Are people born inherently atheist?

[Sonofason]

Isn't atheism a lack of belief in theism? Babies are by definition Atheist. If religion is instinctual then there would only be one religion or belief system. Religion is learned and therefore babies are born as atheist..

Religion has nothing at all to do with experiencing and believing in God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wrong: Without an experience, you would never be capable of developing a cognitive response.

This means experiences is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. That is, it may be true to say that without experience I would not be capable of developing a cognitive response, but this is not equivalent to saying that with experience I will be capable. It is true that if I don't make any money, I don't have a million dollar a year salary. It is not true that if I make money, I do have a million dollar salary. Likewise, it is not true that if I have experience, then I am capable of possessing concepts. What you state is demonstrably false, as we have as examples feral children and their inability to, regardless of experience, develop a human conceptual system or a human cognitive system.

In the human brain, it is experience which leads to cognitive responses, and not the other way around.

My field is cognitive neuroscience.

Cognition does not result in experience.

Cognition is an experience.

Yes, I am asserting that there is a meaningful relationship between experience and belief.

What you require is any evidence that experience entails the possibility of conceptual beliefs in pre-linguistic infants. As we have thoroughly tested beliefs infants hold, and we are well-aware of when particular types of perceptual beliefs are possible, and that even the ability to speak comes before the ability to distinguish one's own experiences and one's beliefs about one's own experiences from the experiences of other, and finally that perceptual categorization that allows infants to have perceptual beliefs do not allow conceptual beliefs or the abstract cognitive processes necessary to understand that any entity is an entity or exist or even something so basic as how an entity might be distinct from a subjective understanding an infant has (which is not one equivalent even to the consciousness a parrot has), we can conclude that infants do not believe in a concept they cannot possess and cannot believe in any experience of god when such an experiences requires a conceptual network.

Basically, as we can test the ways in which linguistic children are incapable of conceptualizing experience as subjective, we would have to believe that they got significantly dumber in order to posit that an infant lacking even the ability to conceptualize any experience can conceptualize an experience related to a connect "god".

I have children, and I know that within moments of their arrival into my world, they were forming beliefs about me.

No, you don't. That's why we have studies in cognitive development and experimental paradigms rather than just having scientists interview parents.

I believe am amoebas may be theistic

Then you do not understand anything about cognition, learning, concepts, semantic memory, etc., or theism is utterly meaningless to you.

Never have I tried to equate experience with beliefs. What I said was that experience is the foundation for beliefs.

When you posit that beliefs necessarily develop from experience, and that belief is impossible without experience, then you equate belief with experience.

 

[Sonofason]

You cannot believe in a lack of something but in the same breath insist that what atheists should do. Introducing a god concept doesnt suddenly change the lack of god for an atheist.

I am suggesting that atheists ought to abandon the ridiculous position of atheism because it is a belief system founded on a lack of evidence. They should admit, they don't know if there is a God, and reason for themselves that one could exist, and recognize that they lack sufficient knowledge to know if there is a God or not, and thus call themselves agnostic.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

A atheist is just someone who is not a theist. :yes:

I wouldn't necessarily say that, because Deists, Agnostics, and Pandeists are all non-theists as well. I look at it this way...all Atheists are non-theists, but not all non-theists are Atheists. I am a Deist, but do not like being grouped in the theist category, because theists believe in a personal god that intervenes and speaks to them, and I do not.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My Lord doesn't command me to be polite. He commands that I love others, do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to tell the truth always. If that should lead to something that you consider polite, then so be it. If not, so be it.

It seems to me that 'my lord' is sometimes used as an excuse to misbehave.

Sorry. That's how I see it. Nothing is lost by civil behavior. Nothing. It's easy. I may tear your beliefs to shreds, but there is no reason for me to treat you impolitely while doing it.

Think of it like anger. If a mad dog comes at you, do you get mad back at it? I don't. I can put it down while still loving it.

 

[Curious George]

It may be wrong to emphatically claim, as a matter of fact, that infants are theists, but that is not what I've been saying. I've been saying it is possible for infants to be theists. On the other hand, it is impossible for infants to be atheists.

It is possible for an infant to be either because "to be" x is only contingent on our definition of x. However, defining either atheism or theism to include infants rubs up against our definition of those terms in other contexts. Thus, why those who choose to try to label infants into either of these categories are wrong. They are either wrong in their definition now, or wrong in their other usage. they are entitled to their inconsistent worldview. But, they are just arguing because of commitment to a position at this point. We have gone over science, logic, history and more. Yet still too many persist. the arbitrary designation of a non applicable group into one of two existing categories may not have profound ramifications when we are just discussing, categorization of infants, but when this choice is viewed in context with entire worldviews, the ridiculousness becomes apparent.

 

[Sonofason]

I actually agree with you on this. Infants do not have the mental capacity to either agree or disagree with the concept of a deity. Atheism is the concious rejection of a deity, which is something a child cannot do. I would, however, say that a child is born irreligious, but I would not use the word atheist specifically. They have neither accepted a deity nor rejected one either.

I could accept irreligious over atheism, but irreligious is not the right word. We're not talking about religion. We're talking about belief in God. One can believe in God without abiding by any sort of religion whatsoever.

Let's assume that instead of irreligious, you meant to say non-theistic.

If non-theistic is what you meant to say, I would still not be able to completely accept this term for infants, because I don't know if infants are or can believe in a God. I assume they could experience God, and so I assume it is quite possible for infants to develop some basic level of belief in God.

It is my impression, that if they did not experience God, I'd want to call them agnostic, because they would be lacking sufficient knowledge to make a determination or to form a specific belief about whether or not a God exists.

 

[Sonofason]

Atheists do not lack beliefs about god. They possess a concept of god (this follows simply from the ability to use the word), but they deny that anything which exists is something that the concept applies to.

Infants do not "lack belief in god(s)". It is in fact not true to say that an infant doesn't believe in god. To illustrate:
Imagine someone gave you a list of words that looked something like this:

Chances are you couldn't even pronounce the words on such a list, let alone determine if you possess a concept similar to that the words refer to. Imagine that one of the words was "φαρϝεhα" and another was "ϝρίν". If we say you lack belief in the concept "φαρϝεhα", what about your lack of belief about "φαρϝεhα" is different from your lack of belief about "ϝρίν"? Nothing.


When we refer to lack of belief due to utter ignorance, we refer only to a singular ignorance. An infant cannot lack belief in particular concepts that they do not have, as this would imply that there is something about the lack of the concept "god" that makes it different, for the infant, from the lack of the concept "computer". There is no such distinction and there cannot be.

There is only one thing that anybody can ever not believe in or have beliefs about because they lack any concept of it. Another way to say this is that nobody lacks concepts, but rather that all concepts one does not possess are for each person a singular thing: ignorance.

Saying infants don't believe in god because they lack beliefs in general isn't just an issue of absurdity and pointlessness. It's illogical and wrong. To say an infant doesn't believe in god isn't just equivalent to saying they don't believe in computers- it is to say that for the infant a "computer" is exactly the same as "god", and thus when we say an infant lacks belief in "god" we are really saying they lack belief in "computers" or in "books" or in "shelves" and so on. These are all a one thing to an infant, but to us they are different concepts. As the concepts are not singular, but the infant's ignorance is, there is no single concept that an infant lacks belief in.

It is thus not true to say that infant's do not believe in god, because that asserts there is a singular concept "god" that the infant differentiates from some other concept. It is only true to say that the concept god doesn't exist for an infant. What they actually don't believe in is a single thing: that which they are ignorant of. This is true for all of us, and to the extent it is possible to not believe something because one lacks any concept of it, it is it is the only way that anybody can ever not believe in this sense. We are incapable of disbelief in things we have no concept of. Whatever we disbelieve due to utter ignorance is necessarily one thing: what we are ignorant of.

The only problem I have with this answer is that you use definitive language when speaking of the beliefs of a child.

If a child saw a computer, it would develop some basic concept of a computer. It may not be very accurate, but a basic concept would begin to form.

It is not likely that if the baby also experienced God, that it would confuse the computer and the God as if they were one and the same thing. I think infants deserve a little more credit then that. They have brains. They are capable of cognition.

I think when we don't know something, it is best to refrain from using such definitive language. Perhaps if you used a few maybe(s) and might(s) I'd be in complete agreement.

 

[Sonofason]

You talk like there are really such things as atheists and theists. I find it strange.

Don't you know that I can turn you into an atheist at my pleasure?

Sure, and I can turn you into a demon at will.

 

[Sonofason]

This means experiences is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. That is, it may be true to say that without experience I would not be capable of developing a cognitive response, but this is not equivalent to saying that with experience I will be capable. It is true that if I don't make any money, I don't have a million dollar a year salary. It is not true that if I make money, I do have a million dollar salary. Likewise, it is not true that if I have experience, then I am capable of possessing concepts. What you state is demonstrably false, as we have as examples feral children and their inability to, regardless of experience, develop a human conceptual system or a human cognitive system.


My field is cognitive neuroscience.



Cognition is an experience.


What you require is any evidence that experience entails the possibility of conceptual beliefs in pre-linguistic infants. As we have thoroughly tested beliefs infants hold, and we are well-aware of when particular types of perceptual beliefs are possible, and that even the ability to speak comes before the ability to distinguish one's own experiences and one's beliefs about one's own experiences from the experiences of other, and finally that perceptual categorization that allows infants to have perceptual beliefs do not allow conceptual beliefs or the abstract cognitive processes necessary to understand that any entity is an entity or exist or even something so basic as how an entity might be distinct from a subjective understanding an infant has (which is not one equivalent even to the consciousness a parrot has), we can conclude that infants do not believe in a concept they cannot possess and cannot believe in any experience of god when such an experiences requires a conceptual network.

Basically, as we can test the ways in which linguistic children are incapable of conceptualizing experience as subjective, we would have to believe that they got significantly dumber in order to posit that an infant lacking even the ability to conceptualize any experience can conceptualize an experience related to a connect "god".





No, you don't. That's why we have studies in cognitive development and experimental paradigms rather than just having scientists interview parents.



Then you do not understand anything about cognition, learning, concepts, semantic memory, etc., or theism is utterly meaningless to you.



When you posit that beliefs necessarily develop from experience, and that belief is impossible without experience, then you equate belief with experience.

I suppose you are correct in that cognition is an experience, and so therefore, I restate what I said at first. Experience is the foundation of belief.

 

[Sonofason]

It seems to me that 'my lord' is sometimes used as an excuse to misbehave.

Sorry. That's how I see it. Nothing is lost by civil behavior. Nothing. It's easy. I may tear your beliefs to shreds, but there is no reason for me to treat you impolitely while doing it.

Think of it like anger. If a mad dog comes at you, do you get mad back at it? I don't. I can put it down while still loving it.

If I want to misbehave, I will misbehave. I do not use God as an excuse to misbehave. I often just misbehave despite God's best wishes for me.

 

[Sonofason]

It is possible for an infant to be either because "to be" x is only contingent on our definition of x. However, defining either atheism or theism to include infants rubs up against our definition of those terms in other contexts. Thus, why those who choose to try to label infants into either of these categories are wrong. They are either wrong in their definition now, or wrong in their other usage. they are entitled to their inconsistent worldview. But, they are just arguing because of commitment to a position at this point. We have gone over science, logic, history and more. Yet still too many persist. the arbitrary designation of a non applicable group into one of two existing categories may not have profound ramifications when we are just discussing, categorization of infants, but when this choice is viewed in context with entire worldviews, the ridiculousness becomes apparent.

You're wrong, you must have a concept of something before you can reject it.

 

[Khubla]

Atheist is someone who has no knowledge of a god and rejects the premise that there is one.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

If I want to misbehave, I will misbehave. I do not use God as an excuse to misbehave. I often just misbehave despite God's best wishes for me.

But my question to you is why do you consciously "misbehave" knowing that your god does not want you to?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sure, and I can turn you into a demon at will.

Of course you can. Especially since demons don't really exist any more than atheists do.

Turn me into an invisible pink dragon if it suits you.

Just don't try to turn me into an African elephant in front of a crowd of sighted and sane folks. They will all judge you a failure.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If I want to misbehave, I will misbehave. I do not use God as an excuse to misbehave. I often just misbehave despite God's best wishes for me.

Why not avoid misbehavior as much as possible? Don't you feel any empathy for your fellows?

 

[outhouse]

Really, outhouse, you can't be serious with such messages, can you?

I mean, you're aware that everyone creates his own concept to prop up his words? That there is no 'one definition' for any word or idiom in any language? That even if there were such a thing, no one has put you in charge of it?

Words mean what we're trying to mean when we use them. They depend on context, on audience, on the purpose of the speaker, on the speaker's facility at the moment if you ask him to define his word.

Yes?

Which by your take, and what I wrote is just one aspect of the definition.


Like it or not all I did was descibe implicit atheism which is factually part of the definition.

 

[outhouse]

I wouldn't necessarily say that, because Deists, Agnostics, and Pandeists are all non-theists as well. I look at it this way...all Atheists are non-theists, but not all non-theists are Atheists. I am a Deist, but do not like being grouped in the theist category, because theists believe in a personal god that intervenes and speaks to them, and I do not.

Like it or not, on eis either a theist of some degree, or one is not a theist.


You sound more like some degree of theist, then not.


The definition of atheist is very diverse, but we cannot deny implicit atheism

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Which by your take, and what I wrote is just one aspect of the definition.


Like it or not all I did was descibe implicit atheism which is factually part of the definition.

Oh, how I long one day to own as many factuallys as you do.

 

[Khubla]

Atheist is someone who has no knowledge of a god and rejects the premise that there is one.

What is wrong with this definition? What part do you not understand?