Andrew Brown wibbles over at CiF about Dawkins’ assertion that babies are atheist – that is, atheism is the default and that religious belief is taught.
But there are no atheist babies, and certainly no agnostic ones.
Sigh… babies are born knowing nothing of god or religion. Therefore they are atheist. The word stems from the Greek; that is a – without and theos – gods; without gods, just as someone who is without morals is amoral. It really is that simple. The dictionary definition serves perfectly well.
Both Brown and some of the more excitable respondents below the line argue that atheism is a philosophical stance that that you have to self identify to qualify. This is patent nonsense. Sure, plenty of us have thought about it and have taken a philosophical position, however, that is not what the word atheism means, nor does it follow that atheists have done so. The word is what it is, it says what it says. Yet people still insist upon redefining it according to their own beliefs and prejudices. Atheism is not a belief that there are no gods because it is not a belief at all, nor is it an antipathy towards gods (that would be anti-theist) – it is an absence of belief – that’s what the”a” is in atheism – without. Nothing more, nothing less. I am an atheist because I have no belief in gods. I do not actively believe there are no gods, for there is nothing to believe. Neither belief nor faith are necessary, merely an absence of belief. Babies, likewise have no belief in gods. Atheism is, as Dawkins correctly points out, the default position. Childrens’ minds are a blank canvas as far as religious belief is concerned and the sooner it is painted upon, the more likely that belief is to take hold. My parents didn’t inflict religion upon me. It wasn’t until I arrived at school that the attempt was first made. However, having got to five years old without religion and superstitious belief, it didn’t stick. I was already a free thinker. Consequently, I was unlikely to ever become as poisoned as this cretin.
When asked by another Facebook user whether he supported executing homosexuals by stoning, Mr Esk replied: “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realise, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”
Clearly doesn’t know what libertarian means, either. And, yeah, a primitive bronze age superstition is just the way to run a modern society. Let’s stone teh gayers ‘cos the man in the sky told us to. jeebus!
Personally I prefer agnostic as in I don’t know. Babies may well be atheists, but its from ignorance, not a conscious decision.
But no one is saying that it’s from a conscious decision. The word itself does not differentiate, so one can be atheist because one has never been told about it.