"Humans are born as atheists"

[atanu]

....the fact is that atheism requires making a judgement call. ...

Right ho. Who, other than battery driven robots, can deny this?

 

[lovesong]

Considering the story about the chimps that have some strange rituals that some have interpreted as sacred...

Where is this story? I would love to read it. The idea of chimps, or any non-human animal, developing ritual is amazing! Something like that could add a whole new dimension to the way we think of religion.

 

[lovesong]

Of course babies are atheists. You have to teach someone to believe in a God. You think if you left a baby in a vacuum they would somehow know about Yahweh and Jesus, or Allah or Buddha? Of course not.

But the first religions developed without indoctrination. It's human nature to seek explanations for the world around us and when we have no way to explain something we turn to religion. It's true that if indoctrination stopped eventually all the current religions would die out, but I'm sure eventually some would be picked back up the way ancient faiths are today. Even if all traces of religion were wiped from the earth tomorrow, eventually new ones would form. Yes we are all -born- atheists, but even in the absence of religious instruction we would find our own way to it in one form or another.

 

[Kirran]

Of course babies are atheists. You have to teach someone to believe in a God. You think if you left a baby in a vacuum they would somehow know about Yahweh and Jesus, or Allah or Buddha? Of course not.

Each and every one of you religious people has been indoctrinated into the religion of your parents. Without the early teaching of your religion, you wouldn't be in your religion and you wouldn't miss it.

To the few of you that have converted, you still wouldn't have been whatever your original religion was without early indoctrination.

If we didn't teach babies about Jesus, one generation later there would be zero Christians.

I'd just like to add myself as in a further category - was raised in an irreligious environment, and spent most of my life an atheist (unsurprising - as you say, we follow the beliefs of our parents). Then became religious

 

[DawudTalut]

"Humans are born as atheists"

No, I'm sorry, but they aren't. I have no idea where this idea could have come from other then poor reasoning or ignorance of psychology. The entire concept of there being or not being a god is abstract, and requires abstract reasoning. An object that cannot think about such questions, such as plants, would never be considered atheists with intellectual honesty. Yet babies are the same way, entirely mechanistic and bound to conditioning et al, unable to even understand that their parents can be wrong about things. They can only even understand the concept of right and wrong, on their own, once abstract reasoning begins to develop .................................

Peace be on you.
According to Holy Quran,

[ch7:v173] And when thy Lord brings forth from Adam’s children — out of their loins — their offspring and makes them witnesses against their own selves by saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They say, ‘Yea, we do bear witness.’ This He does lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘We were surely unaware of this.’

Holy Prophet (pbuh) said that Allah said I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray.

So there is internal GPS in each child about God, as child grow his thoughts and ideas may come under influence of place and people he lives in.....That is why having company of good people has its effects.

Corollary: All children are born sinless.

 

[MARCELLO]

Babies are out of any kind of religious concept,you may train to make them religious but still they will be out of it.
Without any sound faculty no one can be labeled under any kind of philosophy ,religious or irreligious.

Have you ever heart of capitalist babies?

 

[Valjean]

I think the Koch brothers were born capitalist...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What theists believe exists.

As you get difficult, this definition gets more and more problematic. Theists reject specific beliefs of other theists all the time, but this doesn't make them atheists, right? You do believe that, for instance, a Muslim is still not an atheist even if he rejects the existence of Odin and Thor (... and in fact every god but one), don't you?

Theists believe in lots of things besides gods, so what you've given is less than useful without more details. What sorts of things believed in by theists do you think need to be rejected to make a person an atheist? I mean, if theists all happened to believe that it's cold outside, a person wouldn't become an atheist for thinking "no, it's warm", right?

Also, how does someone reject "what theists believe exists" in the case of a theist who can't express his beliefs properly (or at all)? We can't reject what we haven't even heard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The atheists are saying that, in it's basic, definitive form, atheism is simply a lack of belief, or, an ignorance of the concept of God. The Theists are insisting that atheists are denying or rebelling against the idea of God. Thus the two sides are operating from different definitions and are talking past each other.

I think you might be falling into the monotheist-normative thinking that I mentioned in my reply to sojourner. I don't just lack belief in "the concept of God" (capital G); I recognize that there are many concepts that the label "God" is applied to, and I lack belief in any god or gods (small G), including those labelled "God".

 

[Revoltingest]

I see, and that wish to be ignorant came from where ?.

To be comfortable with one's ignorance helps prevent the urge to prematurely
leap to answers about the ultimate question of life, the universe, & everything.

 

[bobhikes]

Another thought then theism is a choice which is what god wants.

Sure we can. It's done all the time. One doesn't need absolute proof or even a smattering of evidence of every possible form of god. Just as I don't need need absolute proof or even a smattering of evidence of every conceivable type of flying unicorn in order to deny their existence. And although you may feel that all that's necessary to be an atheist is to lack a belief in god, I side with the dictionaries, which look at atheism as a chosen position of either outright denial, or disbelief.


.
- 2 1 explicitly include "lack of belief". Points for the reasonable side. I'll grant you the 1 out of 6. The 1 that also mentions "disbelieves."
- 4 include "disbelief". Look that up - the dictionaries I'm familiar with include lack of belief in their definition of disbelief. More points for the reasonable side. Irrelevant. See above
- 2 assume monotheism ("supreme being" or "God") and can be safely rejected by anyone who realizes that polytheists aren't atheists. Irrelevant.

Overall, every definition you gave either supports the side you're arguing against or can be discarded. FALSE


.

Person -
a human being regarded as an individual:
"the porter was the last person to see her" ·
human being · individual · man/woman · child · human ·
[more]

Notice it doesn't mention Baby. When is a baby and individual?

 

[1AOA1]

Of course babies are atheists. You have to teach someone to believe in a God. You think if you left a baby in a vacuum they would somehow know about Yahweh and Jesus, or Allah or Buddha? Of course not.

Each and every one of you religious people has been indoctrinated into the religion of your parents. Without the early teaching of your religion, you wouldn't be in your religion and you wouldn't miss it.

To the few of you that have converted, you still wouldn't have been whatever your original religion was without early indoctrination.

If we didn't teach babies about Jesus, one generation later there would be zero Christians.

The default is atheism. You need to develop a specific idea of God, what that being is like, etc. to be considered a theist. babies have no such ideas until they are taught.

There's a difference between saying a baby is born a crack addict, and saying crack addiction is the default.

 

[Valjean]

There's a difference between saying a baby is born a crack addict, and saying crack addiction is the default.

I Don't follow.

 

[Mindmaster]

But the first religions developed without indoctrination. It's human nature to seek explanations for the world around us and when we have no way to explain something we turn to religion. It's true that if indoctrination stopped eventually all the current religions would die out, but I'm sure eventually some would be picked back up the way ancient faiths are today. Even if all traces of religion were wiped from the earth tomorrow, eventually new ones would form. Yes we are all -born- atheists, but even in the absence of religious instruction we would find our own way to it in one form or another.

I think is a huge stretch to be born atheists as well, it's more accurate to say that we are born with limitless potential to be anything we like and that changes as we age.

Science can be as dogmatic as any religion, and if you go back into history the ancients had mostly dogma-less spirituality that allowed for tech. Dogma is basically a crutch used to prop up any set of ideas when they have lost forward momentum and science does it as well.

Neo-paganism was launched specifically because of the nihilistic results of materialistic thinking and the need to have inspiration and spirituality while fully embracing scientific discovery. Modern neo-pagans want the entire ball of wax -- the benefits of the tech, and the simplicity of a dogma-less religious path.

 

[sojourner]

Then, like myself, you're an atheist Hindu, believing in an amorphous field of ??? underlying Existence, what an M-theory physicist might call a brane or a Hindu, Brahman.
I don't equate a singularity, or brane, or strings, or Brahman with God. God is a personage, not a construct in physics. God, as generally used, has ideas, likes and dislikes, opinions. S/He's a sort of superhuman, conceived in our image.

Go back a few pages and catch up, Sojourner.
The atheists are saying that, in it's basic, definitive form, atheism is simply a lack of belief, or, an ignorance of the concept of God. The Theists are insisting that atheists are denying or rebelling against the idea of God. Thus the two sides are operating from different definitions and are talking past each other.

Atheism, per se, s simply a lack of belief. This is the operating definition the atheists here are working from.
There do exist militant, anti-theists. There do exist atheists who oppose theism, but these are a distinct subset and not represent the definitive, essential atheists.

Is it a lack of belief? Or is it a choice? The first represents the "default" position, which I'm sure atheists would like to claim. The second represents a conscious decision to turn from the default position, which I'm sure theists would like to claim. There are some studies that suggest we are hard-wired for belief, which I mentioned earlier. If that's the case, then what constitutes "belief?" What is it, specifically, that atheists are turning away from? What is it, exactly, that theists are embracing?

 

[Valjean]

We're born non-Francophile. We're born non-accountants. We're born non White Sox fans, We are born non-political. We're born non-theists.

 

[Scott C.]

You think if you left a baby in a vacuum they would somehow know about Yahweh and Jesus, or Allah or Buddha?

Why would anyone leave a child in a vacuum, with all that dirt and stuff?

 

[Scott C.]

If we didn't teach babies about Jesus, one generation later there would be zero Christians.

If there is no God, then of course people must believe in him due to an evolutionary concept or brainwashing, etc.

But if there is a God and if that God is what I believe him to be, then people begin to believe in an unseen divine presence because that unseen presence is indeed present. Will they believe in the specifics, such as Jesus, without teachings? No. This is precisely why God gave us scriptures and continuing revelation and instructed us to teach our children, so the true tradition may be passed from generation to generation.

So once again, we're back to "I'm right if there's a God" and "You're right, if there's not". Maybe someone should start a thread titled "Is there a God" and then we can resolve this once and for all. Hmmm... I think there are a few of those threads already, and yet here we are again.

 

[Valjean]

Is it a lack of belief? Or is it a choice? The first represents the "default" position, which I'm sure atheists would like to claim. The second represents a conscious decision to turn from the default position, which I'm sure theists would like to claim. There are some studies that suggest we are hard-wired for belief, which I mentioned earlier. If that's the case, then what constitutes "belief?" What is it, specifically, that atheists are turning away from? What is it, exactly, that theists are embracing?

Being hard wired for belief isn't the same as subscribing to a belief.

The correct definition of atheism is whatever the interlocutors decide on. As long as both/all parties agree on terms, productive communication can proceed.
In the case of RF's recurring "Atheism as default" or "Born atheist" thread, the atheists are working from a "lack-of-belief" definition, while opponents are arguing from the "choice" definition. Thus the debate continues endlessly, with the same points recurring over and over again.

 

[`mud]

I've been reading this blog for about a half hour now,
I'm a very slow reader, and kinda slow overall.
but......some facts enter my slow mind:
Given new born babies, of human form:
the baby's only concern is that nipple in it's mouth.
That would be the 'soul' of it's existance !
In my thinking................that would be it's 'God' !
Along with a lot of other creatures,
nipples for everyone......hurrah, hurrah !
~
Hey Thief,
That smile was just gas....and then your smiling face...
~
'mud