Are people born inherently atheist?

[Willamena]

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

Anyone can...

it's not like there's any rules.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Interesting that you think you know the mind of an infant.

Interesting that you can't prove that a god does not exist.

It's interesting, but not surprising.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

experience -

I didn't ask for a definition of the lexeme experience. I have access to the single most authoritative and comprehensive source (the OED) on the English language in existence. Even if I did not, I could still look up the definition of experience.

Earlier today experienced the pain caused by spilling hot coffee on myself. As meaningful as this experience was, somehow it told me nothing about any god.

So, once again, what experiences do infants all have in common that make it meaningful to speak of them as theists? Feel free to relate to the literature on cognitive development, neural representations of concepts, the neural and/or cognitive bases for epistemic states, or even just the way in which a pre-linguistic infant incapable of more than perceptual experiential "concepts" can make the label "theist" accurate when applied to infants.

In particular, whay

 

[Willamena]

Interesting that you think you know the mind of an infant.

Interesting that you can't prove that a god does not exist.

It's interesting, but not surprising.

I know logic, and it is the mind of the infant and the mind of the adult, and everything in between.

I didn't claim I could prove a god doesn't exist. I don't need to.

 

[Sonofason]

I didn't ask for a definition of the lexeme experience. I have access to the single most authoritative and comprehensive source (the OED) on the English language in existence. Even if I did not, I could still look up the definition of experience.

Earlier today experienced the pain caused by spilling hot coffee on myself. As meaningful as this experience was, somehow it told me nothing about any god.

So, once again, what experiences do infants all have in common that make it meaningful to speak of them as theists? Feel free to relate to the literature on cognitive development, neural representations of concepts, the neural and/or cognitive bases for epistemic states, or even just the way in which a pre-linguistic infant incapable of more than perceptual experiential "concepts" can make the label "theist" accurate when applied to infants.

In particular, whay

I never said that infants have experiences of God. I said they might. I don't know what experiences an infant might have of God. It could be that they have a similar experience of God that I have.

You may have had them too, but have now forgotten that you have rejected them.

 

[Sonofason]

I know logic, and it is the mind of the infant and the mind of the adult, and everything in between.

I didn't claim I could prove a god doesn't exist. I don't need to.

If you are going to make a claim that no God exists, then I think you should at least attempt to support your claim. Obviously, you don't have to. But if you want me to be convinced that your claim is true, you're going to have to provide some evidence to support your claim. Your blind faith that no God exists is not sufficient to cause any significant shift in my own experiential knowledge of God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I never said that infants have experiences of God.

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

There is nothing about experience that relates in anyway to what is required to realize infants are incapable of theistic beliefs (or beliefs in general and in concepts in general). You responded to such a claim with a reference to experience as if this somehow informed us as to an infant's capacity to represent (possess) any concept related to theism. I'm asking for your evidence that evidence makes even the slightest difference in this case.

 

[Sonofason]

I didn't ask for a definition of the lexeme experience. I have access to the single most authoritative and comprehensive source (the OED) on the English language in existence. Even if I did not, I could still look up the definition of experience.

Earlier today experienced the pain caused by spilling hot coffee on myself. As meaningful as this experience was, somehow it told me nothing about any god.

So, once again, what experiences do infants all have in common that make it meaningful to speak of them as theists? Feel free to relate to the literature on cognitive development, neural representations of concepts, the neural and/or cognitive bases for epistemic states, or even just the way in which a pre-linguistic infant incapable of more than perceptual experiential "concepts" can make the label "theist" accurate when applied to infants.

In particular, whay

Do you think that newborn infants have any sort of belief in their mothers?

 

[Sonofason]

There is nothing about experience that relates in anyway to what is required to realize infants are incapable of theistic beliefs (or beliefs in general and in concepts in general). You responded to such a claim with a reference to experience as if this somehow informed us as to an infant's capacity to represent (possess) any concept related to theism. I'm asking for your evidence that evidence makes even the slightest difference in this case.

I am only asserting a possibility. It is you who has suggested emphatically that infants don't have any beliefs whatsoever. I disagree. I think they might have beliefs.

Show me why babies don't have experiences; for experience is the foundation for belief.

 

[Willamena]

If you are going to make a claim that no God exists, then I think you should at least attempt to support your claim. Obviously, you don't have to. But if you want me to be convinced that your claim is true, you're going to have to provide some evidence to support your claim. Your blind faith that no God exists is not sufficient to cause any significant shift in my own experiential knowledge of God.

I won't make such a claim except in defense of atheism, which is something I believe in. I won't support such a claim, because better thinkers than me have already done so, and it's off-topic. I've no interest in convincing you that an atheistic worldview is the correct one, only that the word "atheism" should apply in particular circumstances, and that those are that a person genuinely believes that there is no god or gods.

I'm just here for debate.

 

[Sonofason]

I won't make such a claim except in defense of atheism, which is something I believe in. I won't support such a claim, because better thinkers than me have already done so, and it's off-topic. I've no interest in convincing you that an atheistic worldview is the correct one, only that the word "atheism" should apply in particular circumstances, and that those are that a person genuinely believes that there is no god or gods.

Obviously, you cannot believe in a lack of something if you do not have a previously developed concept for the something that you are lacking.

This is why babies can't be atheists.

But if they experience God, they could be theists. All that would be required of the infant to begin to form a belief in a god is that the infant experience the God.

It is not necessary to have a perfectly developed concept of something in order to believe in it. Experience is sufficient to form belief.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Show me why babies don't have experiences; for experience is the foundation for belief.

Experience is not. Cognitive faculties are. We are capable of creating computer programs that learn from experience the way that cells, plants, slugs, etc., all do. What we are not capable of is demonstrating how experience in particular systems (namely, those with brains) are capable of conceptual representation.

I am only asserting a possibility.

You are asserting that there is a meaningful relationship between experience and belief such that the experience of a single-celled organism, an ant, a sunflower, etc. is somehow incapable of experiences that result in theistic beliefs yet there are experiences infants have that are relevant to beliefs.

You have absolutely no basis for such an assertion. There is nothing you know of infant cognition that supports you and actually there is evidence that experiential effects of parrots are more significant here.

It is you who has suggested emphatically that infants don't have any beliefs whatsoever.

Wrong. I have denied that experience can be equated with beliefs. You are the one implicitly claiming that a plant can have theistic beliefs because of its experiences. You are utterly incapable of differentiation the cognitive mechanisms underlying belief in any living system yet you have equated experience with belief nonetheless. You offer nothing to support this claim and haven't even the ability to define experience in a way that makes the experience of an amoeba not theistic but that of an infant different. Perhaps you are correct, but you haven't just offered nothing to support your claim, you have presented it in a way that makes it incorrect (unless you really do think grass, ants, etc., are theistic).

 

[Curious George]

Your opinion adds little to the facts of the matter. 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.

I think you got yourself turned around in the shuffle. Try to keep your eye on the ball. I am not suggesting infants are atheists, I am saying that calling them theists or atheists is equally wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A statement that posits a way the world is is positive. If atheists are something, then atheism is something that defines them. If an "absence of a belief" doesn't posit a way the world is, atheism is a fail. If atheism is nothing, then there are no atheists.

Atheism in the way he is talking is a non-qualifier. Non qualifiers are terrible adjectives. However that is how they choose to apply it. Its how I personally choose to apply my atheism. Specifically it is the temporary (but indefinite) rejection of a notion.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods. Strong atheism is believing gods don't exist. Christians believe Thor and Zeus and every other god except their own don't exist. They are strong atheists who for some reason have made an exception for one god. Christians disbelieve in the existence of the same gods strong atheists disbelieve in the existence of with just one exception.

 

[ArtieE]

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

OK, if you are a Christian but don't believe in the Christian God could you clarify your position for us? Which god do you believe in? If you don't believe in any gods you are a weak or a strong atheist. Which is it?

 

[ArtieE]

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.

Every Child is Born Muslim Are you saying infants believe in Allah?

 

[Khubla]

There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition
that hardens hearts and enslaves minds

 

[atanu]

What is the meaning of "atheist," then? Isn't atheism simply a lack of belief in God? If so, wouldn't any one or thing that lacked a belief in God be atheist?
I think people tend to over complicate atheism.

But why would atheism require capacity or ability? It's not a belief, a system or a faith. It's a lack; an emptiness of belief.

Because without the capacity to understand what theism is, atheism is a meaningless concept. If someone, or something, doesn't have the capacity or ability to believe something, then it is not meaningful to describe its non-belief. This distinction helps to avoid lines of reasoning which lead to ridiculous conclusions such as babies or rocks being atheists.

Btw, in an earlier thread this question had cropped up. The stance that Seyorni is now highlighting was advanced again and again, if I remember correctly, to deny the onus of proving absence of a deity. Copernicus was the only one at that time who held that atheism entailed reasoned lack of belief in god.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Why such a dark outlook? What has happened to create that view of things?

For the record, I consider myself polite company. I try to speak to others with civility and respect if at all possible... even when in full-fledged argument mode.