Atheist by birth?

[Storm]

S/He has the potential because s/he is human.

A rock doesn´t.

If I were arguing that fully functional adults can't be atheist, that might be relevant.

 

[Me Myself]

Babies are implicit atheists. This means they have : "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".


Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Acim]

S/He has the potential because s/he is human.

There's that 'potential' word again.

So fetuses can't be atheists.

LOL.

 

[Storm]

Babies are implicit atheists.


Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a good source for your argument, as implicit atheism still includes the rocks you deny, and explicit is so poorly defined as to INclude devout-but-weird God-believers like myself.

 

[Orias]

I've come across the concept of 'Atheism is the default position', but I question that... Sure, when we are born we have no knowledge/comprehension of any god (even a mere concept) but I also feel that to have a firm stance on a belief either way (theism/atheism) it requires analysis, in-depth discussion, and obviously a conclussion at some point... But we aren't born with any knowledge, let alone one as abstract as theology, to really have a default position as Atheism... I don't think you can have profound belief without having even the slightest of knowledge... What do you guys think?

I agree with that babies are not atheists at birth.

Anyone can say that atheism is naturally innate within Man, but its not, what's naturally innate within man is the desire to conceptualize and conceive and invoke labels to describe what we perceive as existence.

Babies lack mentality at birth and nothing more, anyone can describe a baby being a defacto atheist at birth is like me saying that babies are naturally born Satanists.

There's a whole separate and personal belief behind that, which is not really necessary for certain topic, and should not be taken as if it is fact, since fact requires prove, which requires a belief in truth.

We know what we are attempting to describe from perception, and nothing more.

 

[Valjean]

Not possible.

Not having an opinion or a belief in something is impossible?

That makes no sense. Atheism is a negative opinion, positive ones are totally irrelevant.

Perhaps strong atheism could be called a negative opion. Essential atheism is no opinion at all, a lack of opinion.

 

[Storm]

Not having an opinion or a belief in something is impossible?

Not precisely... we can't help but form opinions was my point. Maybe one opinion is the rejection of another, but it's still an opinion.

Perhaps strong atheism could be called a negative opion. Essential atheism is no opinion at all, a lack of opinion.

By that definition, adults can't be atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not so much "taken literally" as "pushed to the breaking point."

This whole debate is about rigorous application of language. Atheist babies are an extreme edge case whatever definition of atheism we use: they either lie just within the definition or just beyond it. If we can't insist on rigourously correct language in the context of the debate, you might as well give up your objection, since from where I sit, it's based on the idea that language must be precisely, rigorously correct in all cases to which it applies.

If your argument is "good enough" if it works for the most part but not around the edges, then you lose your argument to the definition of atheism you're objecting to, since that argument is based on the claim that it doesn't work around the edges, even though it works for the most part.

That makes no sense. Atheism is a negative opinion, positive ones are totally irrelevant.

According to your definition of atheism, which I disagree with and am not prepared to take as given.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By that definition, adults can't be atheists.

It's a lack of a certain class of opinions, not a lack of opinions generally.

 

[Storm]

This whole debate is about rigorous application of language.

OK, my turn to reject your premise. If you must be anal, however, change the "a" in my definition to "any."

At any rate, my objection has nothing to do with "rigorous application of language."

According to your definition of atheism, which I disagree with and am not prepared to take as given.

Provide your own, then.

 

[Storm]

It's a lack of a certain class of opinions, not a lack of opinions generally.

Where did I say otherwise? Once a subject is introduced, any and all functioning human adults will form an opinion on the subject.

 

[Valjean]

Not precisely... we can't help but form opinions was my point. Maybe one opinion is the rejection of another, but it's still an opinion.


By that definition, adults can't be atheists.

Yes, but we can also have no opinions on issues. We can even be unaware of existing issues. Weak atheism is neither an opinion nor a rejection of an opinion. It's opinionlessness.

An adult can't not have an opinion on something, or can't be unaware of it?

 

[Storm]

Yes, but we can also have no opinions on issues. We can even be unaware of existing issues. Weak atheism is neither an opinion nor a rejection of an opinion. It's opinionlessness.

We can be unaware, yes, but without that, we cannot be without opinion.

 

[Valjean]

I have no opinions on all sorts of things I'm aware of.

 

[Acim]

I have no opinions on all sorts of things I'm aware of.

Philosophically debatable.

Always interesting to consider these things we are aware of, but also claim to not have opinions (views or judgments) about them.

 

[idav]

Is nobody arguing that a baby is theist? I take it the answer is no unless mom counts.

 

[ChristineES]

I believe that if we are born with a default position, it would be agnosticism.

 

[Erebus]

Is nobody arguing that a baby is theist? I take it the answer is no unless mom counts.

Well a few people (myself included) have suggested crude animism, but I don't think you can really call that theism or atheism. It's sort of a grey area.

 

[work in progress]

Babies are implicit atheists. This means they have : "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".


Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christ! This is why I hate philosophers! A philosopher will argue points long after scientific evidence is introduced to settle the issue. There is no way you have a case that a baby is even an implicit atheist, when the evidence coming in from developmental psychologists is telling us that children are hardwired with all of the building blocks that are turned into religious dogmas and mythologies later in life. I tried introducing this into the debate 10 pages ago. I'll give it another shot. First we start with teleological thinking:

When we don’t give them answers, children generate their own explanations and from their perspective, everything is the way it is for some purpose. Rocks are pointy to stop animals sitting on them. Trees have leaves to provide shade. This is called teleology – giving a functional reason for things that just happen to be the way they are for non-purposeful reasons. In the natural world there are all manner of things that appear complex and designed for a purpose...................... Adopting the teleological stance that things have been designed purposefully is the intuitive way to think about the world and that’s one reason why children may be so inclined to creationist stories. Most religions (I don’t know if all) have some creationist account about origins usually in the form of God.

Why are Rocks Pointy? 2009 Bruce M Hood

​

A built in predisposition towards telelogical thinking, means that children will start putting together concepts of a creator as they get older, and do not need to be indoctrinated with religion to make it happen. To me, that makes it pointless to be arguing that anyone can be born an atheist.

 

[lunakilo]

Christ! This is why I hate philosophers! A philosopher will argue points long after scientific evidence is introduced to settle the issue. There is no way you have a case that a baby is even an implicit atheist, when the evidence coming in from developmental psychologists is telling us that children are hardwired with all of the building blocks that are turned into religious dogmas and mythologies later in life. I tried introducing this into the debate 10 pages ago. I'll give it another shot. First we start with teleological thinking:

When we don’t give them answers, children generate their own explanations and from their perspective, everything is the way it is for some purpose. Rocks are pointy to stop animals sitting on them. Trees have leaves to provide shade. This is called teleology – giving a functional reason for things that just happen to be the way they are for non-purposeful reasons. In the natural world there are all manner of things that appear complex and designed for a purpose...................... Adopting the teleological stance that things have been designed purposefully is the intuitive way to think about the world and that’s one reason why children may be so inclined to creationist stories. Most religions (I don’t know if all) have some creationist account about origins usually in the form of God.

Why are Rocks Pointy? 2009 Bruce M Hood

​

A built in predisposition towards telelogical thinking, means that children will start putting together concepts of a creator as they get older, and do not need to be indoctrinated with religion to make it happen. To me, that makes it pointless to be arguing that anyone can be born an atheist.

Interesting theory.
I don't think it is right though.

I think children often haven't figured out the relationship between cause and effect.

Why do trees have leaves? To provide shade.
Why are rocks pointy? So the animals don't sit on them
Why should you not jump on the sofa? Because mom gets angry.

There is a connection between leaves and shade, it is just that the shade is the effect of the leaves, not the cause.
The animal free rocks are the effect of the pointy rocks not the cause.
An angry mom is the effect of jumping on the sofa, not tha cause.

I think it is quite a leap to conclude that because children haven't figured out the relationship between cause and effect, they believe in a creator.

Children do not come into the world with preconceived opinion on the existence of any deity(s), and thus one could argue that they are not theists from birth. And I think not being convienced of the existance of any deities is one definition of atheism.