Babies are neither atheists, nor are they theists for that matter. If someone were classified an “atheist”, that person would have to first think over the existence of any god(s) before making their conclusion.
Up until the age of 11 or 12, I never really *thought* about any specific deity or religion, because I was not introduced to the concept.
To a religious figure, there’s little difference between an atheist and an agnostic. If anything, most religious people don’t even know what agnostic means.
Wrong. A person does not have to first think over the existence of God to be an atheist. Because when we say ‘atheist’, we actually mean to refer to the same state of belief that we started out with as babies. You are the reason people will never understand atheism. Babies are not only atheist, they aren’t even aware that any thing to the contrary exists.
Babies are atheists. One is not required to know about god or decide whether or not they believe in him/them/it/whatever to be considered an atheist. Babies are the most pure kind of atheists.
Atheism means “without gods”. There is no choice in that matter. You are with or without. Simply put, babies have no concept of gods and are therefore without them and thus atheist. It is a natural condition. Once gods are brought into the picture, the choice is then made to go with or without gods.
The term asexual means “without sex”. Babies are without sex too, right? They are asexual and not homosexual or heterosexual until those aspects come into play to help them determine what they are. Until then, they are asexual.
If we are getting technical (which I think we are) this is not correct. “Atheism” does not mean “Without gods”. The ending “ism” indicates that this is a belief (as in communism, Marxism, fascism, etc). Were it to have an “ist” it would refer to a person who believes in the “ism” (as in communist, Marxist, fascist, etc). Since the root of the word is “theism” or a “theist” and the prefix “a” indicates the negative of the belief (as in apolitical) then “atheist” means anyone other than a person who believes in God and this can apply to a baby. However if the “a” in the word atheist was part of the actual word itself, rather than a prefix (like apple) then the word would mean “one who denies the existence of God” or perhaps “a person who believes that there is no God” and would not apply (as babies are somewhat ambivalent on the subject). As it stands however the word atheist applies to anyone who is not a theist, thus anyone who does not believe in God. This is fairly critical to the forthcoming argument since one can be a passive atheist as it refers to a state of existence for a human that is other than the state of active belief in God. One can only be an active theist, as belief is active. “I did believe” does not equal “I do believe” since if it did a person could never change his mind. Therefore one can only be a theist through active belief.
Now for the interesting part:
Since we know a human can go from not believing to believing (as in the case of a baby that grows up to believe) and since we know that some people “lose their religion” and go the opposite direction (since most atheists today were raised with a religious tradition) consider this: A very devout person becomes an atheist when he or she goes to sleep since during that time they do not actively believe in God. A person’s dreams may cause them to believe that they may fly, live a different life, or live in a world without God (or perhaps a person may dream that they actually are a god).
So, a devout person may say this is no big deal, it’s a technicality that they go from states of active belief to passive non-belief on a daily basis, but then the hammer drops, which is this: Most Christian faiths believe that you can’t be saved by good deeds alone, but rather by the combination of belief in God and good deeds. Any decent Christian or well read scholar can cite a few passages referring to this concept. Now, if a believer dies in his sleep while his passive mind was not in an active state of believing, he must be technically termed an atheist and thus may not be eligible for salvation according to the theist’s own beliefs…. Awkward.
Feb 18, 2009 @ 12:43:55
That is one of the greatest things I have ever seen!
Feb 23, 2009 @ 08:08:05
no torrey, it is THE greatest thing we have ever seen.
May 28, 2009 @ 01:09:09
Awwwwww!! How cute. I want one! I want an infidel!! They all look so happy.
Sep 15, 2009 @ 12:56:52
i dont get it!
Sep 15, 2009 @ 13:08:44
Babies don’t believe in god.
Nov 02, 2009 @ 13:23:25
yea, you dumbass
Nov 15, 2009 @ 14:38:00
Neither do i…
Apr 26, 2010 @ 11:49:58
their nappies are loaded with gunpowder and stuffs’es
Apr 26, 2010 @ 13:36:47
Babies are neither atheists, nor are they theists for that matter. If someone were classified an “atheist”, that person would have to first think over the existence of any god(s) before making their conclusion.
Up until the age of 11 or 12, I never really *thought* about any specific deity or religion, because I was not introduced to the concept.
Apr 26, 2010 @ 13:40:45
To a religious figure, there’s little difference between an atheist and an agnostic. If anything, most religious people don’t even know what agnostic means.
Apr 26, 2010 @ 13:42:29
I they already answered their own question about what an agnostic is. :P
Aug 09, 2012 @ 19:07:53
Wrong. A person does not have to first think over the existence of God to be an atheist. Because when we say ‘atheist’, we actually mean to refer to the same state of belief that we started out with as babies. You are the reason people will never understand atheism. Babies are not only atheist, they aren’t even aware that any thing to the contrary exists.
Jul 28, 2010 @ 11:50:19
Babies don’t have to believe in God they have an innocence so pure, no sin such as us so yeah eat that Dumb ass
May 15, 2012 @ 13:42:59
But aren’t all humans (apparently) born into sin? Because of what rib-lady did? By the way, you sound so sickeningly bitter.
Jul 28, 2010 @ 11:51:37
Green-world is soooo right so yeah thank a lot
Mar 02, 2011 @ 12:52:44
OMFG cute babies, & yeah i can see in a way theyre atheists but @ the same time theyre too young to understand what religion is.
Aug 09, 2012 @ 19:05:38
Babies are atheists. One is not required to know about god or decide whether or not they believe in him/them/it/whatever to be considered an atheist. Babies are the most pure kind of atheists.
Jan 08, 2013 @ 13:43:26
Atheism means “without gods”. There is no choice in that matter. You are with or without. Simply put, babies have no concept of gods and are therefore without them and thus atheist. It is a natural condition. Once gods are brought into the picture, the choice is then made to go with or without gods.
The term asexual means “without sex”. Babies are without sex too, right? They are asexual and not homosexual or heterosexual until those aspects come into play to help them determine what they are. Until then, they are asexual.
Apr 23, 2013 @ 15:04:29
If we are getting technical (which I think we are) this is not correct. “Atheism” does not mean “Without gods”. The ending “ism” indicates that this is a belief (as in communism, Marxism, fascism, etc). Were it to have an “ist” it would refer to a person who believes in the “ism” (as in communist, Marxist, fascist, etc). Since the root of the word is “theism” or a “theist” and the prefix “a” indicates the negative of the belief (as in apolitical) then “atheist” means anyone other than a person who believes in God and this can apply to a baby. However if the “a” in the word atheist was part of the actual word itself, rather than a prefix (like apple) then the word would mean “one who denies the existence of God” or perhaps “a person who believes that there is no God” and would not apply (as babies are somewhat ambivalent on the subject). As it stands however the word atheist applies to anyone who is not a theist, thus anyone who does not believe in God. This is fairly critical to the forthcoming argument since one can be a passive atheist as it refers to a state of existence for a human that is other than the state of active belief in God. One can only be an active theist, as belief is active. “I did believe” does not equal “I do believe” since if it did a person could never change his mind. Therefore one can only be a theist through active belief.
Now for the interesting part:
Since we know a human can go from not believing to believing (as in the case of a baby that grows up to believe) and since we know that some people “lose their religion” and go the opposite direction (since most atheists today were raised with a religious tradition) consider this: A very devout person becomes an atheist when he or she goes to sleep since during that time they do not actively believe in God. A person’s dreams may cause them to believe that they may fly, live a different life, or live in a world without God (or perhaps a person may dream that they actually are a god).
So, a devout person may say this is no big deal, it’s a technicality that they go from states of active belief to passive non-belief on a daily basis, but then the hammer drops, which is this: Most Christian faiths believe that you can’t be saved by good deeds alone, but rather by the combination of belief in God and good deeds. Any decent Christian or well read scholar can cite a few passages referring to this concept. Now, if a believer dies in his sleep while his passive mind was not in an active state of believing, he must be technically termed an atheist and thus may not be eligible for salvation according to the theist’s own beliefs…. Awkward.