Atheists questioning their Atheism?

[Tristesse]

That's no indicator that Atheism is the default position. Children certainly would believe in something like that, and they also believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny. This is an indicator that humans have an inherent idea of a higher power.

so, is believing in Shnorklekus the default then? If you say no, then you're agreeing that atheism is the default. If you say yes, then please explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, but it's not a ringing endorsement for the default position.

I don't think it's supposed to be.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

so, is believing in Shnorklekus the default then? If you say no, then you're agreeing that atheism is the default. If you say yes, then please explain how you came to that conclusion.

I am saying that children have an idea in their brains from early childhood that faeries, imaginary friends, etc. exist. This is an indicator that children have a tendency toward Theism. I am not saying they are correct about Shnorklekus, but that it might be their limited perception of a god-being. I am arguing the opposite, that in most cases, maybe a few exceptions, Theism is the default position.

 

[doppelganger]

True, but it's not a ringing endorsement for the default position.

How about "anaziism"? Does that ring louder?

 

[doppelganger]

I am saying that children have an idea in their brains from early childhood that faeries, imaginary friends, etc. exist. This is an indicator that children have a tendency toward Theism.

No. It's an indicator that the neurological development necessary to distinguish imagination from sensory perception and memory does not develop as fast as the imagination itself, for a rather obvious reason.

 

[Tristesse]

I am saying that children have an idea in their brains from early childhood that faeries, imaginary friends, etc. exist. This is an indicator that children have a tendency toward Theism. I am not saying they are correct about Shnorklekus, but that it might be their limited perception of a god-being.

Thats not the point though. Is believing in imaginary friends the default? Are you justified in believing in imaginary friends just because a 4 year old has one? There are many kids who have never had any imaginary friends or who don't believe in fairies etc... The default for any claim, is disbelief until evidence proves otherwise. Because if it were the opposite way, we'd be believing in everything. Evidence for a god needs to be presented before belief is justified. And that goes for any claim, particularly outlandish claims, like big-foot or a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am saying that children have an idea in their brains from early childhood that faeries, imaginary friends, etc. exist. This is an indicator that children have a tendency toward Theism. I am not saying they are correct about Shnorklekus, but that it might be their limited perception of a god-being. I am arguing the opposite, that in most cases, maybe a few exceptions, Theism is the default position.

There's a difference between a philosophical default position and what we're born with.

Anyhow, from what I gather, we're actually born with a sort of rudimentary animism, not theism. Little kids are generally very quick to attribute agency to everything: trees, rocks, toys, whatever. They may very well believe that the clouds and the weather are thinking, intentional beings with personalities, but this is no more true for those things than it is for their pacifier. Does this mean that they think their num-num is a god? Probably not, so I don't see how similar feelings about other things would make those things "gods".

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Thats not the point though. Is believing in imaginary friends the default? Are you justified in believing in imaginary friends just because a 4 year old has one? There are many kids who have never had any imaginary friends or who don't believe in fairies etc... The default for any claim, is disbelief until evidence proves otherwise. Because if it were the opposite way, we'd be believing in everything. Evidence for a god needs to be presented before belief is justified. And that goes for any claim, particularly outlandish claims, like big-foot or a god.

No I am trying to show you that belief in imaginary friends is part of a child-like god belief. In the child's mind the imaginary friend is like a god. You don't get it?

 

[Tristesse]

No I am trying to show you that belief in imaginary friends is part of a child-like god belief. In the child's mind the imaginary friend is like a god. You don't get it?

I get it. God is the equivenlent of an imaginary friend, I agree. But god or the imaginary friend in this case, is not the default.

 

[lunamoth]

There's a difference between a philosophical default position and what we're born with.

I agree.

 

[Magic Man]

I am saying that children have an idea in their brains from early childhood that faeries, imaginary friends, etc. exist. This is an indicator that children have a tendency toward Theism. I am not saying they are correct about Shnorklekus, but that it might be their limited perception of a god-being. I am arguing the opposite, that in most cases, maybe a few exceptions, Theism is the default position.

Yes, they like to imagine faeries and Santa and all sorts of stuff. That's not theism, though. Children are not born with a belief in God. They are born without it, and learn it later in life. That means the default position is atheism. If a child was born in New York right now, and grew up never hearing about any gods, I'd be willing to bet that child would never believe in a god.

 

[doppelganger]

There's a difference between a philosophical default position and what we're born with.

Anyhow, from what I gather, we're actually born with a sort of rudimentary animism, not theism. Little kids are generally very quick to attribute agency to everything: trees, rocks, toys, whatever. They may very well believe that the clouds and the weather are thinking, intentional beings with personalities, but this is no more true for those things than it is for their pacifier. Does this mean that they think their num-num is a god? Probably not, so I don't see how similar feelings about other things would make those things "gods".

Lots of fascinating research (learned through studying autistic children, btw) into an area of the brain called the "mirror neurons" that are associated with imputing agency or intentionality behind patterns of movement or "Theory of Mind" tasks.

 

[Penumbra]

Does this ever happen? I notice Atheists like to push Theists to question Theism, or even sometimes accuse Theists of not questioning enough because we didn't arrive at Atheism. Now I ask this. Do Atheists ever question their Atheism?

I questioned atheism a lot when I was becoming an atheist. At the time, I didn't want to become one, and so I tried repeatedly to justify deities and so forth.

At this point, atheism covers so little that there is little to question. I'm open to the possibility if anyone wants to try to prove or show me that any gods exist, but that never happens.

There's not much to question of the following statement. "I've never been shown reasonable evidence of any gods, and therefore, have no reason to believe they exist."

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes, they like to imagine faeries and Santa and all sorts of stuff. That's not theism, though. Children are not born with a belief in God. They are born without it, and learn it later in life. That means the default position is atheism. If a child was born in New York right now, and grew up never hearing about any gods, I'd be willing to bet that child would never believe in a god.

I beg to differ. The animistic notions a child is born with, belief in faeries, etc. would lead it to a Pagan idea of religion in adulthood. You see, everything I've observed about humans leads me to believe we're inclined toward heathenism.

 

[Luminous]

You've been reading too much Hume.

No, it was Descartes.
wayyyy to much.

 

[Luminous]

That's no indicator that Atheism is the default position. Children certainly would believe in something like that, and they also believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny. This is an indicator that humans have an inherent idea of a higher power.

inherently transfered from person to person...like a virus seeking to take away your agnostic purity.

 

[Luminous]

There's a difference between a philosophical default position and what we're born with.

Anyhow, from what I gather, we're actually born with a sort of rudimentary animism, not theism. Little kids are generally very quick to attribute agency to everything: trees, rocks, toys, whatever. They may very well believe that the clouds and the weather are thinking, intentional beings with personalities, but this is no more true for those things than it is for their pacifier. Does this mean that they think their num-num is a god? Probably not, so I don't see how similar feelings about other things would make those things "gods".

from what I can remember of being a child, I was always agnostic...deep down in my heart God had given me that insight.

 

[Luminous]

No I am trying to show you that belief in imaginary friends is part of a child-like god belief. In the child's mind the imaginary friend is like a god. You don't get it?

I don't think babies are born with imaginary friends or any sort of anti-agnostic tendencies. kids just develope imaginary friends as they are exposed to anti-agnostic ideas and their mental capabilities.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I beg to differ. The animistic notions a child is born with, belief in faeries, etc. would lead it to a Pagan idea of religion in adulthood. You see, everything I've observed about humans leads me to believe we're inclined toward heathenism.

Okay, i'm slightly exhautesd so I'll explain this as best I can.

Children are not born with a belief in faeries though. They learn that later in life. Children are also not born with imaginary friends, those develop as the child develops mentally, but it's not an indicator that people are born with a tendency towards theism or even heathenism. Children do have a tendency to accpet claims but you still have to provide "evidence" to them or "reason." I put evidence and reason in quotes because they can be the most outrageous nonsense of all but if the child accepts it they'll believe it. Like if a kid asks why the sky is blue and you tell them it's because invisible fairys paint it every morning that color, they'd probably accpet it as reasonable. But if they don't believe it they'll ask for more evidence.

 

[Magic Man]

I beg to differ. The animistic notions a child is born with, belief in faeries, etc. would lead it to a Pagan idea of religion in adulthood. You see, everything I've observed about humans leads me to believe we're inclined toward heathenism.

A child isn't born with belief in faeries or any of that. That is learned. The animism of a child comes in when the child tries to explain things in the world. With only the knowledge of a child, assigning agency to inanimate things makes sense. That doesn't equate to belief in god or faeries or anything else.

My point is if a child grows up in modern day civilization without ever hearing about God, that child will not believe in God.