How old were you when you stopped being atheist?

[cablescavenger]

Cheers for pointing this out to me I had, as you correctly noted, overlooked it.

Why might he? Because evolution has constructed his mind in such a way to lend itself to belief in god-like entities. He might not ever say the word "God" because he has not been taught to associate that word with any meaning; or because he has been taught that that word only refers to a particular type of God, which has no relation to the one he has an intuitive belief in.

I am not suggesting that infants know what the word "God" means anymore than they understand what the word "breast" means. But utilizing a word is not a prerequisite for having a belief. We know that babies automatically seem to understand that they are supposed to suckle at the mound of soft fatty tissue its mother offers to it. They have an innate understanding, or belief, that breasts provide milk and they should suckle, even though they don't know what a breast is or what milk is or why they should want it.

Humans children often display an intuitive dualistic worldview, they believe that objects have purpose, and that non-human entities exhibit agency and contain an animating component, like they experience themselves to have.

At best, it seems premature to categorically claim that all babies are atheists. We simply do not know, and as mentioned above, studies with toddlers seem to indicate the opposite trend.


Personally, I find it just as bad as claiming a baby is a Christian, simply because she has been baptized. And I don't think babies should be used to prove a point.

I also think there is something wrong with the currently popular definition of atheism if it can be utilized to label babies (as well as the proverbial rocks.)

In short. My view is (and I can't pinpoint a study, but am sure I could find one if you wanted me to) that young children do have a propensity to believe what they are told and not be critical in their thinking.

This is different to what you are suggesting which is some innate belief in a God.

Regarding your last point about labels, I have already responded in post #44 when I said:

I don't believe people do slap the label of atheist on babies. Atheism is just the default position for non believers, so one could, but in general at least as far as I am aware, they don't.

I have admittedly, to raise awareness.

I wanted people to be aware that atheists were icky wicky sweet, good looking, big eyed bundles of fun :yes:

I have never heard anyone say atheist baby, or atheist child to describe a child, but I have heard all manner of faiths applied to children.

 

[cablescavenger]

What is your point supposed to be?

"people are gods" is a existing way of thought. If you think people are gods you are not an atheist.

So yeah, you could say that in that way a baby is not an atheist.

You are contradicting yourself.

You said Mum was God to baby.
I said People aren't Gods
You say People are Gods, then accuse me of thinking people are Gods and saying I can't be atheist if I believe they are.

Anwyay in response to your latter remark:

When you say

"people are gods" is a existing way of thought.

I guess what you really should be saying is:

"Some people believe people are Gods...." since the view you are expressing is not generally accepted, not proven and would pretty much negate the need for religion if it were true. Hmmmm... Not such a bad idea after all. I take it all back

 

[Kathryn]

How someone can have children and not know babies know squat is beyond me:biglaugh:

How many kids do you have?

 

[cablescavenger]

How many kids do you have?

Enough.

I have to apologise for my impudent behaviour before, I mistakenly thought children knew nothing of the origins of the Universe, so I spoke to my children, and lo and behold you were right.

Apparently there is no God, the Big Bang just happened and the Universe is about 13 billion years old.

It is amazing what you can learn from your kids. Who knew?

 

[Falvlun]

In short. My view is (and I can't pinpoint a study, but am sure I could find one if you wanted me to) that young children do have a propensity to believe what they are told and not be critical in their thinking.

This is different to what you are suggesting which is some innate belief in a God.

I also agree that children are strongly predisposed to believe what authority figures tell them. You can see the evolutionary advantage of this, and the unfortunate side effect that false information is passed down just as faithfully as true information. But this view is not incompatible with my argument.

I am suggesting that it is not a very large leap from some of the innate tendencies that we know very young children to possess to the additional possession of a basic god-concept. We don't know whether they do or not, but it is possible.

We simply do not know, and why make absolute claims about something which is unknown? As mentioned in the previous post, at best, it is premature to claim that all babies are atheists (or theists for that matter).

Regarding your last point about labels, I have already responded in post #44 when I said:


I have never heard anyone say atheist baby, or atheist child to describe a child, but I have heard all manner of faiths applied to children.

I am not talking about some nebulous "other people" labeling babies as atheists. I am talking about you labeling babies as atheists. (And, as a matter of fact, it is done with relative frequency on this forum, at least.) In my opinion, it is not appropriate and just as bad as labeling them as an adherent to some other religious belief.

 

[Kathryn]

Enough.

I have to apologise for my impudent behaviour before, I mistakenly thought children knew nothing of the origins of the Universe, so I spoke to my children, and lo and behold you were right.

Apparently there is no God, the Big Bang just happened and the Universe is about 13 billion years old.

It is amazing what you can learn from your kids. Who knew?

You're ever so clever.

You do not know what infants know and don't know about the origins of life. No amount of sarcasm on your part can alter that fact.

 

[Falvlun]

:
I guess what you really should be saying is:

"Some people believe people are Gods...." since the view you are expressing is not generally accepted, not proven and would pretty much negate the need for religion if it were true. Hmmmm... Not such a bad idea after all. I take it all back

That's precisely what he is saying, and I don't know why you find it so strange. It's actually a common belief in religions (as mentioned in a previous post: Egyptian pharaohs and Jesus), and it hasn't destroyed theism yet.

 

[Draka]

You're ever so clever.

You do not know what infants know and don't know about the origins of life. No amount of sarcasm on your part can alter that fact.

This is what gets me. Babies and small children might be ignorant to particular concepts of thought, but that doesn't mean they don't feel or have an awareness of certain things. They just don't have the same ability as we do to communicate what those things are. It's often been said that the younger a person the more open they are to experiencing certain things that adults have shut out or been taught to disbelieve.

I have always believed in spirits/ghosts as I can recall experiencing them since childhood. No one told me ghosts were real, I just knew they were. I didn't ever bring them up with my eldest daughter either, didn't feel a reason to tell or spook a child with tales of ghosts. However, it appears my daughter was aware of them probably even more than I ever was. When she was about 3/4 y/o we were living with a boyfriend of mine. He had taken over the house he grew up in from his parents when they moved. The room we used for Dani was his brother's old room...the room he had committed suicide in as well. We never told her about Jeremy, not ever. My BF didn't like to talk about him. So you can imagine our surprise when after a few times of catching her supposedly talking to herself or an imaginary friend, we asked her who she was talking to. Her response? The big boy in her room. What big boy? Jeremy. Yes, she outright said his name. A name we never talked about. A boy never mentioned. she even described a bit of what he looked like and you can only imagine the look on my BF's face. Though, after a moment he kind of smiled and said that Jeremy always did like kids.

Children are far more receptive and more aware of things than we give them credit for. There's probably a lot we could learn from our children if we don't dismiss everything they say as just the imagination of a child. Granted, quite a bit may be imagination, but then again...some things may just be plausible if we open our minds.

 

[cablescavenger]

I also agree that children are strongly predisposed to believe what authority figures tell them. You can see the evolutionary advantage of this, and the unfortunate side effect that false information is passed down just as faithfully as true information. But this view is not incompatible with my argument.

I am suggesting that it is not a very large leap from some of the innate tendencies that we know very young children to possess to the additional possession of a basic god-concept. We don't know whether they do or not, but it is possible.

We simply do not know, and why make absolute claims about something which is unknown? As mentioned in the previous post, at best, it is premature to claim that all babies are atheists (or theists for that matter).

I know what you mean by the claims of children being tuned in to these things, but I had dismissed them at a young age.

And I will tell you why.... I am a twin

People were enquiring from a very young age about our special powers, and how in tune we were with each other. We spent many hours testing some of the claims because we innately believed what people were telling us was true, and we just weren't any good at it.
Eventually we both came to the conclusion it was rubbish. We would even watch as simple coincidences got picked on and portrayed as evidence of us being supernatural

So perhaps you will understand why I can't entertain the thought that babies and young children are in tune with spirits or a God or some other thing, but through my own experiences I have only ever found it to be projected superstition.

I am not talking about some nebulous "other people" labeling babies as atheists. I am talking about you labeling babies as atheists. (And, as a matter of fact, it is done with relative frequency on this forum, at least.) In my opinion, it is not appropriate and just as bad as labeling them as an adherent to some other religious belief.

I will take your word for that since I have not seen it but have no reason to disbelieve you.

I know I labelled babies as atheist, but I did so to provoke thought, not anger, which seems to have been one of the more enchanting by-product of the OP.

 

[ChristineES]

When my children were newborns, they amazed me with what they knew already. They knew how to communicate-by crying. They knew how to suckle and how to turn their heads toward the nipple. How to yawn. And so many other things. It was then that I knew that we all were born with innate ideas.

 

[cablescavenger]

You're ever so clever.

You do not know what infants know and don't know about the origins of life. No amount of sarcasm on your part can alter that fact.

Do you really not see a problem with this?

We don't know what infants know about the origins of life.

Remarkably, I was a child once, and if I thought for a second I knew the origins of life, I would let you know, but I am presuming since we don't know about the origins of life yet that all these miracle babies would have conveniently forgotten all of this mystical information before reaching an age where it could be articulated.

Thinking that babies know squat and they learn as they grow, socialise and go through the education system (and life in general) is hardly someone trying to be clever. It is an easy statement to make since it is based on observation, knowledge and experience.

What you are proposing as an alternative, is superstition.

 

[Kathryn]

Do you really not see a problem with this?


Remarkably, I was a child once, and if I thought for a second I knew the origins of life, I would let you know, but I am presuming since we don't know about the origins of life yet that all these miracle babies would have conveniently forgotten all of this mystical information before reaching an age where it could be articulated.

Thinking that babies know squat and they learn as they grow, socialise and go through the education system (and life in general) is hardly someone trying to be clever. It is an easy statement to make since it is based on observation, knowledge and experience.

What you are proposing as an alternative, is superstition.

Conjecture on your part.

con·jec·ture/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun:
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb:
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

 

[Falvlun]

I know what you mean by the claims of children being tuned in to these things, but I had dismissed them at a young age.

And I will tell you why.... I am a twin

People were enquiring from a very young age about our special powers, and how in tune we were with each other. We spent many hours testing some of the claims because we innately believed what people were telling us was true, and we just weren't any good at it.
Eventually we both came to the conclusion it was rubbish. We would even watch as simple coincidences got picked on and portrayed as evidence of us being supernatural

So perhaps you will understand why I can't entertain the thought that babies and young children are in tune with spirits or a God or some other thing, but through my own experiences I have only ever found it to be projected superstition.

Interesting observation.

Although, I suppose you wouldn't remember innately believing that breasts provide milk either.

I'm inclined to believe that people can be more or less predisposed towards belief in god; so while you and your twin were skeptical and prone towards a scientific method of explanation, another child may not be. It's more of a continuum, rather than two black and white poles.

My overarching point, though, is that we don't know for sure what's going on in the heads of all infants, so why make an absolute blanket statement as if we did?

I will take your word for that since I have not seen it but have no reason to disbelieve you.

I know I labelled babies as atheist, but I did so to provoke thought, not anger, which seems to have been one of the more enchanting by-product of the OP.

Aw, I'm not angry. It's just a pet peeve of mine. (And I find it all thought-provoking as well, otherwise I wouldn't have responded.)

 

[Me Myself]

You are contradicting yourself.

You said Mum was God to baby.
I said People aren't Gods
You say People are Gods, then accuse me of thinking people are Gods and saying I can't be atheist if I believe they are.

I never accused you of thnking people are Gods (if I did maybe it was a typo?). I merely said it is an existing belief (tha doesn´t mean everyone has it, just that it exists and people have it, it is an existing form of theism, etc)

Now, a baby takes mommy for God in natural practical senses. mommy is a being who gives him everything and has all the power. She created him, he comes from her. There is no idea of what is death, so she is also immortal.

So. mommy is, in practical senses, God.

"Some people believe people are Gods...." since the view you are expressing is not generally accepted, not proven and would pretty much negate the need for religion if it were true. Hmmmm... Not such a bad idea after all. I take it all back

Pretty sucky to ignore your ignorance of something :cover:

In hinduism, many schools go by "everyone is God". Furthermore, in Christianity Jesus is both fully people and fully God. So mommy can be fully mommy/person and fully God too. No prob with that.

 

[work in progress]

you were born a muslim not an atheist. thats what islam teaches anyway. feel free to disagree.

I disagree. And for the record, I have learned enough about Islam over recent years to separate a lot of the hysteria and misinformation from the reality; but the claim that we, and all other animals, are all born muslim...with a belief in one creator, comes across to me as the most dangerous aspect of your religion....because if you believe this, you can't respect the right to disbelieve by polytheists or atheist and agnostics. Speaking of polytheism, anthropological evidence, along with evidence from behavioral psychology (specifically in dual process theory) would indicate that polytheistic beliefs predate any monotheisms. The first religious beliefs would be that everything in the natural world has an animating spirit...or is a god.

 

[cablescavenger]

Interesting observation.

Although, I suppose you wouldn't remember innately believing that breasts provide milk either.

I'm inclined to believe that people can be more or less predisposed towards belief in god; so while you and your twin were skeptical and prone towards a scientific method of explanation, another child may not be. It's more of a continuum, rather than two black and white poles.

My overarching point, though, is that we don't know for sure what's going on in the heads of all infants, so why make an absolute blanket statement as if we did?

We might have different views, but I think we can respect that. At least you see where I come from being a twin and all.

Aw, I'm not angry. It's just a pet peeve of mine. (And I find it all thought-provoking as well, otherwise I wouldn't have responded.)

I didn't mean you, sorry if it came across that way. I was referring to some flack I am picking up elsewhere in the thread

 

[cablescavenger]

I never accused you of thnking people are Gods (if I did maybe it was a typo?).

Cheers for explaining the typo. That makes more sense.

I merely said it is an existing belief (tha doesn´t mean everyone has it, just that it exists and people have it, it is an existing form of theism, etc)

Now, a baby takes mommy for God in natural practical senses. mommy is a being who gives him everything and has all the power. She created him, he comes from her. There is no idea of what is death, so she is also immortal.

So. mommy is, in practical senses, God.

Pretty sucky to ignore your ignorance of something :cover:

In hinduism, many schools go by "everyone is God". Furthermore, in Christianity Jesus is both fully people and fully God. So mommy can be fully mommy/person and fully God too. No prob with that.

You are using one set of superstitions to try and justify another. There are plenty of existing beliefs which just aren't true. I don't see why you think that putting them forward is a determining factor in whether it should be accepted by me as a belief since I am not religious.

That said I do feel you are misrepresenting the faiths. How many of these faiths accept mothers as Gods on the basis they look after babies? and does that apply to other animals too?

 

[Kathryn]

Cheers for explaining the typo. That makes more sense.



You are using one set of superstitions to try and justify another. There are plenty of existing beliefs which just aren't true. I don't see why you think that putting them forward is a determining factor in whether it should be accepted by me as a belief since I am not religious.

That said I do feel you are misrepresenting the faiths. How many of these faiths accept mothers as Gods on the basis they look after babies? and does that apply to other animals too?

Remind me - which faiths accept mothers as Gods on the basis they look after babies?

 

[cablescavenger]

Conjecture on your part.

con·jec·ture/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun:
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb:
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

Nice

I have formed an opinion based on experiences and observations, no conjecture at all. I have been a baby, and had children and watched them develop.

I didn't feel the need to put a God into the belief system of babies, since there has been no evidence of it, that would have been conjecture.

Now, perhaps you can tell me how many babies you know worshipped God?

 

[Kathryn]

Nice

I have formed an opinion based on experiences and observations, no conjecture at all. I have been a baby, and had children and watched them develop.

I didn't feel the need to put a God into the belief system of babies, since there has been no evidence of it, that would have been conjecture.

Now, perhaps you can tell me how many babies you know worshipped God?

Wow, you have memories from before birth? That's AMAZING - please share!

And your kids have told you about their memories from before birth, and right afterwards too - this is absolutely awesome. I want to hear all about it!

Or are you saying that if we don't remember something, it didn't happen or we never knew it? Hmmm, ever spent any time with someone with short term memory loss?

As for your last question - it's ridiculous. You don't know what is going on in the mind of infants, or the unborn. You could not possibly know. You can only guess. That's called conjecture.

By the way, I never said that my own beliefs about this topic aren't conjecture. In fact, that's the only thing we seem to agree on.

I'm not arrogant or short sighted enough to claim otherwise. As, apparently, others are.