"Babies are Atheists" is a Bad Meme
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- In this video we examine the concept of a meme in the atheist community that Babies are, in fact, atheists. Why it's a bad meme, the arguments for it and against it, and the fallout from accepting some of these justifications. And, honestly, how it comes off as Latent Christianity, which introduces the idea of Protestant Atheism.
Patreon: / oceankeltoi
Twitter: / oceankeltoi
Twitch: / oceankeltoi
Instagram: / oceankeltoi
Avatar by: / tipsy_danger
Intro by: / synje_grafx
The offending tweet: / 1195752299458703360
Go check out Bionic Dance, she's chill af actually: / bionicdance
Well, allow me to retort!
*VIDEO RESPONSE:* ruclips.net/video/sdbLUPoFGRA/видео.html
I actually really liked this. Nuanced response, has a lot of points to consider and several points where I agree with you. I think the main divide between us is on the element of whether or not its an identity and whether or not people who use this argument are using applying it as one. I can easily accept that its not what you’re doing. However, I see many that definitely do.
Yes, I agree, that does seem to be the divide.
I definitely don't think of atheism as an identity; I think I'd be hard-pressed to find an atheist who does, even if they still think babies aren't atheists. But I could be wrong about that. I d'know.
Anyway, glad you liked it. Thanks. :)
Your logic is stupid, it's not an identity it's a description. It's describing that people do not have a particular belief. Technically I am an Atrollist because I do not have a belief in the existence of trolls, but since most people don't believe in trolls and they don't push the belief in any trolls it's pretty meaningless to bring it up. When the world finally gives up the nonsensical belief in gods the term atheist will become just as meaningless but it will be no less true.
@@OceanKeltoi I don't spend hours cruising the internet for people using this term, but I have never an atheist use it in any other way than described by Bionic Dance. Can you site an example and maybe approximately how many times you have heard atheist use it in a way other than how BD uses it? I can see theist using it as an identity, but it doesn't even make sense to use it your way, from an atheist's POV. At least that is my take based on the ways I've heard it used, especially by atheist. I was baptized in the Church of England as a baby and thus have been called an Anglican by many of my theist relatives, which is in line with your argument, atheist best "describes" my actual state. I understand why you make your statement, just feel it falls down a black hole since I've never heard it used by an atheist for identity purposes. Sorry, I tend to get wordy and repetitious, must be the seizures! hehe
Part of this conversation made me consider why theists keep trying to encourage identity-usages. When they use the word 'Christian' they are clearly identifying, and when they talk about various groups being 'not Christian enough'. It feels to me that accepting atheism as positive affirmation is buying into the theism game. It is partially accepting their own made up rules and locking yourself in a cage before deciding to play.
Any way, I'm with BionicDance on this one.
A 3 month old baby does not believe God exists. A 3 month old baby also doesn't believe you exist the moment you leave the room they are in.
Babies are amommyists!
How do you even know what a baby does ir does not believe???
@@elirien4264 they've done studies which show when babies develop an understanding of object permanence, which is around 8 months old
@@jules_2.0 Ok, so at about 8 months, a baby realizes you haven't stopped existing because you left the room. What does that have to do with a baby supposedly being an atheist? The two are unrelated. It's just silly to go around claiming to know what babies are thinking. Stop projecting.
@@elirien4264 I don't know why I'm responding when I made this comment 2 years ago, but I never said babies were atheist
Have you ever tried to bring a baby into the church?
At least they are vocally non-Christian.
Fair point.
They are not vocally anything nor are they vocally a disbeliever in anything either
I'm sure we all remember that being the last place we wanted to be until the brainwashing set in 😂
For a kid, church is like unjustified time out. A LONG one.
This reminds me of my evangelical-ish family members joking about our cat meowing during prayer with "he's just Charismatic".
@@matterhorn731 Is that because meowing during prayer is like speaking in tongues?
I was in that Twitter thread. I had a lovely conversation with a fellow atheist who just wouldn't comprehend that a baby can not decide wether or not to believe in a god any better than a hamster, even though we can teach them simple stuff. In the end _I_ was the jackass for not letting him run away with equivalences like "babies can be homeless, so they can be atheists as well".
He sounded quite agitated in the end which made it all the more weird. Having babies on your side in a theological dispute is a pretty unusual thing to be that emotionally attached to.
+Shizanketsuga, writes _"who just wouldn't comprehend that a baby can not decide wether [sic] or not to believe in a god any better than a hamster"_
So what? A lack of belief isn't a belief. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god or gods. Babies lack a belief in a god or gods. Therefore babies are atheists. QED.
@@fred_derf Have you even watched Ocean's video before writing your comment or do you _want_ to throw atheists in the same category as rocks, chairs and other inanimate objects?
You _have_ to imply that an atheist has at least considered the proposition that a god exists and decided to not believe it. Otherwise you you end up with a philosophically useless position or having to draw purely arbitrary lines to save it from absurdity.
In any non-absurd reading of this colloquial definition of atheism babies are _not_ atheists.
That said, I think it is far more useful to hold to the labels as established in philosophy when you talk philosophy. The colloquial definition is useful enough in superficial conversations or demography, but if you go deeper than that it leads to bad memes like atheist babies.
@@shizanketsuga8696, asks _"Have you even watched Ocean's video before writing your comment"_
Yes.
_"or do you want to throw atheists in the same category as rocks, chairs and other inanimate objects?"_
If the category is "things that don't believe in the existence of a god or gods", then sure.
_"You have to imply that an atheist has at least considered the proposition that a god exists and decided to not believe it."_
No you don't. You don't have to consider the question of whether something exists to not believe in its existence. I didn't believe in the existence of smeklewaddles yesterday and I made them up just now.
_"In any non-absurd reading of this colloquial definition of atheism babies are not atheists."_
Bullshit. An atheist is a not-theist. Babies are not theists, therefore they are atheists.
What is the problem with babies being atheists? Babies are also aSantaClausists, aEasterBunnyists and aBigFootists and no one has a problem with that.
@@fred_derf No, babies are not aSantaClausists, aEasterbunnyists and aBigFootists either under any philosphically useful definitions of those words.
But if you really, _really_ want to say that agnostics, apatheists, igtheist, innoncents and atheists (by the philosophically useful definition) all belong in the same category as Mars (both, the planet and the chocolate bar) under one huge, mushy umbrella term that you call "atheist" then, by all means, go ahead.
Just don't expect anybody to take you serious when discussing theology.
@@shizanketsuga8696, writes _"when discussing theology."_
Hang on, are you discussing theology or philosophy? Because if we're discussing theology we should be using theological definitions of the terms and leave the philosophical definitions for when we're discussing philosophy.
I'll make it as easy as I can for you... draw a Venn diagram, start with a large circle that represents everything (the entire universe) in existence. Now within that circle draw another (smaller) circle that represents theists (those who believe in the existence of a god or gods). Now everything within the first circle that is *not* also inside the second circle (such as babies and cell phones) is an atheist.
BTW: When you claim that babies aren't atheists no one who isn't an apologist will take you seriously.
as an atheist, im just confused why anyone cares what babies "technically" classify as, unless we're debating baby baptisms like you mentioned. its such an odd thing to worry about tbh
Well, allow me to clarify then! From what I have gathered, and adopted myself as a kind of running policy, the reason why, is because if a baby lacks a belief in a god or gods, because they lack the concept entirely, then that means atheism is the default position. This means that we must become convinced as we age, or have our minds brainwashed into believing that a god or gods exist.
I mean, let's remove the label atheist from the equation, and ask the question, what did you believe when you were born regarding the existence of a god or gods? Don't know? Don't remember? Can you say confidently you were born knowing a god or gods exist, or even just believed it?
Yes I CAN say that I was born not believing in any gods. No one is born with knowledge about abstract concepts.
Ow and slug, the reason is very simple, it's to highlight the point that no one is born a theist. That one must be taught about a god.
@@Thoron_of_Neto I didn't believe either way, so it would be impossible for me to be born an atheist.
@@LuciferAlmighty No, you're just a contrarian troll.
According to the dictionary, Technically does not technically mean Technically.
I've always been under the impression that this meme is a response to the Christians who do, as you say, not only impose their faith on the newly arrived, but who go further by claiming that everyone is born with the knowledge of God.
I've always thought it was a cheeky dig, designed to puncture the sort of Christian who thinks their way is the default setting of every human being.
So, while I think it is a silly notion - as long as you admit that it is a silly notion - I say use it to show how silly this sort of notion is when Christians (or anyone else) apply it unthinkingly.
Babies are idiots. They always will be. They'll believe anything you tell them. So don't tell them anything.
+ben green, I've only ever seen it used to counter a theist saying they've been a christian (or whatever religion) since birth. Which is patently absurd.
@@fred_derf
agreed - although I watched Bionic Dance's response to this, and she pushes things a bit further with her definition of "atheist" to mean "not theist", in which case a baby is logically an atheist. This seems a bit overly pedantic to me, and like Ocean said, it smacks of being guilty of the very thing one is criticising the theist for doing.
@@bengreen171 Do babies believe in the existence of a god or gods? No. A person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods is an atheist. Therefore babies are atheists -- by definition.
What I don't get is why some theists have their panties in such a bunch over this. I presume it's because they want to argue that atheism is a belief in an attempt to shift the burden of proof, but I could be wrong on that.
Babies don't believe in the existence of a god or gods, so what? Why is that such as issue for some people?
@@bengreen171
Like Fred said, it's a lack of an belief not the belief in an negative. Babies lack beliefs. It's simple and Only mentioned to theists dumb enough to think people are born with knowledge of God. Why is there any issue with this among atheists at all. It just makes people ocean here come off needlessly pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. The definition is descriptive but so's also the lable being used.
You are right, babies are idiots for survival reasons as idiot originally meant, according to early forms of psychology, self absorbed to the point of ignoring or not recognizing others... it is ALL about them at this point.
*wheels out his popcorn cart*
I’m an atheist, and I do agree. Babies aren’t atheists. Babies aren’t agnostic. Babies aren’t theists. I would describe them as “uninformed”. These labels, in most cases, imply the person has been informed on the topic in some way. Babies cannot be informed on these topics.
agreed
Suppose so, but they can still be labelled as atheist too.
Dot Nerd Would you consider anything not human to be atheist? The reason we give these labels to people is because they can believe things. Belief is closely tied to the concept of self. Without the concept of self, beliefs can’t be considered informed.
Are babies theists?
If they are not, then why are by definition "not theist". The word for not theist is atheist (prefixing a word with the word "a" is the Greek way of saying "not").
I would say, theists are uninformed. Once informed, they turn into atheists. Inevitably.
6:01
Please see a doctor after that stroke you just had.
"Colloquial" is a challenging word to pronounce, even for some English scholarly types and expert wordsmiths. But what fun would the English language be without a few "gotchas" here-and-there? ;)
6:33
**stares at you in Twitter**
4:42
*every one stood up and clapped*
I actually think that 'babies are atheists' in the definition that BionicDance is using is genuinely untrue as well. In his book 'Born believers' Justin L. Barret, Phd., argues that babies are actually born with a predisposition to believe in God.
7:22
Something something babies cant give consent.
Did that baby consent to being a baby? Then how can you identify it as a baby?
@@Goldfiend false equivalency
@@hamluk_ How is that a false equivalency? If the idea is that you need to give consent before you can be identified as anything, how can you be identified as anything before you can give consent?
Would it be more easily understood if I phrased it as "How can you tell if a baby is a boy or a girl if it never consented to a gender identity?"
If something never stated a belief in a god then by default it has no belief in a god. Ergo atheist.
@@Goldfiend terms used to denote age (baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly) aren't something that you "consent to." age is something that all people experience. "baby" is a term used to denote someone's age. religion is something you have to believe in and consent to before identifying with it. or, you're supposed to, anyway.
@@hamluk_ That is true. The point I was trying to make is that you need to consent to be in a religion but you don't need consent to not be in a religion. You don't need to be told about a religion and decide not to be a part of it before you can be identified as not belonging to it. Every baby is born atheist because they haven't consented to a religious belief yet. A lack of information isn't the same thing as a rejection of information. And babies lack information. A baby can no more consent to being an atheist then it as to consent to being a baby. The terms simply denote something.
When I saw suitcase Jesus pop into this video, I laughed so hard. I will never forget your baggage Jesus bit in one of your previous videos about latent Christianity. XD
Audience engagement.
reply to audience participation to promote it.
@@OceanKeltoi contribution that forwards the cycle of engagement.
Engagement further to give a back and forth.
derailing troll comment
@@Doribi117 Angry comment denoting a successful troll.
Cats are not atheist. Not not only believe in gods they believe they *are* gods.
Reminds me of the joke difference between cats and dogs, dogs think you are God and cats think they are God.
@@gentlebutch I'm scared for your future, for cats may not be happy with you for phrasing "cats think" rather than "cats know." ;)
@@RandolfRichardson ROFL true story
Now that is a true story.. my cat tolerates my existence.. barely
Watched this when it came out, I've somehow been able to use it twice as a basis for debate.
I am proud, and happy Ocean is better at articulating points than myself.
@Yekkt I argue that the belief isn't inherently irrational, not that it's true. I'm a political interlocutor.
@Yekkt What?
Wait, you're saying a meme isn't a way to convey complex concepts and instead serves the purpose of reinforcing preexisting ideas in those who share them and angering those who don't?
Weird.
Atheist isn't any more a complex idea any more then counting to zero is complex math. You can try your best to try to make it more complex by suggesting we are all constantly counting to zero when counting nothing at all, but beyond that, no.
@@GoldfiendThere is a reason why virtually everyone for all of human history beloved in some form of God or Gods and it's not because humans are stupid. We have inquisitive minds that look for reasons and a healthy dose of agency bias that is hardwired in and very difficult to overcome. Your analogy is more spot on than you appear to realize though. Zero is an invented concept that appears very late in history compared to other numbers. Chances are when you learned to count, you didn't start at zero, you started at one. "Nothing" is much more difficult to grasp than "something". "No God" is more difficult to conclude for many humans than "one or more Gods" and if it isn't for you, consider that you may be the exception rather than the rule.
@@capitalistraven As we develop as a society we tend to gain more understanding. Just as we learn what things are, we learn what things aren't. We start to replace instinct and imagination with knowledge and logic. As a child you might have thought there was a monster under the bed because of agency bias, but as you became an adult you learned there wasn't a monster under your bed and trained yourself to ignore that part of your brain.
But as a society we are at a crossing point of understanding. There is some adults who still think there are monsters under their bed and there are those who don't think there are monsters under their bed. Now the monster believers are trying to convince the monster non-believers that not believing in monsters is a type of belief in monsters and not believing in monsters is an identity and way of life. Now the monster non-believers are trying to figure out why the monster believers are saying that. Maybe to rationalize their own belief in monsters? Who knows.
Regardless, monster non-belief isn't a complex issue despite what monster believers want you to think. Now have fun living a life free of monster belief. You're welcome.
Goldfiend Nope atheism isn’t complex that’s true. Becoming atheist after being raised a theist.. now that was something completely different :)
@@Shylade The social struggles are real.
In an effort to be mature and constructive I feel I have one very important question. Is the dictionary responsible for the great sandwich debate?
You be careful just dropping bombs like that.
@@OceanKeltoi Noted :)
actually I think it has to do with this [section 1.3, page 68 in the pdf] assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/versions/2013-05/2317564054791609463E620F702072EE.pdf
I agree the meme on it's own feels weird and overly prescriptive of the definitions, but the point made about what babies lack at 7:26 is exactly the reason I hear the phrase used as a counter when people arguing for theism claim that a belief in a deity is innate.
While I would agree ideas are taken too far and thrown about too freely and even warped by the people it supports, the internet is good at all that, the point I've understood of "Babies are atheist" isn't to say that babies should be lumped into the same bag as atheists, but that if we look at babies they can't hold a belief, like mentioned at 7:26, so they shouldn't be called theists and instead fall closest to this colloquial definition of atheism.
So, yeah, I dislike it being misused and thrown around aggressively, but it's important to acknowledge when points are relevant as counters as opposed to standing on their own. There's a lot of arguments like that. Overall, innateness isn't a good argument for something, but if someone else throws it at you along with a falsehood, you can address the falsehood along with the bad argument.
Thanks Ocean, slight differences in this opinion don't change that I respect and appreciate you.
Personally, I suspect Ocean started this whole thing to see how long it would take before Steve McRae literally exploded from the disturbance in the Force... ;) :P lol
Took about an hour.
Steve McRae is _such_ a buttmunch.
Okay I laughed at this.
Its almost like you shouldn't prescribe identities to babies or other people..
Do the words "baby" or "human" count as identities?
How dare you prescribe the identity of 'babies' to extremely young animals... Do you see how stupid that is? 'Atheist' is not an identity, its simply a word used to describe those without a belief that a god actually exists.
@@darrylelam256 You may want to sit down for this: Did you know that humans, technically, are animals?
Nobody is. Tell me what the identity is for atheist? Heck we don't have an identity for a theist, either, they're christian or wotan worshippers, etc.
There is no "atheist identity" just like there is no "aleprechaunist identity".
Is it just me, or does some of the Atheistic movement seem sort of like the self-exiled brother from the family of Theism who swore to be not like his family of origin... but then does the same thing their family does?
I agree with DarkMatter2525... I'd have to say, there's a lot of Theists out there who claim themselves as Atheists based on what he described.
I bet the term "Protestant Atheist" went over well with some Atheists. What happens if you call a Protestant a "Protestant Protestant"? Wait... I guess those would just be called Catholics.
Technically, Atheists already have their wish of having the whole "world" Atheist if they're going to use that definition of Atheist.
If Atheism was the "default" or "ordinary" position, does that mean that Theists are "extraordinary"?
One more...
A baby says in their heart "There is no god". Wait... wrong translation. That was from the Children's Bible Translation. My mistake.
Sorry for the bad jokes... but I had to, ha ha.
Ocean... you are one of my favorite RUclips channels. Keep making great and informative videos!
Hey, I thought of an interesting video you could make (if you’re interested, of course).
A video about Yule. Short summary of its history and meaning, how it was celebrated, and how you personally observe it (and/or the Heathen community does).
Upvoted for the title alone.
is advertising on this channel. They have discovered Ocean is pagan. Suris should tackle some .
Everything is chemicals. Does that mean that I'm sitting on my chemicals, typing on my chemicals, so I can use my chemicals to write a comment to a fleshy bag of chemicals? Yes. Yes it does. Everything is chemicals. Atheist chemicals.
Atheist refers to a person, not a thing.
@@tfan2222
And what are atheist persons made of?
Bionic Dance didn't come up with this idea, but I will give her credit for using it. It wasn't even new when Antony Flew wrote about it in 1976 (The Presumption of Atheism).
Babies are atheists in the sense that they are not theists. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the root word 'theist' is modified with the prefix 'a' would include anything not 'theist'. To be a theist is a multi-conditional category that someone would need to hold a belief and hold to theistic beliefs. So anything not that would be - not theist, or, sticking to the Greek root and prefix, atheist.
True, that isn't very descriptive, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's also one of the few words that exist that are used to define what something isn't. The base concept can be modified with specific descriptors to make it more meaningful, like Dawkins does with his Dawkins Scale.
Philosophy is not the place to define terms unless they invent them. Typically, they use a word in a specific way which is understood within that context.
@@MattyRlufc No. Etymologically it's not, definitionally it's not, historically it's not, and in its most common uses it's not. The only time I ever hear someone insisting that it must be a claim are from those who can't justify their own theistic position.
@@MattyRlufc Even if I were to grant you that position (which I do not) it still doesn't mean that atheism is a belief position. We don't believe things we are ignorant of, do we? What about incoherent ideas? Neither of these are active positions, are they? In both of those case, if the proposition is theism, the person would still be atheist without holding a positive position. BUT still, rejecting a belief for cause does not make the position positive. A person can have justification for rejecting a claim without accepting a counter position.
Matt Dillahunty uses an analogy of a jar of gumballs. You say that the number of gumballs in the jar is even. What do you do? Your position here (in this reply) is that if I don't agree that the number is even, then I MUST be saying there is an odd number of them. However it can also the case that I can not believe that there are specifically an odd or even number of gumballs in the jar, I may just not have a reason to take one position or the other on it. So rejecting the claim that the jar has an even number of gumballs is not the same as saying that there are an odd number in there.
In the analogy, theism is the even number claim and atheism is the "I don't agree" position. And to cut the next thing off at the root, you now can't even fall back to "someone who doesn't know is an agnostic" because you have already said that all beliefs are positive. But,as I said, that doesn't cut it for ignorance of incoherence.
@@MattyRlufc How are you defining a positive belief? Let's go back that because maybe I'm just missing something from how you are using the term. I am using the term as something like 'asserting that a claim is reasonable enough to believe to be understood as true that I accept it as such'.
For the gumball analogy, you can hold that more than one of those could be true at the same time, but some are contradictory, so they can't all (or some specific ones) be true. By your definition, you are asserting that everyone hold contradictory beliefs? I can hold that any of them "could" be true without believing that any of them specifically are true.
How is not knowing (or specifically not BELIEVING) a claim the same thing as accepting another claim? You still aren't addressing the incoherence or ignorance positions - which result in holding the same position as not accepting a claim for a cause. This gets into the murky area of insufficiency, which is again, not a positive claim by any standard I've come across.
You wrote: "It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the root word 'theist' is modified with the prefix 'a' would include anything not 'theist'."
Were the word 'atheist' really 'a + theist', where the 'a' were a prefix meaning 'not', I would agree that it would be perfectly reasonable to say that anything not 'theist' would thus be 'atheist'. Thing is, the word 'atheist' is not really 'a + theist'. All one needs to do is look up 'atheist' in OED to see that the word 'atheist' was not derived by prefixing a negative particle, 'a', to the noun, 'theist':
"The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos,
from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’."
Three points:
1. From what I quoted from OED, it is clear that 'atheist' was not derived from 'theist', and that, instead, it was derived from αθεος.
2. Since 'atheist' was derived from αθεος, and not from 'theist', it is impossible that 'atheist' was derived by prefixing the particle, 'a', to the word, 'theist'.
3. The alpha in αθεος is not negative ("not"), but is, instead, privative ("without"), and so, there is absolutely no reason to say that the 'a' in 'atheist' means "not".
In addition to all this, according to etymonline.com, 'atheist' dates to the 1570s, while 'theist' dates to the 1660s, so that it is entirely out of the question that the word, 'atheist', could have been derived from the word, 'theist'.
There is no more reasonableness or legitimacy in hacking 'atheist' into 'a' + 'theist' than there would be in hacking it into, say, 'at + heist' or 'atheis + t'. Babies who can't be bothered to notice and understand simple, easy-to-obtain facts such these, of course, are more than happy to go about displaying just how grown up they aren't, making clowns of themselves by asininely attempting to create analogies for their totally illegitimate butchery of the word, 'atheist', such as "awitchist", and "atoothfairyist".
_______________________________________________________________________________
But, again, you'd be quite right to say that IF 'atheist' were 'a + theist', AND the 'a' were to mean "not", THEN anything not 'theist', be it rock, wood, refrigerator, or quilt, would indeed be 'atheist'.
Notice, also, that the babies who pull the 'a + theist' shtick get very peeved when you inform them that it would make rocks and dogs atheists, like to grumble at you, "No! An atheist is a PERSON who is not a theist, idiot!" Hmmmm. Let's see if there's anything to their gripe. What is a theist? A person who believes in God. Thus, were 'atheist' really 'a + theist', and 'a' were to mean "not", then we'd have the following:
'atheist'
↓
'a + theist'
↓
'a + [person who believes in God]'
↓
'[not] + [person who believes in God]'
Sometimes, a prefixed 'a' means "not", other times, it means "without", but never, ever, does a prefixed 'a' mean "person who is not". The "person" part of the deal would belong to the "theist" part, and not to the "a" part.
@@djengo77 Thanks for the summative explanation of the etymology, but for the life of me I can't quite come to an understanding of what, exactly, you are saying. And by that, I mean that I can't derive a sensible conclusion from what you are saying in support of or refutation of the point I was making.
It's confusing because you seem like you are in some ways refuting what I've saying, but maybe you are just misreading what you are referencing. For example, the OED definition you cite DOES indicate that atheist is just adding 'a' to 'theist'. I mean, it even spells it out by saying it's " from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’." and it's derived from the Greek in the same form (atheos or αθεος in Greek). Is our only quibble here that I grant theos being translated as the root and you do not? We brought along the prefix in the same form, but modified the root word (which is typically how languages adopt words from other languages, especially ones with a lot of borrowing like English borrows from German, French, Latin and Greek).
αθεος is α prefix with θεος root. It is, and has been translated over time in the same form.
So I'm really lost as to the whole "There is no more reasonableness or legitimacy in hacking 'atheist' into 'a' + 'theist' than there would be in hacking it into, say, 'at + heist' or 'atheis + t'." because that's demonstrably, even by your previous OED definition, not the case.
I don't argue, at any point, that 'a' is only "not". My point is that is IS "without" in the use of atheist. I also DO NOT balk at the idea that rocks and babies are atheist, I argue that they are objectively atheist, while people can be subjectively so as well.
Atheist is not an identity, it's a state of being. Just like a baby is human, matter and alive, it is an atheist.
Disagree. Living beings deserve autonomy. I know of people who lack a belief in god that don't feel comfortable with the label of Atheist and they are valid. I know non cis-gendered people who feel uncomfortable with being called transgender even if they may fit otherwise. They have the choice of what feels correct to how they exist and feel. Babies do not have that.
@@kellevichy Again, state of being. No autonomy needed. My state of being does not change because I will it so. It's basic facts. Atheist is a descriptor of a state of being, not a choice or a autonomous action but a state of being, in this case, being -without belief in god/gods", which a baby without ANY beliefs is, just as much as it is a human.
@Saige King, even if people don't want to be called something that doesn't mean they are not that something.They have all the rights in the world to ask to not being called something and many people may even agree not to do it for whatever reason, but that will not in any way change the fact that they are indeed that something still.
Nope
@@XEndlessSteelX secular is descriptive to a state of being, atheist is a title based on ones beliefs, autonomy is needed for atheist, not secular
I’m not really comfortable with the word “atheism” at least in regards to me personally as I don’t really see being an atheist, meaning “not being a member of the group ‘theist’ “ as an “-ism” as in a follower of a philosophy, religion, or movement. For me being an atheist is simply the answer to a single question, “Do you believe in one or more of the type of entities commonly referred to as a god?” to which my answer is “No”. It has no other philosophical, organizational, or identity aspects what so ever for me.
What I see you doing here is the informal fallacy "Appeal to Ridicule". If babies, which in fact don't belong to the group "theist", are referred to as atheists then rocks are atheists and then you would be able to say "I built a wall out of atheists." I also am not a member of the group who believe in Santa. I am an aSantaist. If you want to Appeal to Ridicule and build a wall out of aSantaists, go ahead.
Babies clearly do not belong to the group "theist". Just so we aren't confused by the difference in my definition of atheist and your definition of atheist, could you please provide we with a word that means "Doesn't belong to the group theist"?
The entire point of the vid was him saying that he doesn't believe that "ism"s or "a-ism"s should be applied to those that haven't either developed the sapience to consider or decide on the "ism" in question or have not been exposed, pointing out that in academic vocabulary there is a third group, innocents, that have not been exposed and therefore do not qualify as either the "ism" or its "a-ism" which is what he argues is what babies qualify as. Basically it's the position that to be either the "ist" or the "a-ist" one must be capable of choosing (at least subconsciously, as there is a good bit of meat to the point that one can't consciously choose to change one's beliefs) to accept or reject the "ism" and have heard about the "ism" sufficiently to be able to make that decision. IMO there is some merit to this position, but it is not the only perspective.
TBH, the water is murky no matter which way you cut it.
*_For me being an atheist is simply the answer to a single question, “Do you believe in one or more of the type of entities commonly referred to as a god?”_*
And this is part of the problem, here...the question doesn't have to be asked at all. It's not even a question.
Having no belief in any gods doesn't require anything other than not having it...even if you don't _know_ that you don't have it.
While I agree that based on the definition that is used babies do technically fit the bill I personally hate the argument because it isn't useful. I personally don't care what people believe as long as they can play nicely with others and aren't trying to force their beliefs onto anyone but if your goal is to convince people that they are wrong then tell them that babies are atheists is only going to piss them off and lead to them either arguing with you at best, or at worst shutting you out and not listening. And another issue I have with this line of reasoning it that most people make this argument claim that atheism is the intellectual side of the debate and yet they claim that people who lack the ability think cognitively are also atheists. Tldr: the argument isn't useful for converting, if that is your goal, and doesn't aid in have a productive discussion.
Why isn't it useful, though? What does it have to do that it fails to, therefore should not, in your opinion, be used?
Babies being atheist means you have to teach them god for them to be theist, rather proving that god hasn't written their existence on our hearts.
Seems far more useful than telling me the religion of its parents (a christian child, for example). How is their parents faith useful?
Maybe they need babies to be atheists so they can eat them easier?
As an atheist, I can tell you that Christian babies tend to be spicier.
I think it's from the holy water. Anything holy burns us.
Souls need more fiber to digest; soulless babies just pass easier
Lol @Nervadia I was about to give a”Nah Christian babies taste way better” comment.
We feed the christian babies to the atheist babies to enhance their flavor
Cant believe that used as a actual point. Yeah babies are devoid of alot of things till they are taught it or they figure it out. It doesn't mean anything and seriously shouldnt be used in that way.
It's only used that way before of the moronic claims of theists. I'm sure you've heard some theist claiming that 'everyone knows there is a god' at some point. The point is very simple, no one is born with any beliefs about gods, one most be taught.
Ah, he closed by comparing atheism to a religion while referring to it as an identity.
That's a bad meme, bro.
??
Yeah this whole thing seems like Atheists heard the "even atheists in their heart know there is a God" and just did a "No U" but on babies
You gotta define your terms people! Remember that.
Cats are definitly not atheist. They know there are gods walking among as unworthy mortals and demand our love and worship.
Babies are atheistic (adjective), but yes they are not atheists (noun).
No they are atheists as they are not theists. The only requirement to be an atheist is to not have the particular belief that a god exists.
@@darrylelam256 nouns usually hold descriptive value, your use would not, thus I reject your silly notion. They are atheistic, but since they do not identify themself as atheists nor is it reasonable to categorise them as such.
@@Drudenfusz It is not necessary to identify as an atheist to be an atheist, so your point fails. Theists profess belief in a god or gods, atheists, are simply not the former. So unless babies profess faith, they are atheists, it's really that simple.
@@Drudenfusz WRONG! It does indeed hold descriptive value. *ANYONE* who is not a theist, is an atheist. It perfectly describes SOMEONE who does not have a belief in any gods. It doesn't matter what they identify as. I was an atheist a good 10 years before I ever heard the word atheist, but learning the word 'atheist' did not in any way change my beliefs or my position on anything.
@@engineeredlifeform if it is not about identification, then why are you so bothered about who qualifies as atheist and who doesn't?
Also I would like to just say that this is why twitter sucks. There is no way you'd have been able to adequately substantiate this position in a tweet. It took a 10 minutes video to cover your bases, and it wasn't till near the halfway point that you brought up and dealt with my question on the matter. A twitter "dialogue" wouldn't have been able to manage that. RUclips may be insane and toxic in it's own right, but at least you get to fully state your position with all the caveats. Not something that happens on Twitter.
4 years after and it's still a bad meme.
This is an interesting discussion, as an atheist, I've definitely heard the 'babies are atheist' argument, its interesting to hear a non-christian yet non-atheist rebuttal to it. It's definitely interesting how you point out the similarities between Christians baptizing babies and claiming they're Christian as that was a connection I hadn't considered before.
While I definitely don't think it's completely unreasonable that the label of atheist (lacking a belief in a god or gods) could be applied to babies even in de-facto way, I think that after watching the video, that the term innocent is probably a better and fairer term to use for all sides.
Bravo!
I don't think the logic behind babies being atheists is wrong by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think the meme should be put to rest because as you pointed out, it's unnecessary and is only really useful as a bludgeoning tool for the sake of rustling people's jimmies. Also, thanks for teaching me the atheist of how funny it is to use the atheist "atheist" so many times in one atheist.
This has been such a devided topic among belevers since the beginning. Calling babies atheists can be used to provoke and make a point on the need for beleefs to be tought. I don't see any other reason to call babies atheists.
As an atheist, I think I can safely say I wasn't an atheist as a baby. I was just a baby. Babies can't hold opinions or beliefs (far as my knowledge goes, at least) and thus can't be atheist by definition.
Atheists: "The pirahã people are atheists"
Pirahã person: "What is/are god(s)?"
This is actually an incredibly inaccurate statement. This was their reaction to the Christian God, which they thought was a little ridiculous. However, their own stories have entities that we would consider deities. The notion that they are atheists or non-cognativists would be inaccurate, or at least misleading.
Babies don't necessarily dislike slavery.
ocean, you got this one wrong. i agree with bionicdance on this one. dawkins keeps emphasizing that we do not say republican child or democrat child, so we should not say christian child or jewish child because they are not born with that bellief, neither are they born with that political view. so, it is possible that the meme came from that discussion that dawkins started or continued about children.
i totally agree with you bionicdance that babies are atheists, that pets are atheists and that we are all born atheist. i rather take it as an adjective as you pointed out , it is a quality not an identity.
so, atheist is exactly pointing out that babies cannot selfidentify , so it makes sense to point that out by using adjectives like they are apolitical, atheist, aactivist, asantaist, astampcollectors, areligious, aspiritual, aintellectual, etc.
also, of course all persons, including adults, who have never been exposed to religion are atheists.
my example are the pinaha tribe. when they were discovered they had no concept of religion and no place for religion. so they had never heard of any theism, they were of course atheists.
you do not call that tribe atheist only after explaining theism to them. they are called atheist from the beginning. they had no godbelief, so they were atheists even before the first missionary told them about christianity.
the missionary could not convince them, so they remained atheist.
it is not the case that they only became atheist after hearing about jesus. they were not convinced before and they were not convinced after hearing about jesus, so their mindset had not changed, so they lacked and still lack a belief in god or gods, they wre and are atheist or atheists.
ocean keltoi is totally off base here, and i could not disagree with him more.
i often point out that babies and children as well as various native tribes were atheist before and when they were first contacted by religious persons because lacking a belief for things that do not have sufficient evidence is natural and godbeliefs are by no means natural. it is very telling that you only find god beliefs in societies wheree power matters and is unequally distributed, and it is telling that religioon is used to serve those in power. small hunter gatherer tribes without large inequalities and without steep hierarchies have no need for religion and are often areligious, atheist.
i also like to point out that all animals are born atheist and areligious , too. we do have superstition in the animal kingdom, but this superstition is learnt, so the animals are not born superstitious. as superstition to me is a kind of indoctrination and element of religion, i count this as supporting evidence supporting the fact that all animals, including humans, are born lacking any supernatural beliefs, ie. atheist, and can only aacquire them later in life by indoctrinating mechanisms. regarding superstition in animals, i am referring to research on birds.
Bionic Dance just kicked your ass.
Babies are not Atheists.
But Atheists are babies.
There is a difference.
I agree with you. To be an atheist, agnostic, mono or poly theist, there has to be a level of belief. Babies have no beliefs. The only thing they believe in is Mom or Dad brings me food and takes care of me. To children, Mom and Dad are God until they are taught something else. They don't understand the concept but they just know that Mom and Dad are higher level beings that take care of their every need when they cry out to them. Babies are simply innocents and have no concept of God or Gods or beliefs in general other than where their next meal is coming from.
A probable purpose of 'calling babies atheist' is to draw attention to the fact that _people don't have a belief in any gods until they are indoctrinated otherwise._ Whether babies can't be, because they aren't "self aware," or whether that label is more appropriate at 2 years old, 6 years old, 12, etc., is largely irrelevant. Those who disagree with the (largely technically correct) "Babies are Atheists" are missing the underlying point.
Babies can't be Atheist, theist, heretical, or a sinner. A baby is a baby!
This seems like one big naturalistic fallacy. As you stated with how Atheists use rhetorical devices such as denying a direct belief that no God exists to free themselves of accountability for claim making, this too is just a device created to indirectly state that 'if babies are atheists, then that is the *natural*, and thus *righteous* thing to do/believe in.' They can easily deny the naturalistic fallacy due to the first rhetorical device you pointed out, and this allows them to then use the naturalism fallacy device to full effect. Really, rhetoric is an amazing topic in its own right and this issue you brought up shows this rather well.
Man, that last take was the worst take any ex Christian could have. If anybody here is exhibiting latent Christianity, it's definitely you.
I think an atheist has a belief that there is no god. A baby has no belief either way.
No, because if an infant grows into an adult without ever gaining a belief in a god of any sort due to not ever being exposed to the concept, they would still be an atheist. There would be no point where they would transition from total non-believer to atheist.
They can't be an atheist, they haven't come to a conclusion because they are ignorant to the concept.
Babies are neither atheists or theists. Simple as that
should be fairly easy.
Babies aren't theists. Babies aren't atheists either, they are babies
And this is why a hotdog isnt a sandwich
These kinds of rhetorical games are irritating because the people making these arguments always define terms to their own advantage and play games of meaning that avoid the heart of the debate. See also the strawman "nobody ever killed in the name of no god."
What next? Babies can't drive we should get rid of cars. Babies don't have teeth nobody should eat solid food. Babies can't go to college there for college was never meant to exist...
@8:00 - So, what word do you use to describe those people?
I tend to side with the philosophical approach to this quandary and would use the term innocents.
@@OceanKeltoi But what if they're murderous, pillaging, promiscuous savages? In that case, it would be confusing to describe them as being innocents, correct? Describing them as atheists would be far more effective and accurate.
nontheists
@@PistonAvatarGuy No, it wouldn’t. That reply was stunningly stupid.
@@tfan2222 Why? Can you not even explain yourself?
Looks like I missed a meme.
Babies may not be atheists, but a lot of atheists sure are babies.
I agree with you fully on it. Babies don't have the experience to draw upon to decide for themselves or argue for or against being labelled as an Atheirst.
Atheism is a description of what is, not about the choice you make. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Historically it was a denial of the existence of a deity. The same as Catholicism was historically categorized as part of christianity. Now some say it isn't. Philosophical definitions tend to hold to old definitions even when they are out of date with modern usage.
Theist responce: "Every sperm is sacred!" and "You were Catholic even before you were warm! (slight paraphrasing)" from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
Babies being atheists is not a meme, it’s an attribute. It’s not a very important negative attribute, but it’s still an attribute.
For example, there are some people who are fans of the music of Rush. If you are not a fan of the music of Rush, you are a non-Rush fan. This doesn’t mean they are fans of Motorhead. Also, rocks are not Rush fans.
There are a group of people who believe in one or more Gods, and we call those people theists. Then there is everything else in the universe that isn’t included in the group call theists. These things are not theists, or by prefixing the word ‘a’ (using the Greek roots) to mean ‘not’, we get the word atheist.
Using the law of noncontradiction, everything must either be A or not A. Everything must be theist or atheist (not theist).
As for how useful the word is, when applied to babies is irrelevant. Just like saying “A bluebird is not an international form of government”.
The problem comes when people try an extend the definition of the word atheist to mean more than it states. An indication of this is when people attempt to add qualifiers to the term atheist. If you are talking about “protestant atheists” then you are not talking about atheists. Or the term “mostly atheist” means that in some way they are not atheist and therefore theist.
Atheist is one answer to a single question. Do you believe in a god or gods? No.
Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn’t cover morality, knowledge or even any other beliefs.
For example, the common theistic retort to me stating that I’m an atheist is “So, how do you know there isn’t a God?”. This is because the theist has assumed a larger meaning to the term atheist. They have assumed that I’m stating a position of knowledge, instead of a statement about belief. The correct retort would be “So, why don’t you believe in the existence of gods”.
I know that sounds nit-picky, but the difference is important. I’m agnostic (without knowledge) when it comes to the knowledge of gods in general and anti-gnostic (positively claim knowledge against) the monotheistic gods. This is not information you can derive from me being an atheist.
The main thing is that atheism isn’t a club, group or movement. It’s an attribute, just like being under six foot tall.
No god has ever been able to survive without followers. Like they have no power on their own.
Gods are the creation of their followers.
Who cares what babies think? The opinion of a baby has no bearing on my opinion of the gods in the same way it would have no bearing on my opinion of the shape of planet earth. Its a baby. Their opinion is worth nothing to me
What word do I use for a lack of a belief in god that includes babies and tables?
Colloquial.
Gets me every time.
I can't bother agreeing or disagreeing because all I can think about is how useless language really is.
I agree, this line of reasoning outside certain contexts is just stupid and I don't get why it is used that way, but I have to point out that it's a valid argument against people who say babies born in theistic families are [insert theist brand here] babies, the "correct" usage is for pointing out that babies lack a belief in god/gods and is dishonest (or better, far more dishonest) to claim active belief than passive non belief, it's a cheap point so I wouldn't advocate for using that but it can be useful in certain conversations
babies are also stupid.. you live and you learn
Most self-identified atheists use the term to mean "one who lacks a belief in a god or gods", that's how the word used by most self-identified atheists. It is intrinsically a simplistic definition. The more complicated idea is the definition of a "god", which will be nuanced. It may be the case that by certain definitions of "god", babies are not atheists, but if we define god in a more common manner, we will find that babies do lack that belief.
My baby said ga-ga so clearly they meant god is great praise yahewa smh cmon now
We say children are atheists to try to avoid having their families taking for granted the fact that they will follow whatever religion the family practices.
It's like the gender concept or racisim: children do not have these concepts written in them so don't try to instill them because you think they should be directed in some way and let che child develop into a person in a more natural way, they will surely take on whatever belief they want if they operate in a dynamic society.
I'm fairly certain that the term atheist usually applies to a *_PERSON_* who lacks a belief in god(s). Its sort of a pet peeve of mine when ever someone does the "rocks lack a belief in god" thing... because its amazingly stupid... so don't do it... ever.
Well tough shit, rocks ARE atheist. But it only matters when you're discussing god who is an atheist and who isn't, so unless you're talking to rocks about god, it would hardly make sense to say "the atheist rock", since nothing about that rock changes based on its belief, or lack, in a god.
So keep telling me don't do it, but tough shit, boy. Demanding like that is amazingly stupid. Are you going to keep doing it?
Not quite, an atheist is not 'a person that believes in god'. Why do you assume the 'not' doesn't apply to the person part? If I say 'I am not holding a bottle of beer' do you assume I'm still holding a bottle of something, but it's just not beer?
@@engineeredlifeform ... The word "not" doesnt appear in the actual definition. Play with your strawmen somewhere else.
@@timeshark8727 'A' theist. What does the prefix mean?
@@engineeredlifeform not or non generally. Lol, playing games with roots doesn't help you in your pathetic and dishonest attempt to shift meanings and doesn't change what the established meanings of words are.
What do you think about budhism?
Could we have a debate or discussion at some point?
I'm an atheist and I approve of this videos arguments. 😊
I believe Bionic Dance's rebuttal argument is sound enough and says it plainer than I could. Using this term the way most people do does not seem inaccurate to me for the same reasons Bionic Dance uses it. I think this is such a waste of a human's energy to debate so long as everybody using and/or hearing it explains why they are doing it. You can then agree or disagree, but I think most people who would object outright to this usage without hearing why someone is using it, have way too much time on their hands and need to find a job, hobby, or something actually benefitting our species. I hate the term "meme." But unfortunately, that doesn't mean anyone using it is wrong.
I have to disagree. I believe that cats are not atheist. I believe they do believe in God I believe that they believe that they are God.
Personal atheist goal when I eventually go into parenthood.
1. Teach them the natural world and foster a curiosity and understanding of the sciences and how it got there.
2. Teach many different beliefs but emphasizing that no one is right and no one is wrong. These make sense to them and as long as it's not pushed onto you leave them be.
3. Live a life worth living. Explore, learn and never stop growing and evaluating your perception of the universe around you.
If they end up being an atheist like me, cool. If they end up following another faith, cool still. My only hope is that I can set them with the tools to meet the world and not fall into the traps of cults that want to harm them. Looking at you christianity...
For me it's simple.
Would the kid be a christian if you didn't force it on them? If no, they're an atheist until they choose one.
All excellent points. Thank you for sharing.
Here's the problem as I see it: words have more than one definition. Ocean is saying Atheist with a capital 'A', denoting a proper noun for a specific type of person: one who _professes_ a lack of belief in, or denial of, the existences of any gods. Other people are using atheist with a lower case 'a' , denoting a common noun for anyone who is not a theist.
Is a Cyclist someone who owns a lycra body suit, a teardrop shaped helmet and who can name Tour de France competitors without a web search and a pronunciation guide, or is a cyclist the cheery gran down the street who rides her bicycle with it's little basket to the shops on Sundays?
Yes.
That gran is a cyclist, but not a Cyclist, and similarly babies are atheists, but not Atheists.
You can't be an atheist without understanding what the negative is..
Babies are agnostic.
And it's funny, cause Last time I checked kids are quite imaginative, coming out of their babyhood.
Not to mention lots of them spontaneously having "imaginary friends".
They are so atheistic, that they are the most vulnerable to theistic ideas.
Right~
Babies aren't agnostic either
@@jaxthewolf4572
First off.. YES they are~
They infact, know nothing..
But if you really wanna be a ja about it.. Go listen to a fellow atheists lecture on the neurobiology of faith~
And just see how actually.. Fine!
They are totally hardwired to a theistic bias ✓
Not atheistic..
ruclips.net/video/1iMmvu9eMrg/видео.html
Everything you said is true but Bionic Dance is still right, Babies are atheists.
I agree with you, to identify yourself as an atheist or any religion should be a conscious choice.
So I’m two years too late here, but doesn’t what you’re defining as “atheist” in the circumstances here fall more in line with agnosticism? Yes yes yes I know they’re essentially “spiritual cousins”, but isn’t there a difference. I mean, I was agnostic for a large part of my life mainly because I hadn’t found the pagan path yet.
I have to take BionicDance position here. By definition babies are atheist. Also your argument that the definition of atheist is samehow wrong because people don't use it that way makes no sense. Clearly there are a lot of people who use atheist as it is defined - otherwise there would be no need for this video (and current definition wouldn't be what it is). The only people really interested in changing atheist definition are apologists because it would allow them to shift burden of proof.
I also thought I was a dog when I was a baby soo 😬
I'm baffled lmao. And yes it is just like christian baptized babies lol
I have never seen a human baby that was a theist when it was born... The closest thing to a god babies are aware of is "Mother". Basically saying a baby isn't an atheist is moronic... They don't know what a god is.
I've never seen a human baby that was a atheist when it was born
@@LuciferAlmighty Well you've never seen a human baby then because not one is theist.
"They don't know what a God is" which is exactly why they cannot be atheists. They have to hear about it, receive knowledge about it, process that knowledge and actively choose not to believe to be an atheist. They aren't atheist, they arent theist, they arent agnostic, they have NO beliefs.
@@jaxthewolf4572 if they don't know what a god is they cannot be theists and if they are not theists, they are atheists. It requires no processing. People who never know about a god are atheists as a default.
Excellent points!
Well sure, it can be said that babies are more unaware than theist or atheist, the term Atheism exists because Theism exists, however it isn't false to call them Atheists. Also, yes, a Truck is a type of car, or rather vehicle, but that is like trying to call Atheists Agnostics.
A truck is not a car 😡
@@OceanKeltoi a car is a vehicle though, and a truck is a vehicle. As I said it would be like calling an atheist agnostic, it's not inaccurate, but that would just make a new "is a hot dog a sandwich argument"
I don't even get what they're trying to do here. Even if babies are Atheists, so what? That doesn't mean that Atheism is somehow more correct because of it. My only guess is that it's an odd attempt to try to kill off the idea many Christians have that you're born believing in God and that believing in God is simply the "natural" thing to do. But why would Atheists feel the need to do that? That Christian idea is only appealing if you believe in God to begin with and can't understand why somebody wouldn't feel the same way.
I wouldnt have made the video if the tweet hadn’t been so incredibly divisive. Its been a non-issue for me, but I keep seeing people use it as some kind of point for their arguments.