Why aren't you saying the same thing to the guy who said he was a Muslim since he was born?
Because:
1) he didn't claim all babies are born in a certain ideology (his notion was personal and vague therefore I didn't bother to decipher what he meant)
2) I'm not oblidged to go around the forum and point out the fallacies in everyone's reasoning. I only correct those who I see and who catch my interest
3) not saying that to him doesn't mean I agree with him, my point is you can't be born into any worldview, regardless of what it is
The definition of atheism disagrees with what you said.
You want to play the dictionaries? Guess what, the debate is still ongoing how to properly define atheism, therefore you have dictionaries offering both definitions:
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]"
"noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Atheism classifies as both, wether you like it or not. Regardless, the definition of it doesn't matter as for one to hold it they must first posess the lack of belief or disbelief. To not believe in something you first must know what that something is. For if you cannot conceive something you cannot make judgement on it. Newborns don't know god(s) therefore they are completely indifferent about the existence of god(s).
Babies are unable to hold any ideological/religious/political position or any other worldview because the very concept of worldviews is unknown to them. That's on par with saying that all plants or animals are atheists or that all inanimate objects are atheists. Guess what Joe, my chair's an atheist, and so is my computer - none of them believe in god.
It sounds ridiculous. Ideological positions (atheism being one of them) are reserved solely for individuals capable of comprehending them. To advance the dictionary game, here's what a worldview is:
"A comprehensive world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view."
"the way someone thinks about the world"
"a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world."
"The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called"
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
As per universal agreement, worldviews are reserved for individuals capable of thinking for themselves. Beings that cannot do so (newborns fall into this category) cannot have a worldview. Since a newborn's cognitive ability hasn't developed to the extent that it can possess a worldview your argument makes no sense.
The only thing you could say is that newborns don't belong to any religion and that is true. They don't belong to any religion nor any worldview or ideology in general, until they are initiated by someone else or their own action.
In short: newborns don't lack belief, but the
ability to believe. Unless you want to redefine atheism as "lack of ability to hold a belief" you're better off dropping the notion.
