Are people born inherently atheist?

[Willamena]

Obviously, you cannot believe in a lack of something if you do not have a previously developed concept for the something that you are lacking.

This is why babies can't be atheists.

I couldn't agree more.

But if they experience God, they could be theists. All that would be required of the infant to begin to form a belief in a god is that the infant experience the God.

It is not necessary to have a perfectly developed concept of something in order to believe in it. Experience is sufficient to form belief.

But speculation about babies experiencing god won't add to the conversation, any more than speculation that there is a tea pot in orbit around Mars. We're just nailing down whether we can consider babies to be atheists.

 

[Khubla]

Isn't atheism a lack of belief in theism? Babies are by definition Atheist. If religion is instinctual then there would only be one religion or belief system. Religion is learned and therefore babies are born as atheist..

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Isn't atheism a lack of belief in theism? Babies are by definition Atheist.

Atheism is whatever we define atheism to be.

It's pretty much the point of the thread... to argue for the elegance and efficacy of our own definition.

 

[idav]

Obviously, you cannot believe in a lack of something if you do not have a previously developed concept for the something that you are lacking.

This is why babies can't be atheists..

You cannot believe in a lack of something but in the same breath insist that what atheists should do. Introducing a god concept doesnt suddenly change the lack of god for an atheist.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Obviously, you cannot believe in a lack of something if you do not have a previously developed concept for the something that you are lacking.

This is why babies can't be atheists.

I actually agree with you on this. Infants do not have the mental capacity to either agree or disagree with the concept of a deity. Atheism is the concious rejection of a deity, which is something a child cannot do. I would, however, say that a child is born irreligious, but I would not use the word atheist specifically. They have neither accepted a deity nor rejected one either.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Introducing a god concept doesnt suddenly change the lack of god for an atheist.

Atheists do not lack beliefs about god. They possess a concept of god (this follows simply from the ability to use the word), but they deny that anything which exists is something that the concept applies to.

Infants do not "lack belief in god(s)". It is in fact not true to say that an infant doesn't believe in god. To illustrate:
Imagine someone gave you a list of words that looked something like this:

Chances are you couldn't even pronounce the words on such a list, let alone determine if you possess a concept similar to that the words refer to. Imagine that one of the words was "φαρϝεhα" and another was "ϝρίν". If we say you lack belief in the concept "φαρϝεhα", what about your lack of belief about "φαρϝεhα" is different from your lack of belief about "ϝρίν"? Nothing.


When we refer to lack of belief due to utter ignorance, we refer only to a singular ignorance. An infant cannot lack belief in particular concepts that they do not have, as this would imply that there is something about the lack of the concept "god" that makes it different, for the infant, from the lack of the concept "computer". There is no such distinction and there cannot be.

There is only one thing that anybody can ever not believe in or have beliefs about because they lack any concept of it. Another way to say this is that nobody lacks concepts, but rather that all concepts one does not possess are for each person a singular thing: ignorance.

Saying infants don't believe in god because they lack beliefs in general isn't just an issue of absurdity and pointlessness. It's illogical and wrong. To say an infant doesn't believe in god isn't just equivalent to saying they don't believe in computers- it is to say that for the infant a "computer" is exactly the same as "god", and thus when we say an infant lacks belief in "god" we are really saying they lack belief in "computers" or in "books" or in "shelves" and so on. These are all a one thing to an infant, but to us they are different concepts. As the concepts are not singular, but the infant's ignorance is, there is no single concept that an infant lacks belief in.

It is thus not true to say that infant's do not believe in god, because that asserts there is a singular concept "god" that the infant differentiates from some other concept. It is only true to say that the concept god doesn't exist for an infant. What they actually don't believe in is a single thing: that which they are ignorant of. This is true for all of us, and to the extent it is possible to not believe something because one lacks any concept of it, it is it is the only way that anybody can ever not believe in this sense. We are incapable of disbelief in things we have no concept of. Whatever we disbelieve due to utter ignorance is necessarily one thing: what we are ignorant of.

 

[Khubla]

This is the most insane posting that I have read in a loooog time.

 

[Khubla]

There are many superstations and beliefs in the world. I don't believe in alien abductions, UFOs, The Bermuda Triangle, Big Foot, ghost, fairies, and your damn god. To call other people ignorant because they don't believe all these superstitions, and cannot be an atheist is, well not playing with a full deck.

 

[outhouse]

Atheism is the concious rejection of a deity, .

Factually incorrect.

one does not need to make a conscious rejection of any deity to be a atheist.

One simply has to not be a theist. A theist is a learned trait.

A atheist is just someone who is not a theist. :yes:

 

[outhouse]

Saying infants don't believe in god because they lack beliefs in general isn't just an issue of absurdity and pointlessness

All I state is that they are not theist which is a default position.


It has nothing to do with what they do or do not believ about some god concept

 

[idav]

Atheists do not lack beliefs about god. They possess a concept of god (this follows simply from the ability to use the word), but they deny that anything which exists is something that the concept applies to.

Infants do not "lack belief in god(s)". It is in fact not true to say that an infant doesn't believe in god. To illustrate:
Imagine someone gave you a list of words that looked something like this:

Chances are you couldn't even pronounce the words on such a list, let alone determine if you possess a concept similar to that the words refer to. Imagine that one of the words was "φαρϝεhα" and another was "ϝρίν". If we say you lack belief in the concept "φαρϝεhα", what about your lack of belief about "φαρϝεhα" is different from your lack of belief about "ϝρίν"? Nothing.


When we refer to lack of belief due to utter ignorance, we refer only to a singular ignorance. An infant cannot lack belief in particular concepts that they do not have, as this would imply that there is something about the lack of the concept "god" that makes it different, for the infant, from the lack of the concept "computer". There is no such distinction and there cannot be.

There is only one thing that anybody can ever not believe in or have beliefs about because they lack any concept of it. Another way to say this is that nobody lacks concepts, but rather that all concepts one does not possess are for each person a singular thing: ignorance.

Saying infants don't believe in god because they lack beliefs in general isn't just an issue of absurdity and pointlessness. It's illogical and wrong. To say an infant doesn't believe in god isn't just equivalent to saying they don't believe in computers- it is to say that for the infant a "computer" is exactly the same as "god", and thus when we say an infant lacks belief in "god" we are really saying they lack belief in "computers" or in "books" or in "shelves" and so on. These are all a one thing to an infant, but to us they are different concepts. As the concepts are not singular, but the infant's ignorance is, there is no single concept that an infant lacks belief in.

It is thus not true to say that infant's do not believe in god, because that asserts there is a singular concept "god" that the infant differentiates from some other concept. It is only true to say that the concept god doesn't exist for an infant. What they actually don't believe in is a single thing: that which they are ignorant of. This is true for all of us, and to the extent it is possible to not believe something because one lacks any concept of it, it is it is the only way that anybody can ever not believe in this sense. We are incapable of disbelief in things we have no concept of. Whatever we disbelieve due to utter ignorance is necessarily one thing: what we are ignorant of.

Whatever it is atheists believe, it isnt in gods. I didnt say they lack belief I said they lack god. Theists have something to believe in, to put faith in, as far as a deity is concerned. Atheists dont put beliefs in deities, they might believe in nothingness or whatver just not gods. Similarly a baby and child as they get older can have all s orts of beliefs and remain atheists until putting belief in a god or gods.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Factually incorrect.

one does not need to make a conscious rejection of any deity to be a atheist.

One simply has to not be a theist. A theist is a learned trait.

A atheist is just someone who is not a theist. :yes:

Really, outhouse, you can't be serious with such messages, can you?

I mean, you're aware that everyone creates his own concept to prop up his words? That there is no 'one definition' for any word or idiom in any language? That even if there were such a thing, no one has put you in charge of it?

Words mean what we're trying to mean when we use them. They depend on context, on audience, on the purpose of the speaker, on the speaker's facility at the moment if you ask him to define his word.

Yes?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Isn't atheism a lack of belief in theism?

No, I lack a belief in ghosts, because they don't exist. Theism exists. Atheism is generally defined as the denial that god(s) exist.

Babies are by definition Atheist

It is not true to say that babies don't believe in god(s). It is true to say that infants do not believe in what we refer to by the concept god, but to say they do not believe in god is to say that there exists for the infant a concept of god they do not have. The only distinctions between concepts a person does not have are those which are distinct to others, not that person.

The lack of the concept "god" that an infant has is exactly the same as the concept "computer', "sock", "atheism", and every single other concept we may consider distinct. These distinctions do not exist for the infant, and thus it is not true to say they do not believe in "god" because this requires them to possess a disbelieve in something distinct from other things of which they are ignorant. We can say they don't believe in any concept were may refer to by the word "god", but we cannot say they don't believe in "god" because this entails disbelief in something distinct ("god"), but for the infant there is no distinction between "god" and an infinite list of all things of which they are ignorant.

When an atheists says "I don't believe any gods exist", they are making a distinction between the concepts they refer to by "gods" and e.g., things they believe to exist. That's why they are able to disbelieve that gods exist: they possess a concept of what the word "god" refers to (necessarily so, as it is impossible to be capable of using a word without a concept). This concept is distinct from others such that when they say "I don't believe any gods exist" they do not mean "I don't believe any computers exist" but they do mean "I don't believe any deities exist".

Nobody is capable of distinguishing between concepts they do not possess. Thus one disbelieves in concepts one does not possess in one sense only: ignorance. Everything that one is ignorant of is for each individual that singular thing we refer to by ignorance. Thus if it can be said one does not believe in what one has no concept of, it is only true in the sense that someone with the concept can say it of another, and it is NOT true of the person without the concept. In other words, it is true for me to say of an infant that they do not believe in god, but it is not true to say of that infant that the infant does not believe in god.

 

[Sonofason]

Sonofason had written:

Show me why babies don't have experiences; for experience is the foundation for belief.

Experience is not. Cognitive faculties are. We are capable of creating computer programs that learn from experience the way that cells, plants, slugs, etc., all do. What we are not capable of is demonstrating how experience in particular systems (namely, those with brains) are capable of conceptual representation.

Wrong: Without an experience, you would never be capable of developing a cognitive response. You cannot disassociate experience with cognitive capabilities. In the human brain, it is experience which leads to cognitive responses, and not the other way around. Cognition does not result in experience.

LegionOnomaMoi wrote:

You are asserting that there is a meaningful relationship between experience and belief such that the experience of a single-celled organism, an ant, a sunflower, etc. is somehow incapable of experiences that result in theistic beliefs yet there are experiences infants have that are relevant to beliefs.

Yes, I am asserting that there is a meaningful relationship between experience and belief. There is a meaningful relationship between experience and cognition, and so there is a meaningful relationship between experience and belief.

LegionOnomaMoi wrote:

You have absolutely no basis for such an assertion. There is nothing you know of infant cognition that supports you and actually there is evidence that experiential effects of parrots are more significant here.

I have children, and I know that within moments of their arrival into my world, they were forming beliefs about me. Certainly, there is much I know about infant cognition, and it certainly supports my claim.

Sonofason had written:

It is you who has suggested emphatically that infants don't have any beliefs whatsoever.

LegionOnomaMoi wrote:

I have denied that experience can be equated with beliefs. You are the one implicitly claiming that a plant can have theistic beliefs because of its experiences. You are utterly incapable of differentiation the cognitive mechanisms underlying belief in any living system yet you have equated experience with belief nonetheless. You offer nothing to support this claim and haven't even the ability to define experience in a way that makes the experience of an amoeba not theistic but that of an infant different. Perhaps you are correct, but you haven't just offered nothing to support your claim, you have presented it in a way that makes it incorrect (unless you really do think grass, ants, etc., are theistic).

I believe am amoebas may be theistic. I believe infants may be theistic. I believe rocks may be theistic.

I believe grass, ants, etc, may be theistic.

Never have I tried to equate experience with beliefs. What I said was that experience is the foundation for beliefs. Experience is foundational to beliefs. As I've told you before, I say what I mean. I don't make mistakes of reason.

 

[Sonofason]

I think you got yourself turned around in the shuffle. Try to keep your eye on the ball. I am not suggesting infants are atheists, I am saying that calling them theists or atheists is equally wrong.

It may be wrong to emphatically claim, as a matter of fact, that infants are theists, but that is not what I've been saying. I've been saying it is possible for infants to be theists. On the other hand, it is impossible for infants to be atheists.

 

[Sonofason]

Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods. Strong atheism is believing gods don't exist. Christians believe Thor and Zeus and every other god except their own don't exist. They are strong atheists who for some reason have made an exception for one god. Christians disbelieve in the existence of the same gods strong atheists disbelieve in the existence of with just one exception.

No, a theist is a theist and that's the end of it. You can bring up any possible entity in the world that a theist may or may not believe in, and so long as a person believes in at least one God, he will be called a theist. He is not an atheist about this or that. He is a theist because of his belief in at least one God. Another red herring.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It may be wrong to emphatically claim, as a matter of fact, that infants are theists, but that is not what I've been saying. I've been saying it is possible for infants to be theists. On the other hand, it is impossible for infants to be atheists.

You talk like there are really such things as atheists and theists. I find it strange.

Don't you know that I can turn you into an atheist at my pleasure?

 

[Sonofason]

OK, if you are a Christian but don't believe in the Christian God could you clarify your position for us? Which god do you believe in? If you don't believe in any gods you are a weak or a strong atheist. Which is it?

I am certain that One God exists. I am uncertain as to what other god claims might be pertaining to the One God that does exist.

It could be that Zeus is God. If He is, He is the same God as my God.
It could be that Allah is God. If He is, He is the same God as my God.

It could be that the flying spaghetti monster is not a god. If he isn't, he certainly is not my God.

 

[Sonofason]

Why such a dark outlook? What has happened to create that view of things?

For the record, I consider myself polite company. I try to speak to others with civility and respect if at all possible... even when in full-fledged argument mode.

My Lord doesn't command me to be polite. He commands that I love others, do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to tell the truth always. If that should lead to something that you consider polite, then so be it. If not, so be it.

 

[Sonofason]

I couldn't agree more.


But speculation about babies experiencing god won't add to the conversation, any more than speculation that there is a tea pot in orbit around Mars. We're just nailing down whether we can consider babies to be atheists.

"We're just nailing down whether we can consider babies to be atheists."

Yes, and we've done that. We can't.