Are people born inherently atheist?

[Willamena]

Are people born inherently atheist?

People are not born with a stance on the question of "God," no.

If we never had all these religions would people "find god?"

That's a good question. I know it happens in some cases by accident, but I don't suspect that's for everyone and millennia of discussions about philosophy and religion cannot help but play a role. I suspect that people would "find god" without religion but have no reason to blanket what they found in those specific terms and concepts.

I know everybody would be curious about why things happen but if people were raised with the final conclusion of an inquiry as "we just don't know yet" rather than than saying "god, would the world be a better place?

Probably yes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, they generate propensity to certain kinds of behaviour to a limited degree. But they can't make you atheist, christian, catholic, jedi, spaghetti monster..ist? and so on. That all has to be learned.

I was born not believing in gods, & never wavered.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually, no, rocks cannot be atheists.

The definition says a PERSON that does not believe in gods.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, no, rocks cannot be atheists.

It's the wrong kind of rock (Xian), but it reminded me of this quote....

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Why is it ridiculous to conclude that babies are atheists?

 

[Mycroft]

I see atheism as the rejection of the idea of god(s). Babies cannot have a concept of god to reject and so therefore cannot be atheist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is it ridiculous to conclude that babies are atheists?

Because it's meaningless to label the non-belief of something which isn't capable of holding any beliefs, such as babies and rocks.

 

[outhouse]

But they can't make you atheist,.

Atheist are not made.

Not having a belief in a deity is atheist, and it is our default position we are all born into.

Theism is a learned trait, atheist is not.

 

[outhouse]

Because it's meaningless to label the non-belief of something which isn't capable of holding any beliefs, such as babies and rocks.

Its not about non-belief.

Theism is a learned trait, babies have not learned this trait. When one doesnt have theism, one is atheist.

 

[outhouse]

I see atheism as the rejection of the idea of god(s). Babies cannot have a concept of god to reject and so therefore cannot be atheist.

It is merely lack of theism.

Not a rejection of the god concept.

 

[Willamena]

Atheist are not made.

Not having a belief in a deity is atheist...

You're contradicting yourself. Either the atheist is not made, or it is made by not having a belief in deity.

 

[Me Myself]

Theism doesnt seem to be a learned trait at all.

Animism is inherent and the initial connection to all without any percieved separation or death to come seems to be pantheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When one doesnt have theism, one is atheist.

Yeah, I don't find describing rocks as "atheists" particularly meaningful. Nor, basketballs as "mute" or brooms as "blind." No difference with infants and atheism. They have no capacity to hold any meaningful beliefs, so describing them by an absence a belief is a pointless label.

 

[outhouse]

You're contradicting yourself. Either the atheist is not made, or it is made by not having a belief in deity.

Your either a thesit or your not. Babies are not theist. That makes them atheist.


No need to make it so complicated.

 

[Me Myself]

Yeah, I don't find describing rocks as "atheists" particularly meaningful. Nor, basketballs as "mute" or brooms as "blind." No difference with infants and atheism. They have no capacity to hold any meaningful beliefs, so describing them by an absence a belief is a pointless label.

Again, you need to be a person to be an atheist.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, I don't find describing rocks as "atheists" particularly meaningful. Nor, basketballs as "mute" or brooms as "blind." No difference with infants and atheism. They have no capacity to hold any meaningful beliefs, so describing them by an absence a belief is a pointless label.

That has merit.

I dont label babies or inanimate objects, but when asked, I know they dont have theism.

 

[Willamena]

Your either a thesit or your not. Babies are not theist. That makes them atheist.


No need to make it so complicated.

There is such a thing as making it a bit too simple.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Again, you need to be a person to be an atheist.

You need to have a brain to venture intellectually outside of specific, narrow dictionary definitions which suit your purposes.

 

[Magic Man]

Because it's meaningless to label the non-belief of something which isn't capable of holding any beliefs, such as babies and rocks.

I disagree, although I don't think it's that important. I think the main point we can probably all agree on is that babies don't hold a belief in god, and while some might be more apt than others to believe later, it's still something that has to be taught.