decide whether or not I believe in him/her/it.

[cosmik debris]

51. So, do you believe in Hairbrush?

I'm not going to explain what I mean by Hairbrush until you commit to belief or disbelief. But after you commit I will redefine it to match your expectations.

Then I will proclaim that I have led you to the truth of Hairbrush. All praise be given to Hairbrush!

:)

So give me some money.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Sold! er, I mean Amen!

Say, this religion stuff IS easy...

[Silent3]

55. Will Hairbrush love me if I go bald?

Is baldness a manifestation of sin?
Is baldness a test of faith, that I may learn to find my Inner Hair, the True Spiritual Hair within us all?
Do the prophets of Hairbrush, Holy be His Bristles, teach that in the Eyes of Hairbrush baldness is indeed a hair color?

[cosmik debris]

57. It is reunion week

First BMUS showed up, then Az and now you.

This place is going to hell in a hand basket!

[Silent3]

66. I've been spending a lot of my free time lately...

...on my own web site for, of all things, album cover art, rather than the weighty political and religious issues we discuss here. :)

[ZombieHorde]

53. Beliefs do not depend on ability to answer.

[Silent3]

54. I'm not sure if human babies are atheists...

...but atheists, from what I've heard, love to eat human babies, especially after burning villages and desecrating all of the churches and temples therein.

[beam me up scottie]

56. You forgot crackers.

Babies taste best when served on crackers...

[SidDithers]

59. ...

:hi:

Your sacreligious postings always add such great flavour to this place. I'm so glad to see 'em again :)

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

60. I sure missed you, Sid!

:hug:
Love your sig line, btw, Lenny is one of my heroes.

[Evoman]

62. Yeah, but tubes of baby paste are getting too expensive.

The atheists, being evil like they are, have raised the price too much. And I'm way to lazy to make my own.

I guess I'll blame the increase on chainsaw gas prices.

[beam me up scottie]

63. I know, I'm really gonna miss those squeeze-top cans...

Not to mention we'll have to find other ways to add to global warming.

[cosmik debris]

64. Go for the French version

Pate d'enfant still comes in aerosol cans. It costs a little more, but it's worth it -- this weak dollar is killing me.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Thank you! The imports also have the added benefit of ozone destroying aerosol propellants.

Perhaps we can get a volume discount if we pay in euros.

[SidDithers]

58. Absolutely...

they're without god. You can't get much more atheistic than that.

Sid

[SidneyCarton]

61. I'll go home and ask my 13-month old.

Her likely responses are:

"cat"
"da da"
"that" as in "What's That?"
"no"*


*Not to be considered a definitive answer as it's the newest word she knows and she only uses it specifically if Mrs. Carton an I are trying to make her so something she doesn't want to (such as stop her from sticking silverware in light sockets.)

[Silent3]

67. She said "cat"...

...which is OBVIOUSLY her way of professing belief in...



CEILING CAT LOL 4 SURE!!111!11!

[SidneyCarton]

68. Well that explains why she chases our 16-pound tabby around the house,

she's expressing her desire to worship!