Are people born inherently atheist?

[Sonofason]

Pretty much.

Evidence. Why not show evidence for your opinion? I know why you haven't. I know why you won't. Here is another opportunity for you to show why infants can't be theists. Evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

Only strong atheists believe that gods don't exist. Weak atheists have no beliefs in that regard. Besides certain theists such as Christians also believe that every other god except the one they believe in don't exist.

You are wrong. That which a person believes is not a god has absolutely nothing to do with theism. This is a red herring. Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. It has nothing to do with what isn't a god.

 

[Sonofason]

No more absurd than certain kinds of theism, Christianity for example, since Christians believe no other gods exist but their own and the only difference between a strong atheist and a Christian is that the Christian disbelieves in the existence of every god except one and the strong Atheist disbelieves in the existence of every god.You can't call weak atheism agnosticism that would be like calling apples oranges. Please learn the difference between atheism and agnosticism. There is a reason we have two different words for them.

I know perfectly well the definitions for the word atheist, agnostic and theist. I make no mistakes. I have a perfect understanding of what agnostic is. It is you however who should study more closely the words that define agnostic.

 

[Sonofason]

Then it is also an absurd position for all Christians since they also disbelieve in the existence of nearly all gods, they have just made one exception.

You have no idea what this Christian believes. I am a Christian, and you don't get to tell me my beliefs.

 

[Sonofason]

There never was atheism, and the word should be outlawed or at least avoided in polite company.

There is no such thing as polite company. That is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Sonofason]

This is silly, everybody is born an atheist, without and pre-conceived opinions about anything. Religion comes through indoctrination.

Indoctrination and experience. Some people have knowledge of God, just as you have knowledge of yourself. Some people have better knowledge of God than you have of yourself.

 

[Sonofason]

Indeed, it is. Infants are atheist in the same way that bananas and broomsticks are.

Prove that statement. To do this, you will first have to prove that infants don't experience anything at all. Your move.

 

[Sonofason]

But people are not talking about religion. They're talking about god-belief.

One member (Sonofason) seems to assume that all babies have knowledge of God from their very first breath. Therefore, in his view, all babies are theists.

I think that's his position anyway.

Before their very first breath.

 

[Sonofason]

Let it be remembered that all religions of the world was born in the childhood of our species. Children make religion, Grown-ups create science. A child’s imagination is more active than its power of reasoning. It is easier for it to fancy then to see. It thinks less then it guesses. The wild flight of fancy is checked only by experience. Religion is the science of the child. Science is the religion of the mature. The multitude is ever joined to its idols; let them alone, I speak to the discerning few. I speak to the mature minds who have left their idols, toys, fancies, and childhoods behind.

Exactly what year did our species begin?
And exactly what year did our species become an adult species?

This sounds like a god complex to me.

Why do you think you are more evolved than people who lived just 2,000 years ago?

What is the evolutionary advancement of our species that causes you to think you are so much better than men of 2000 years ago?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Prove that statement. To do this, you will first have to prove that infants don't experience anything at all. Your move.

Out of curiosity, if I linked you to research on developmental cognition and infant cognition since (and including) the work of Spelke and Baillargeon, are you capable of understanding the conclusion? That is, are you sufficiently familiar with developmental approaches within the cognitive sciences to understand how the sensorimotor experiences of infants serve to construct their conceptual frameworks? Can you distinguish between experiential modalities and the ways these are incorporated into various types of associative memory? Put simply, does there exist any research in infant cognition that you would be capable of evaluating with respect to the question you asked and in the context of developmental cognition?

Basically, while I can't claim to have the entirety of research of developmental/infant cognition at my fingers, I certainly have several thousands of studies. I just need to know what you would find convincing and why, as well as what your current background knowledge is.

 

[Sonofason]

Out of curiosity, if I linked you to research on developmental cognition and infant cognition since (and including) the work of Spelke and Baillargeon, are you capable of understanding the conclusion? That is, are you sufficiently familiar with developmental approaches within the cognitive sciences to understand how the sensorimotor experiences of infants serve to construct their conceptual frameworks? Can you distinguish between experiential modalities and the ways these are incorporated into various types of associative memory? Put simply, does there exist any research in infant cognition that you would be capable of evaluating with respect to the question you asked and in the context of developmental cognition?

Basically, while I can't claim to have the entirety of research of developmental/infant cognition at my fingers, I certainly have several thousands of studies. I just need to know what you would find convincing and why, as well as what your current background knowledge is.

If you could show that infants do not have experiences, then I might be able to be convinced that infants can't be theists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you could show that infants do not have experiences, then I might be able to be convinced that infants can't be theists.

Define "experiences" in a way meaningful to your question such that we can use these experiential effects (or what they entail) to relate infant experience to an infant's capacity to not only possess a conceptual representation of anything related to theism, but an epistemic position on these concepts that research has shown children are incapable of expressing even in the most basic sense until they are several years old and incapable of expressing in a a truly meaningful way (i.e., capable of construal via impersonal constructions regarding beliefs/facts) until they are nearly pre-teens?

You are arguing that an infant's experiences are able to demonstrate something that is relevant to their religiosity. Given what we know about conceptual representation, cognitive processes in general, the prerequisites for the capacity of epistemic claims, etc., what is it about experiences that is capable of demonstrating religious conviction among infants?

 

[Willamena]

Your opinion adds little to the facts of the matter.

Except that it is the facts of the matter, and not an opinion.

There are no certain instances where babies are atheists. If you think there is, I'd like to see you evidence, since thus far you haven't provided any whatsoever. And I am the only person so far to state the fact that it is highly possible for all infants to be theists.

There are no certain instances.

 

[Sonofason]

Define "experiences" in a way meaningful to your question such that we can use these experiential effects (or what they entail) to relate infant experience to an infant's capacity to not only possess a conceptual representation of anything related to theism, but an epistemic position on these concepts that research has shown children are incapable of expressing even in the most basic sense until they are several years old and incapable of expressing in a a truly meaningful way (i.e., capable of construal via impersonal constructions regarding beliefs/facts) until they are nearly pre-teens?

You are arguing that an infant's experiences are able to demonstrate something that is relevant to their religiosity. Given what we know about conceptual representation, cognitive processes in general, the prerequisites for the capacity of epistemic claims, etc., what is it about experiences that is capable of demonstrating religious conviction among infants?

experience -
(n)
1. direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
2. the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
3. the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you
Experience - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. a particular incident, feeling, etc., that a person has undergone
2. the faculty by which a person acquires knowledge of contingent facts about the world, as contrasted with reason

(v)
1. to be emotionally or aesthetically moved by; feel
2. undergo an emotional sensation or be in a particular state of mind
experience - definition of experience by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Willamena]

Prove that statement. To do this, you will first have to prove that infants don't experience anything at all. Your move.

Atheism has nothing to do with not experiencing anything at all. Your move.

 

[Sonofason]

Except that it is the facts of the matter, and not an opinion.



There are no certain instances.

Name the facts of the matter.

 

[Willamena]

Name the facts of the matter.

John, Dick, Harry....

 

[Sonofason]

Atheism has nothing to do with not experiencing anything at all. Your move.

Oh yes it does. An atheist does not experience God, and so therefore the atheist does not believe in God. Infants may experience God, and so infants may have believe in God.

 

[Willamena]

Oh yes it does. An atheist does not experience God, and so therefore the atheist does not believe in God. Infants may experience God, and so infants may have believe in God.

Au contrare. An atheist does not experience something that doesn't exist, so there is nothing to believe in. They cannot be held at fault for a sound epistemology.

Infants have the soundest epistemology of all.

 

[Sonofason]

John, Dick, Harry....

I didn't think you would. Neither did I think you could.