They have no conception of any gods, which makes them neither theist nor atheist. At best, they're agnostic, as I said in one of my first posts in this thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If We All Became Atheists?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
How could that make them not atheist?
Babies can't be agnostic, since agnosticism is an affirmative position (that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable).
PureX
Veteran Member
I can understand that.
A lot of people that call themselves atheists are not really atheists when you investigate their position. Many are simply avidly anti-religious. They reject the religious depictions of God for sure, but they don't necessarily reject the existence of some sort of god-like phenomena. They just reject the versions of it that they see various religions purporting.
Then there are others that are very clearly atheist in that they fully believe and assert that there are no gods by any definition of a god they have ever heard of or considered, and yet they are constantly trying to proclaim that they have no god-beliefs.
If I actually were an atheist, I too would be reluctant to say so given all the misrepresentation going on about who is an atheist and why.
firedragon
Veteran Member
That's cute. But it's just an "article". Not an entire research. Nevertheless I shall take a read.Ah yes Justin Barrett's book about children. However...
"A new study out earlier this year, however, pushes against Barrett's conclusion. Published in the July issue of Cognitive Science, the article presents findings that seem to show that children's beliefs in the supernatural are the result of their education. Further, argue the researchers, "exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction." In other words, said Kathleen Corriveau, one of the study's co-authors, the study found that childhood exposure to religious ideas may influence children's "conception of what could actually happen." She also told me her research suggests that Barrett's Born Believers thesis is wrong — that children don't possess an "innate bias" toward religious belief."
Are kids born with an innate belief in God?
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...www.vox.com
See, your bias is so severe it's worse than any religious person I have met. Atheists blind faith in their ideology is so far instilled that they don't even read a research but go looking for confirmation bias. So tribalistic that you don't ever question an atheist on anything but against a theist you will go looking for confirmation bias just brushing aside extensive research conducted by one of the most reputable universities in the world. It's not the religious people who are so indoctrinated and with such blind faith, it's the atheist evangelist on the internet. Just like you.
Your research you provided is so lame that their correlation is based on them indoctrinating children with narrations. It's an experiment, not a research finding. "We told children some stories, they believed it, so we conclude that children believe stories". Utter rubbish. That's not a good research methodology. It's not an exploratory research. Good for your kind I suppose.
Go read the research by Barrett. If you have any intellectual honesty. And that should end this conversation.
We Never Know
No Slack
And Justin's is 'just a book' about children, not new born baby's.
I've read it. Here's the research.
PureX
Veteran Member
Of course. And once we realize this is what's going on, we can alter or remove the bias, and/or change the process, to gain a different result.
The key, I think, is to stop "believing" in our conclusions. Let the facts just be the facts. Facts change. Avoid drawing conclusions whenever we can. When we have to draw a conclusion, remain skeptical of it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Which you never read but just hand waved.
I read it too. It's bad methodology. It's not even exploratory. It's daydreaming. Good for the shallow. You just googled it but did not read it. Tell me. What's the research methodology they used and why is it better than Barrett's? Please explain.
Go read.
No conception of God or gods.
It is also one who is not committed to believing or disbelieving in or does not know or have an opinion of the existence or the nonexistence of God or a gods. A baby would qualify. I think it's a better label if one needs to label babies.
We Never Know
No Slack
I am fine with what I posted. If you still believe otherwise, to each their own.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Cut and paste "about" things you never read? Well done.
So? You only need to conceive of a thing to believe in it; you don't need to conceive of a thing to not believe in it.
I also don't have a conception of gods. Am I not an atheist?
I would say that this isn't exactly a widespread use case for the word.
How is it better? Is this one of those "I have a mental image of an 'atheist' and a baby doesn't fit it"-type things?
We Never Know
No Slack
I read the research I posted.
If you dont like it, oh well.
Move along instead of being slightly insulting.
You're conflating belief and conception. If you had no concept of what gods are, I doubt you'd be here.
I would say what is in the dictionary trumps what you say about its use.
But that's neither here nor there. It's a valid definition and a better fit.
It more accurately describes a baby's point of view.
Is this one of those "I feel the need to make a sarcastic condescending remark about another's POV to drive home my argument" -type things?
We Never Know
No Slack
But you do have a general understanding about a god. You've heard about it, read about it, what its supposed to be, etc.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Then tell me what their research methodology was and why it's more profound and truer and exploratory than Barretts.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
And it's from a person who said to me "If you want this conversation to continue, you'll take a more respectful tone."
Sure, whatever makes you happy.
Your continued deflection is adorable.
Adorable things make me happy.
I didn't even need your permission, but thanks anyway.
The Soviet Union had a lot atheists. I would not call it highly evolved nor very peaceful. North Korea is another example.
China is a fake atheist country - they say Xi JinPing is highly superstitious about eclipses, meteors, natural disasters etc.
Yes, atheism became the state sanctioned ideology. Obviously not the way to go about it.