[-Babies Are Atheists: Arguing Over Semantics-]

I recently viewed a video by one of my favorite Youtube Atheists - MeridianFrost - where he was more or less replying to a video made by a different YT Atheist, BionicDance. I have not seen the video he was replying to, but it seems to be a sequel where she backs up what she said in a previous video that I did watch. (I might be wrong on this, but it is not terribly relevant to the entry.) I commented on this video months ago with a gentle proposition, (and I mean that I was sincerely polite and made no absolute comments,) and she responded quite aggressively, with no room for thought or compromise, often attacking points I did not make.

I ended up “arguing” with those commenting on Meridian’s video as well. Arguing is in quotes because I really was just stating facts rather than taking much of a side. I was trying to level the playing field, trying to make them understand that most of them weren’t arguing for a moral position but rather one of semantics.

Are Babies Atheists?

Yes and no. It depends on the definition of “atheist” that you look at. The word is in severe flux. Etymologically, atheism means “Without Theism (Belief in God)”, but most dictionaries currently list the definition as the far more aggressive “disbelief in all god(s)” or “a position that says there is no god(s)” or something similar. Rather than simply lacking the belief, which anyone who is not a theist does, this definition implies active participation in the thought process and an actual assertion on the part of the atheist.

The first definition is for weak, or negative, atheism. I also consider this agnostic atheism, though many will disagree*. Most atheists that I am aware of are weak atheists, at least toward a very broad concept of a “god” of some sort, as they see no evidence for a god but do not state that there is absolutely not one. Most of us take the Occam’s Razor approach - why substitute a complicated explanation when there is already a valid, simple, natural one? It’s *possible* that a thief came in through your open first-story window in the middle of the day and stole your cat, but it’s more likely your cat decided to leave the house - unless other factors or evidence to contradict that simpler explanation present themselves.

Strong, or positive, atheists make the assertion that there is no god(s).

*Agnosticism is even more all-over-the-place when it comes to a definition than atheism is, especially since, when combined with atheism, categories overlap greatly. Someone can claim to be only an agnostic, but it’s more than likely that they’ll fit in to some category of atheist or theist. A person who believes there is probably a god one day and not another day doesn’t have to be considered a pure agnostic - they are simply an agnostic theist one day and an agnostic atheist the next. Someone who doesn’t give a damn can be considered an apathiest , but, under some definitions, apatheism can still fall under either atheism or theism, (but usually atheism.) Apatheism says “Whether there is a god(s) or not, even if it’s proven one way or another, it doesn’t change anything.”

*An agnostic theist believes that there probably is a god, but they do not claim it is a certainty.

* An agnostic atheist believes there is probably no god or simply sees no reason to believe in a god but does not claim it as certainty.

Agnosticism to me seems more useful as a modifier. To me, it would be like asking someone what they are wearing and them telling me “blue”. (Yes, I do this *all the time*, especially to strangers.) It’s accurate, but it’s not very specific… and people who use the term often use it to mean something very specific and assume that everyone else holds the same definition.

Atheism is most commonly split up between agnostic/weak/negative and strong/positive, but agnosticism is also divided into more specific categories, the two main being “strong” and “weak” once again.

*A weak agnostic says “We can’t know whether or not a god(s) exists right now, but maybe we’ll be able to find out in the future.”

*A strong agnostic says “We can’t know whether or not a god(s) exists *ever*.”

There are more, yes, but this entry could go on forever. Moving on…

George Smith, a Liberian and atheist writer, (author of Atheism: The Case Against God,) coined the terms Implicit and Explicit Atheism. Implicit atheism refers to when there is a lack of belief but no conscious rejection. In other words, by the only definition of this term, babies are implicit atheists. Atheists that are aware that they lack belief or disbelieve are explicit atheists. All implicit atheists are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are implicit atheists.

All of this, everything up there, is semantic, and it was, by far, most of the arguing that was going on. It does not help that most of the atheists I have personally seen on YT stress the “lack of belief in all deities” definition of atheism over the “disbelief in all deities” definition that is far more common in dictionaries. I’m not surprised about the repetitive arguments that ensue.

So, in conclusion, yes, babies are atheists - weak and implicit atheists specifically. Whether this matters worth a damn or not will be the topic of a future post. Remember, kids: If you’re going to argue about something, don’t be afraid to do a little research. Language is messy, and it evolves, and just like biological evolution, parts can be re-purposed and a lot of useless crap gets through.