Quote from stu:
We are dancing around what is innate and what is learned. It's a strong definitive word. A homo sapien completely isolated from birth, not being able to interact would not necessarily perish because of an "innate" call to socialize or become a political animal. A human would surely expire should it not have an innate instinct to survive, poop, breath. In this context we were discussing what innate instincts a baby will have at birth. I simply considered we agreed neither theism nor religion would be one.
I never thought or said a human is born with a religion/theism. But what is plain is that humans are born with the propensity or predisposition to either conjure up a theism or readily accept one. Is it a survival instinct that this occurs? You bet. Socio-biologists, empericists, et al peg it as so. Theologogists on the other hand disagree and think that this predisposition comes via some transedental means. Point is, both opposing groups have this one thing in common: they both realize that the predispositon is there - at birth.
So now you mean to tell me a blank slate is theism?...No? .. But to whom I ask again, you or the baby?
It is a simple case. Add on connotation, additional nuances, pejorative meaning and a simple straightforward expression is turned into a game of semantics.
It's just irresponsible word use on your and those who subscribe to this idea's part that atheism can be extended to babies. It is a semantic ploy used with the intention of gaining acceptance for the worldview. It overreaches the bounds of what atheism actually is and its history. Atheism is a worldview. (Hence the suffix "ism.") And an atheist is someone who subscribes to that worldview. Plain and simple. Why? Because atheism must invariably address the ultimate questions. Because of this, it cannot on any reasonable level simply mean "without religion" as if being "without religion" is a "blank slate." In order for atheism to intimate a "blank slate", it cannot on any level even attempt to answer the ultimate questions.
Ever. Because a baby wouldn't nor would it know how to address these questions. Remember, while it may not be immediately helpful towards mere survival (as in eat/poop/repeat), the human's hard-wired predisposition towards either conjuring up a religion or proto-religion or more readily accept one has been proven to be an essential survival trait for a long time. Granted that may be waning given the new dynamics of social evolution which may one day find its way into the human genome.
But here's the thing. Language is often used irresponsibly. It is one of the ways language evolves over time. We have many colloquialisms, expressions, and terms that are so far away from their original meaning or intent, it's sometimes a wonder why we even use those words or expressions to refer to something to which one wouldn't readily think would be appropriate given a word's etymology.
Bottom line: I can't "stop" you from using the term to label babies. I can only question why you would, examine it, and perhaps counter it with what would hopefully be reasonable discourse.
On the other hand: If a prefix or qualifying word were added before the word "atheist," perhaps it would then be fitting.
For instance: If I say, "She's an American." Given the common use of the word, you would automatically assume I'm talking about a citizen of the United States. What if I used that term to describe an citizen of Panama? Or Brazil? That would be wrong on my part. SO then I'd have to add a qualifier. "She's a Central American" or "she's a South American."
That's why qualifiers such as "strong" or "weak" have been added to atheist. Weak would be the more inclusive term to include agnostics and in some cases those of the Eastern philosophies.
Perhaps "non-cognitive atheist" would be somewhat appropriate for babies. But I'd still suggest a qualifier word between "non-cog" and "atheist" so as not to confuse it with subjectivism or emotivism - something which would more aptly apply to the stage of a human's development post infant.
