outhouse
Atheistically
There is such a thing as making it a bit too simple.
So true.
-
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!
Are people born inherently atheist?
- Thread starter eggyolk
- Start date
So true.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I actually don't know enough to say what types of beliefs any random person may or may not develop, on their own, over the course of their lifetime. I doubt some random person is going to spontaneously believe in Jesus, but some people may develop a personal belief system which contains a concept we would describe as god. However, I can agree that we all start out without any beliefs at all, and the capacity to hold any meaningful beliefs comes later - and most of those beliefs are taught.
I believe most are. Then again, people are also born lacking language, so that is not automatically a good thing.
Painting with a very broad stroke, I must assume that very few would.
Almost certainly.
This, so very much this.
We really shouldn't hesitate so much to admit that something or someone is an "atheist". It does not mean much, nor was it ever supposed to mean much.
There is such a thing as making it a bit too simple.
Yes, there is. But I see no evidence whatsoever of that being the case here. Quite on the contrary.
Would you hesitate to say babies lack writing ability? Atheism _is_ a meaningless concept. That is what it is supposed to be.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
No concept is meaningless. Atheism is, fundamentally, the state of not holding a belief in the existence of a deity. The meaningless part comes in when people decide to extend this to things which are not capable of holdling any beliefs. No significance is added by saying that infants do not hold belief in deity, as they are not capable of holding beliefs. Just as rocks do not have eyes, so it adds no significance to say that they are blind.
It is not an extension. It is a clear, very orthodox use of the literal meaning of the word.
It is not _added, because it is already there...
Which they are. As we wanted to demonstrate.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
Would someone born and growing up without any religious influence turn atheistic? What about the first people who "invented" the concept of god, who influenced them?
If anything, I feel we are born without any concepts. A baby doesn't really do much apart from eating, drinking, etc. We form concepts when we can think and everyone has different life experiences and thoughts... I thought of pan(en)theism before I found it.
If anything, I feel we are born without any concepts. A baby doesn't really do much apart from eating, drinking, etc. We form concepts when we can think and everyone has different life experiences and thoughts... I thought of pan(en)theism before I found it.
Identity is more powerful than conscious thought, than belief. Belief is built on top of it, not the other way. Confidence relies directly upon a strong sense of self. Undermining confidence allows beliefs to be changed. Militaries use this during basic training to remove the weaknesses of the individual and 'Build them back up' into soldiers. They spend time tearing them down in order to give them new identities --> and beliefs. Cults also attack the identity of the individual in order to replace belief with belief.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Meh with purposes.
You need a brain to process what the dictionary says and I certainly couldnt care much for how you call a baby's theism or atheism.
As I ve said, to me a baby seems inherently panentheistic or animistic.
Often, but not always.
However, religious influence is far more natural and far more difficult to avoid than belief in God, so this is a very difficult experiment to make, and even a dangerous one.
The concept does come spontaneously to many people. Belief in it is a vocation of sorts, it seems. But if you want a literal, direct answer, there is considerable evidence that it is a survival trait that was selected naturally during our development as a species. So that would be our neurology.
Pantheism and Panentheism are fairly spontaneous concepts. Theism is somewhat more exotic.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Thats definetely one way to look at it as I said.
Again, it also may be that the baby's unability to separate hirself from the enviroment would be deemed a form of pantheism.
Basically, its similar to asking if non human animals are atheists or panentheists or theists: an exercise in futility and full conjecture.
Current knowledge suggests that early childhood is in fact too egocentric to even conceive of a true external entity, much less a god figure.
Once the separation from other beings is accepted, then sure, some will develop a perception of the mother as somewhat divine. Jung not standing, though, that is hardly an universal trait.
I don't think that is a fair assessment. "God" is far too arbitrary a concept for its natural absence to be considered conjecture.
The disagreement happens because people conflate an objective way of speaking about things with an objective reality.
Somebody give her a prize for that concise language.Willamena said:
outhouse
Atheistically
Conjecture comes from theist in this case, and the confused .
If one doesnt follow a deity or lacks belief, one is simply a atheist. Last time I checked babies lack any belief in a deity.
Even a agnostic has to make the choice he is not sure about, it is learned as well.
This is a either or statement/title as one is either a theist or not. Babies are not theist thus they are factually atheist. IMHO
If people did not place a negative connotation to the word [some theist are guilty of this] there would be no problem with this title.