Are people born inherently atheist?

[outhouse]

Arguable at best. There are some very forced interpretations running around to support such a conclusion.

Nope he is wrong. But he isn't far off the correct answer.

There have been two remote tribes that did not have any god concept, but they did have smoke and fire spirits, animal spirits, ect, ect

 

[Valjean]

I don't know.
I think Athiesm is a belief. Not a lack of one.
An Athiest believe's there is no God,
Without evidence to the contrary.
So it is a belief.

You speak of a specific type of atheism, Thana, not of atheism in general.
Like theists, atheists come in different flavors: strong and weak, positive, negative explicit, implicit, practical, agnostic, theoretical, &c. If you want to indicate a specific type of atheist you add an adjective. With no adjective it's understood you're speaking of atheism in its basic meaning only: a non belief in God.

Essential atheism isn't a concept, it isn't a stance, it's not the rejection of an idea. True, in certain contexts it may be moot or meaningless, but in some it's a meaningful distinction. It may be meaningless to call a gerbil or a baby illiterate, but they are. The term applies.

Babies are born without language and without a belief in God. They may be neurologically wired for these, but they still must be acquired.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I wasn't born with the capacity or ability to meaningfully be either an atheist or a theist. However, by the time I was intellectually developed enough for these concepts to be meaningful, my genetics and experiences were such that my propensity for holdling irrational beliefs was quite limited. Thus, even if I wasn't "born" an atheist, I doubt I ever would have developed into a theist.

The psychologist Jean Piaget developed a theory of cognitive development.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of interest is the the second stage called the "Pre-Operational Stage"

Piaget's second stage, the Pre-operational Stage, starts when the child begins to learn to speak at age 2 and lasts up until the age of 7

The pre-operational stage is sparse and logically inadequate in regards to mental operations. The child is able to form stable concepts as well as magical beliefs. The child however is still not able to perform operations, which are tasks that the child can do mentally rather than physically.

I think that at that age we are predisposed to theism. To give magical properties to things you can't comprehend.

 

[Me Myself]

If you say so. That is still seeing experience of godhood in atheists, though.

Do you see it that way for adult, conscious atheists as well?

Sometimes maybe

Not if they directly reject the concept.

Yet. If you had some person that directly experiences complete unity in the way a baby does but does not speak I would believe hir to be a panentheist. The problem is I cant know if he is in that state or not.

Technically speaking, I cant know so of babies, i just believe it may be a good way to describe their experience of complete unity.

I mean in what way is that form of experience different than god? They know not of death or separation.

What is the true state of a experience of a baby? What is not god on a baby's mind? Sure, ey dont have the word for god, but at is a bit arbitrary too. In spanish, god is dios, in arabic god is allah. Its really not important, the word I mean.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The psychologist Jean Piaget developed a theory of cognitive development.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of interest is the the second stage called the "Pre-Operational Stage"

I think that at that age we are predisposed to theism. To give magical properties to things you can't comprehend.

We need to ban Piaget from this website. I spent WAY too much time studying Piaget at Uni.
I had a point here somewhere...

I think it depends how you define theism. My daughters are both in the sweet spot of the pre-operational stage, and they are likely to believe there is a monster in their cupboard, that fairies paint rainbows, or that I can remove my left thumb and pull it out of their ear, before re-attaching it. There is a separation between assigning a logical cause to an effect, and basically life is a grab bag. Assigning preposterous causes to things is all part of the fun, really. Like when they ask our dog if he's been driving mummy's car, since it's not parked straight.

But I'm not sure that assigning God as an explanation is likely unless provided to them as the cause. I could as easily convince my daughter that there is no God, and that it's fairies and goblins who control the world. I guess I'm suggesting there is a predisposition to belief, and a willingness to accept almost any explanation, without recourse to logic.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

We need to ban Piaget from this website. I spent WAY too much time studying Piaget at Uni.

I'm more of an Erikson guy myself

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm more of an Erikson guy myself

Never studied Erikson, beyond the most cursory. Strange, actually. As a psych major in an Education degree, I should have looked at him twice....lol

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You should.

His theory spans the whole lifetime.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You should.

His theory spans the whole lifetime.

I've kinda put aside both psychology and education for much more frivolous things that do a better job of paying the mortgage.
And posting here, of course!

 

[Magic Man]

I imagine some of us are born with character traits that predispose us to skepticism, which could then lead to atheism.

However, to suggest that we are born atheists seems meaningless to me in so far as atheism is understood to be a belief in the absence of deity, and meaningful only in so far as atheism is understood to be a lack of belief in deity -- much as a squirrel lacks a belief in deity.

Put differently, the argument over whether we are born atheists seems to me to depend on how you define atheist.

I don't understand all these examples of rocks and squirrels. Are there squirrels that believe in a god? Is there a rock that believes in a god?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you call people that believe in gravity as gravitationist?

Nope. And I don't call babies, rocks, or gerbils atheists, since they cannot be meaninfully described as such.

That's the same exact arguement your making.

Then you fail to understand my argument.

Your making way too much out of the definition of who is not a theist.

Nah, some people are just making way too much out of applying meaningless labels to babies, rocks, and gerbils.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The oxford dictionary defines atheism as both the belief that there is no gods or the lack of belief in gods.

With theecessity of these happening in a person (thus, rocks cannot be atheists because they lack belief.)

Now you're catching on. As with rocks, babies cannot be atheists because they cannot hold any beliefs either. Exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure.

If you find it meaningful to describe a tulip as an atheist, that's your business. Personally, I prefer to apply useful and meaningful categorizations to the world. Vive la difference.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't understand all these examples of rocks and squirrels. Are there squirrels that believe in a god? Is there a rock that believes in a god?

Is there a newborn that believes in god?

 

[outhouse]

Well your wrong. Due to a "PERSONAL" narrow definition.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.

Say what you will, but one is either theist or lacking theism.

You cannot pick and choose one of many definitions and say that is the only one that covers atheism like a blanket.

Definitions change due to

geographic locations
implicit
explicit
Positive-strong
Negative-soft

ARGUEMENTS

Ontological
Epistemological
Metaphysical
Logical

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well your wrong. Due to a "PERSONAL" narrow definition.

What am I "wrong" about, exactly?

It's true that infants could be described as atheists in the same way that rocks could be described as atheists. If someone finds it meaningful to describe rocks as atheists, that is certainly their prerogative. All I've been saying is that, personally, I find it more useful to apply meaningful categorizations to things.

So, please tell me what I am "wrong" about in your estimation.

 

[Magic Man]

Is there a newborn that believes in god?

So, there are no rocks or squirrels that believe in god, right? Because there are humans who believe in god, and babies are humans.

 

[outhouse]

What am I "wrong" about, exactly?

This flip floppy attitude.

babies cannot be atheists because they cannot hold any beliefs either.

It's true that infants could be described as atheists

And the only reason is a "narrow personal view".

Your focussing on the value of the term, not the definition


I agree with the value aspect you posit. But if you want to get philisophical objects that cannot ever possess theism are disqualified from the definition.

Your taking a wide definition and stretching it to meet your own personal agenda, all the while ignoring the definition of implicit atheism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This flip floppy attitude.

A flip floppy attitude which is dependent on your selective cutting-and-pasting of sentence fragments from my post.

But if you want to get philisophical objects that cannot ever possess theism are disqualified from the definition.

Exactly my point. Newborns cannot possess atheism, as they have capacity for holding beliefs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, there are no rocks or squirrels that believe in god, right? Because there are humans who believe in god, and babies are humans.

Babies are a subset of human. A subset of human which has no capacity for holding beliefs. Just like rocks and squirrels. Now, make the logical connection.