Everyone is born an atheist.

[cleanhippie]

Its the default position. You either have a religion forced upon you by your parents or choose one later in life.


Am I right or wrong, and why?

[BOG PERSON]

1. not really

atheism is a positive belief. babies aren't exactly in a position to believe or not believe in things. and even if they were, babies aren't always correct about everything.

[cleanhippie]

3. No, atheism is a LACK of belief. Babies have a LACK of belief, ergo, they are atheists.

[BOG PERSON]

9. i have to disagree

atheism makes a positive claim that there is no god. while a lack of belief is just a result of apathy or indifference or laziness, not a result of philosophical investigation

[cleanhippie]

13. Really? I am an atheist and I never claimed that there is no god.

In fact, most atheists ALLOW for the POSSIBILITY of a god, they just have not seen any evidence that would support that conclusion.

Now, I know that recently, there has been a hard push from believers to try and paint atheism as a positive belief, but I have YET to see that asserted here on DU, nor in any place where one may find other atheists.

Let me ask you this. Now that I have explained to you what Atheism means to ME, do you still claim that I have a positive belief that there is no god?

Post a poll. Ask atheist whether they "believe there is no god" or have a "lack of belief in a god". You may be surprised at the results.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. What you say makes you an agnostic by definition.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Because and Atheist by definition:

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

I am an agnostic because I have seen no credible proof of the existance of God, but am open to proof should some arise in the future.

[cleanhippie]

30. But your definition implies a positive belief.

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

I have a LACK of belief, as do most self-identified atheists. Besides, I do not "believe" it is impossible to know..." I think it is quite possible. When believers can define their god, we can test for that possibility and either prove or disprove the hypothesis. And I think that this speaks to the biggest problem with religions... each has a very obscure and fluid definition of their god and are really unable to define just what their god is.
I know that I can succinctly define what atheism means to me, a lack of a belief in a god. What another tries to define my atheism as is irrelevant, as it is MY lack of belief.

[Ozymanithrax]

47. An agnostic has neither a positive belief or a negative beliefe...

there is not proof upon which to base a belief and without omniscience there is nothing upon which to based a denial of God.

(And it is not my definition but the working definition from dictionaries.)

You wrote:
"In fact, most atheists ALLOW for the POSSIBILITY of a god, they just have not seen any evidence that would support that conclusion."

According to the textbook definition of an Atheist disbelieves or denies the existence of a God. A recognition of the possibility of a god, with as yet undiscovered proof, makes one, in accordance with the definition of the word, an agnostic.

The differences are slight but real.

[darkstar3]

48. See #44,

and then recognize that agnosticism and atheism are positions regarding two very different questions: Knowledge and belief. They can, and often do, overlap.

[Ozymanithrax]

50. Words have real meanings...and if we let every individual define his own meaning...

there can be communication.

#44 is just claiming Humpty's Dictum... "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

When we communicate, we need to use a recongized definition of the word, other wise it is just babble with no meaning.

[darkstar3]

52. You ignore the fact that more definitions are recognized than your chosen pigeonhole.

[Ozymanithrax]

54. No, bu if you want to define a word you should recognize the primary definiton...

and if you chose to use an alternate definion, then it should be stated. And if that definition fits the common meaning of another word, don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

There are differences between atheist and agnostic just as there is a differences between believing and not-believing.

[darkstar3]

55. Who are you to claim that your chosen definition is primary?

Furthermore, if you want to talk about the differences between atheism and agnosticism, then perhaps you should investigate the difference between knowledge and belief.

Go and educate yourself about these two positions and come back when you are interested in more than pigeonholing people.

[Ozymanithrax]

58. Check out the dictionary. They put a (1) to show the primary meaning.

You will find that is common practice and has been for a long time.

If you don't know how to read a dictionary, they you might want to back off education suggestions until you get one yourself.

[darkstar3]

59. WHICH dictionary?

Princeton's wordnet has no primary definition, and when I google "define: atheism" I don't find any other sources I would consider worthy of reference. Are you using Wikipedia? Wiktionary? Urban Dictionary? Your own ass?

[Ozymanithrax]

60. Oxfords English Dictionary...

Websters, any one you've got around.

Variant meanings in dictionaries are given numbers, with the primary meaning given a (1). Now, when words are used by different parts of speech, you would see something like this.

Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic

Those are both primary meanings. If there are no printed alternative meanings, some dictionaries will leave the number off. Agnostic below, uses an alphanumeric system.

This is common practice in printing dictionaries, and is followed most often on Internet.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal:

[darkstar3]

62. Don't have one of those handy,

so I'm afraid I can't verify what you've claimed here. Also, it seems that online dictionaries don't follow your supposed standard. See wordnet.

Also, as noted below, there is often obvious bias located in definitions of controversial terms. Who gets to choose which definition is primary? The publisher? How is that fair to the people being labeled?

Finally, why the fuck do you care so much about forcing people to agree that your chosen definition is the right one? You have been shown that your definition is not the only one found in the dictionary. You have been reminded that religious tolerance requires you to allow others to label and define themselves rather than the other way 'round. You have been educated about the fact that atheists far more often identify as people who lack belief rather than as people who actively believe that no gods can exist. You have been introduced to the fact that atheism and agnosticism deal with different topics and often overlap. After all of this, you ignore everything that has been told to you and state flatly, while grasping at straws, that atheism can only be your chosen belief-based definition.

Your intolerance and willful ignorance have been noted. Now go look down your nose at someone else, because I have recognized you as a hopeless case.

[Ozymanithrax]

77. Wow, it is like Global warming denial. Don't look for the answer and you won't find it.

And I never looked down my nose, only discussed definitions. I care because words have meanings. Whether we are discussing atheism and religion, the redefinition of liberal to equal communist/fascist/socialist, or the easy way words are redefined, it harms discourse. In order to communicate clearly, we need to know what words we use, because those words have power.

Funny, I discussed the definition words, not the label people put on themselves. I discussed how redefining words takes the meaning out of a discussion.

You then decide to label me as intolerant. It seems, that you must be enjoying the view down the end of your nose, since you resorted to labels rather than definitions.

[skepticscott]

75. care to cite

WHICH textbook? Or are these just your own cherry-picked definitions, not gleaned from actually asking atheists what they think? Dissect the word "atheist" and you'll be off to a more enlightening start.

[qazplm]

133. I dont think you get to define the word atheist

when it has a pretty standardized definition. As an agnostic, what irks me about atheists are those who try and expand the definition to encompass as many people as possible. Atheism is absolutely not just an absence of belief one way or the other, it's an expression of belief contra to theism.

Agnosticism is an absence of belief one way or the other.

[cleanhippie]

134. You are a day late and a dollar short.

Your assertion has been debunked several time in this thread. Feel free to read the many contra-assertions.

[ZombieHorde]

74. If a person believes in god, but has room for doubt, then that person is a theist.

If a person doesn't believes in god, but has room for doubt, then that person is an atheist.

It really is just that simple.

[BOG PERSON]

36. i self identify as an atheist

i believe there is no god, and if it turns out that god does exist, then my belief is wrong. since you're open to the possibility that there is a god, you're not an atheist. not that there's anything wrong with being agnostic.

i can't post a poll because i'm not a donor.

[cleanhippie]

37. Interesting. You are the first I have ever met that defines themselves that way.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Hmmmm...

Since I can reverse your own statement thus:

Religion makes a positive claim that there is a god(s).

I think there is a basic problem with your contention in that it does not disprove the original posters claim, since a baby is equally incapable of believing in a god(s).

My lack of belief required considerable logical analysis, philosophical investigation, massive amounts of readings and thousands of hours of thinking, i weighing what I had been told versus the reality I lived in. Not something a baby can do, of course. But again, we are arguing semantics and word definition.

[Odin2005]

41. False.

Atheism makes no positive claim to anything, that would be Anti-theism.

[BOG PERSON]

42. not according to a dictionary

[darkstar3]

44. Which dictionary, and which definition?

There are many dictionaries out there, especially on the internet, and each dictionary may come with multiple definitions of a word, some of which are often conveniently left out of these conversations.

The point, though, is that BOTH your definition and CHs appear in most dictionaries I've looked at, and that seems fitting when you consider the following: Believers see atheism as a belief, thus providing one definition, and atheists see atheism as a LACK of belief, thus providing the other. The thing you must remember, however, is that religious tolerance requires that we accept from a person THEIR definition for themselves.

That's why the only way to know if someone is a Christian is if they say they are a Christian. The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't just apply to Christianity.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. Exactly my point in another post

I list a number of web-based definitions. The bias of the lexicographer is VERY obvious in some definitions. I also mention the same problem of definition with the words "believe" and "belief".

Who do we accept for the "authoritative" definition?

In a discussion I solicit the definition assumed by the participants and then express my own.

For discussions to accomplish anything, participants must agree on what words mean. Many words have dictionary definitions, but emotional/political overtones, and unless this is addressed, little progress can be made.

[Ozymanithrax]

51. What you are claiming is Humpty's Dictum...

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' "

That might be good for an arrogant egg, but when humans communicate, it is important to use real definitions of words.

I've seen the argument between the Theists and Atheists, and consider them silly semantics. If someone says he's an atheist, I can accept his word for it, just as I accept a Theists word for his or her belief in a God.

In order to communicate clearly, we should not simply change the words we use to whatever we want them to mean. Words should be used with precision. If someone says he's an atheist, then he should understand the dictionary meaning universally requires a denial of the existence of God. Call that belief or non-belief. To be open to the existance of a diety with sufficient proof isn't a literal Atheist, it is Agnostic.

[darkstar3]

53. You are picking one definition from a dictionary and stating it is the correct one,

even when other definitions are not only present in the dictionary, but more frequently used by the people to whom the label is applied. Your semantic game is nothing but a bullshit excuse to refer to atheism as a belief/faith and therefore dismiss it as inferior to your chosen label of agnosticism. Perhaps you should more deeply investigate the meanings of both words, and the possibility that you may just be an agnostic atheist.

[Ozymanithrax]

56. When two people communicate and use a word, they must come to a...

concensus on the meaning. Otherwise, no communication takes places. I know there are alternate meanings to words, but when we communicate we still need to come to an agreement on the meaning being used. Often, the exact variant of a word can be understood from the context in which it is used. To say "I am an Atheist" gives no context and we must fall back on the primary meaning.

If some group wants to redefine Atheist as meaning there might be a god out there, but until I see proof I will disbelieve in Gods exists, they can do that. They should not pretend that everyone else they talk to will accpet their meaning. That nuanced meaning needs to be made clear.

In general use, the primary definition of Atheism is "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."

[darkstar3]

57. Again you claim that your chosen definition is primary,

yet you have no reason to do so. You still haven't recognized that atheism is about belief whereas agnosticism is about knowledge.

You need to research this divide more thoroughly, and you need to stop telling people what they believe.

[Goblinmonger]

112. Any dictionary which completely ignores the etymology of the word

has another agenda. The Greek is very clear. Theism come from a word meaning belief. Gnosticism from a word meaning knowledge. The prefix "a" means lacking. A-theists lack belief. A-gnostics lack knowledge. One can be a gnostic theist (believes there is knowledge for the belief in god), an agnostic theist (can't claim there is absolute knowledge but believes there is a god--just not sure what that god is like), an agnostic atheist (can't claim absolute knowledge but does not believe in a god), and a gnostic theist.

Please explain how your coveted dictionary is actually in line with the etymology.

And in the world of definitions, most experts will tell you that dictionaries are shit for getting to what a word really means in the field it is used (it reflects some general notion as perceived by the writer) but that the better meaning comes from contextual definition by experts.

[dmallind]

122. Dictionaries list usages, not only technically correct definitions

It's actually quite easy to get usages listed in a dictionary, from a surprisingly low number of sources, certainly far fewer than the both unintentional and intentional misuse of atheism suppky.

As far as agnostic goes, we have voluminous writings from the guy who invented the word that tell us what he meant and it is unquestionably an epistemological term. I wonder, to you, what people who simply lack belief should have been called prior to 1869. For several centuries "atheist" worked fine. It still does when used correctly. Similarly, "gay" still means "light hearted, happy, carefree" regardless of how rarely it is used in that sense today.

[Silent3]

111. "lack of belief is just a result of apathy or indifference or laziness"

Huh?

How is lacking belief either lazy or apathetic? If you call lack of belief "indifferent", indifferent to what or whom? Some imagined rule you have that people must make firm yes/no, I believe/I don't believe decisions on various issues?

In my experience firm belief is more often the result of apathy or laziness, the intellectual laziness of rushing to a conclusion without solid evidence, apathy toward learning and investigating and thinking things through, a process which quite often leads a person not to resolute answers but an to an appreciation for complexity and doubt.

To quote Bertrand Russell, "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

[Deep13]

121. Atheism is litterally a lack of belief...

There seem to be two forms.

Weak: I do not believe in god.

Strong: I believe there is no god.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. This is what I meant about "semantics"

in my response to the poster. And argument will now ensue on the definition of "belief".

The OP's statement is true or false, depending on the subtle distinctions in the word.

If I were a suspicious person, I would think that the OP is toying, bordering on trolling.

[cleanhippie]

25. Really? Even though it has been explained that a lack of belief...

is the common definition among self-identified atheists, you think I am trolling?

I certainly wanted to spark a conversation, is that considered trolling?

Also, consider this....

There are some 3500 recorded "gods" in human history. With some exceptions, most believers believe in only ONE god, theirs. Doesn't that make them an atheist in respect to all the other gods?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think you're wrong.

Everyone is born an animist.

When we acquire the self-nonself discrimination, we are already aware of our own consciousness and don't automatically assume that everything we exclude from the self is also excluded from consciousness. Therefore the default position is to asume consciousness at large in the universe.

Jean Piaget documented the sequence in which kids unlearn that initial set of assumptions.

[cleanhippie]

6. I disagree, but thank you for your intelligent response.

I mean that, usually the responses here are childish and asinine. Yours has provoked me to look into that, thank you.

[cleanhippie]

4. self delete, wrong place

[Kelvin Mace]

5. And I thought *I* was

tossing a grenade when I posted in the Gun forum. :)

I would say that given the inability to formulate any opinion at birth, this statement is going to lead to a LOT of discussion of semantics.

"Forced" is a pretty loaded term. True in some cases, not so in others. I see religion as learned behavior, taught by parents, and in my view, right up there with the Easter Bunny and Santa.

If you are lucky, you also learn to reason and use logic as you grow up, then you get to test everything you were taught: Morality, religion, politics, etc.

[cleanhippie]

7. Well, this IS supposed to be a DISCUSSION forum, right?

Perhaps this will create a discussion.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. And given that I responded

I believe you are correct.

Now, the question is, will it be a productive or informative discussion?

Magic Eight-Ball says:

Very doubtful.

[cleanhippie]

15. On that, your magic 8 ball may be right!

Actually, it is probably right more often than any claim made by a religious believer regarding their particular god.

[tinrobot]

10. You kind of have to "wake up" to become an atheist.

This awakening requires attaining a level of consciousness that babies simply don't have at birth. Babies are very naive and prone to believing in the supernatural (i.e. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny) In fact, some people never grow up in that regard.

I'm sure a lot of atheists will admit they didn't realize they were atheists until they hit junior high or high school, which is the time when we shed our childhood delusions and slowly become adults.

[cleanhippie]

16. You don't think that they believe in Santa, etc, BECAUSE they are taught that?

babies believe what their parents tell them is true. They have a LACK of belief to begin with, that IS atheism. As they mature, they may be better able to DEFINE their atheism, but the simple fact that they originally had NO belief at all regarding a god IS atheism.

[tinrobot]

34. Atheism is what happens when we educate ourselves to become rational adults.

When I was 3 or 4, I thought that the mirrors were windows into another part of the house. I also thought that when you played records, the music was created a tiny group of musicians living inside the record player. I also thought clouds were alive.

Nobody taught me those things, it's how my developing brain worked at the time. Santa was way easy to accept when I was little. If presents had shown up under the tree and nobody told me where they came from, I probably would have invented a Santa-like entity to explain it.

By nature, young children are not very rational, they have to learn to become rational. If I had had no serious education, I probably would have continued thinking such magical thoughts (as did most of human population until a few hundred years ago)

[provis99]

135. if you don't know about a god, you are an atheist regarding that god.

it does not require "waking up" to be an atheist.

[yodermon]

11. technically true, but moot.

The earliest Behaviorally modern homo sapiens were Animists.
All children are taught *something*, even in an Atheist household.
Would these feral children be considered "atheists"? http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/
Maslow's hierarchy of needs would preclude them from even considering the question of Numen.

Interesting question though.

[Skinner]

14. I think this depends on what you mean by atheist.

If you mean "doesn't believe in a particular idea of God" or "doesn't believe a particular religion" then I think you are correct. I think you might be more correct if you said that "everyone is born without a particular belief in the supernatural."

But there is a lot of evidence that humans do have an inborn tendency to see intent or "agency" when none exists. Which seems to me the opposite of being born atheist. It is a tendency toward belief in supernatural forces rather than skepticism.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity

To be clear: That doesn't mean that God exists or doesn't.

[cleanhippie]

18. I think the commen definiton of atheism,

as defined by self-identified atheists here on DU, is that it is a LACK of belief, and nothing more. You do not agree that babies are born with a LACK of belief when it comes to (insert your definition of god here) god ?

[Skinner]

21. I think my post made clear that I agree that babies are born with a lack of belief...

...when it comes to (insert your definition of god here) god.

[cleanhippie]

22. Fair enough, I just thought that your subject line was questioning that definition

No worries. Thanks for your input, I know you have limited time to weigh-in on trivial postings like mine.
:toast:

[Kelvin Mace]

24. The very way this argument tends to go

is to pivot on each person's definition of the word "belief"

One version implies "faith", the other version implies "understanding"

Atheists tend to take belief to mean the former, theist's the latter.

This is a major stumbling block to the whole discussion.

While I cannot say (as no true rationalist can) "(a) God(s) does (do) not exist". I can state, from my own reality, that I am certain that the ones being espoused by the various human agencies do not, as they are self-contradictory. I can only speak from experience of what I have read, and what I was taught (I was raised Catholic).

[cleanhippie]

27. Consider this...

There are some 3500 recorded "gods" in human history. With some exceptions, most believers believe in only ONE god, theirs. Doesn't that make them an atheist in respect to all the other gods?

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Well, not exactly

since their belief in ANY god would make them a theist by the definition of the word.

belief in the existence of a god or gods

I am fond of Richard Dawkins rhetorical device of getting a person (a Christian for example) to admit they don't believe in Thor, Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, and any number of "mythological" gods, then stating, "Well, I just disbelieve one more god than you do."

To be an atheist, you must lack belief, or disbelieve in ALL gods.

Many dictionaries define "atheist" as:

one who believes that there is no deity

Ooo, there's that pesky "believe" again.

Unfortunately, I don't have my OED handy, as I would be curious as to what it says. The handful of online references available to me have:

someone who denies the existence of god

(that ones sounds a tad judgmental to me)

A person who believes that no gods or deities exist

A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods

the doctrine or belief that there is no God

rejecting any belief in gods

One who rejects or is ignorant of theism

(Do I detected snark?)

An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove.

A belief that there are no gods

Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God.

A quick review shows some interesting points of discussion. 1) The frequent use of the word "belief/believe", and the use of the word "God" was opposed to "god(s)".

[elocs]

17. Wow, how insightful! (Delete snarky comment that originally was here.)

Everyone is born a nontypist as well. Everyone is born a ______ fill in the blank. This certainly presents amazing possibilities for discussion.

[cleanhippie]

19. Yes, but we are talking about believing in a god, not typing.

[Henryman]

Everyone is an atheist. Most are too afraid to admit it! (eom)

[Kelvin Mace]

26. It has been my experience that dogamtism

is a mask for extreme doubt. The more dogmatic, the greater the doubt. It is like covering your ears and going "la la la la la" when you don't want to hear something that you don't want to believe.

[Henryman]

23. Everyone is an atheist. Most are too afraid to admit it! (eom)

[TZ]

28. If you subscribe to the tabula rosa theory of babies

(we are born a blank slate upon which ideas are formed) perhaps then you would say this is so.
And of course, religion itself is a taught concept. However, all human behavior (and religion IS behavior in a sense) is a mixture of genetics and environment. As Skinner posted above there are very clearly genetics which show we are born with specific capacity to believe in certain things..like God. And studies have shown an association between certain areas of the brain and spirituality. There is strong evidence to suggest some people are born more likely than others to believe in God.
I find this argument that everyone is born an atheist, somewhat disingenuous. There are much better cases to be made. Dawkins makes the case really well on why we actually ARE NOT born atheists really...his whole point about religion is its something that we developed evolutionarily to survive.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Which is something I find fascinating

along with the genetics of liberalism/conservatism. I see the two as related, but haven''t seen any studies, so it is just an (hopefully) educated guess on my part.

I have come to view religion as a self-defense mechanism, a means to shield ourselves from the reality of eventual non-existence, which, speaking from my own experiences, is pretty terrifying.

Also, if there is some cosmic entity who will impose ultimate justice, right all wrongs, and punish the "evil-doers", then I am far less morally responsible for the world I live in. If there isn't, then each and every one of us is to blame for the planet, its condition, and every injustice to our fellow human beings.

Far easier to leave it up to an invisible daddy in the sky. You get to sleep nights too.

[MineralMan]

32. Hmm...everyone is born pretty much with no knowledge of

anything at all. Humans have a pretty short list of instinctive behaviors, compared to some animals. Depending on the culture in which an infant is born, it is likely to be exposed early to a set of religious beliefs, and is likely to adopt those beliefs, in the same way it adopts language, food preferences, and other aspects of that culture. The one thing we are born with for certain is an avid thirst to learn.

So, your statement is true, but for a very short time, indeed, in most cases. Ascribing anything regarding knowledge or belief to a newborn is a logical error. The newborn is neither an atheist or a believer. The capacity to discern does not yet exist.

Most atheists have been exposed to some sort of religious information based on the cultural references of their parents and culture. At some point, most atheists, having reached the age of reason, have rejected that religious information as untested and untestable hooey. They've examined religious belief in whatever way they examined it, and have rejected it.

I am a strong atheist. I can state that there is no such thing as a deity or other supernatural entity of that sort. However, I cannot prove that, so I simply say that I do not and cannot believe in any such entities. It is impossible for me to believe in such things. Impossible. That is all I can say about deities. I cannot possibly believe that any such thing exists.

[laconicsax]

38. You're right.

Atheism is the default position. It is the null hypothesis when applied towards belief in the supernatural.

That said, as others have pointed out, humans are essentially 'hard-wired' to see patterns and connections where there are none (i.e. superstition). This doesn't mean that it's natural to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, intercessory, personal god at all, but it does mean that it's easier to believe in something superstitious like an omnipotent, omnipresent, intercessory, personal god.

This doesn't mean that any specific type of superstition (e.g. animism as others have mentioned) is the default position either and whether we're 'hard-wired' to be superstitious doesn't mean that being superstitious is better than not. We have to learn that mommy still exists even if we can't see her, so the religious arguments claiming that it's better to believe because it's more natural are actually making the claim, "better to think like an infant than an adult."

No thanks, I prefer to see the world as it actually is, rather than as ignorant, superstitious people saw it thousands of years ago.

[GliderGuider]

39. Everyone is born really small, too.

And they are born knowing absolutely nothing about the scientific method or much of anything else.

What we are all born with are capabilities and potential. The potential for creative thought, for compassion and violence, even the potential to believe that infinite growth is possible on a sphere.

So what?

Would a grown adult who was still as ignorant of the scientific method as they day they were born be admirable? Would a person who clung to any unformed, uninformed state for the rest of their life be admirable?

All of us are educated by our environment - that's how we work. We develop the ability to choose other directions in life as we get older. Some of us do, some of us don't. For some the beliefs of our parents work so well for us (or have such a hold on our psyche) that we see no need to change them. Others kick and scratch and claw their way free of dysfunctional childhood beliefs at any cost. It's the way we work.

I was one of the ones who kicked and scratched and clawed. Oddly enough, it was in the opposite direction. I was born an atheist to atheist parents, bathed since the bassinet in the scientific method. For over 50 years I took that belief to be my own. It took me almost 60 years to work my way free of that narrow closed-minded view, to find a life philosophy that was more functional for me. I'm not a monotheist by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm quite sure my father wouldn't recognize the inside of my head these days.

Again,
So what?

[onager]

40. Anybody else seen the documentary "Babies?"

Veering slightly off-topic, or maybe not...

Relatives forced me to watch it over the holidays.

I actually enjoyed it, which surprised me. I'm a childless old geezer.

For others as Culturally Clueless as myself, it's a documentary that follows 4 babies "from their first breath to their first step." The babies are located in Africa, Mongolia, Tokyo and San Francisco.

The director wanted to make a point that all new babies learn things pretty much the same way, by interacting with their environment. And they learn some things pretty quickly, like - "Don't annoy the cat."

The part that had me realizing babies may be smarter than we think...

In San Francisco, baby Hattie's parents took her to some sort of bizarre woo-woo baby chanting class. A whole room full of goofy parents and their little hostages, sitting around chanting "Koo-noo-ya-yeh" or some crap.

Hattie made a frantic baby-beeline for the doors and started yanking on the handle, as if she were desperately trying to say: "Help! Get me away from these crazy people!"

:rofl:

Most likely the creation of a future skeptic/atheist right there...

[darkstar3]

43. I must be a contrarian,

because even though I've stated flatly that "atheism is the default position" before, I'm going to disagree with you.

Let me be clear: When confronted with the idea of a god-like creature or another supernatural claim, the default position is and should be skepticism. That is the whole point of the Russel's Teapot rhetorical exercise. Something outrageous shouldn't be accepted without evidence. (It's interesting to note the "frog in the cookpot" phenomenon of believers accepting more and more outrageous claims, but let's leave that alone for now.)

Consider, however, the POV of an infant. A superior being (or group of them) provides you with everything you need from above, and all you have to do is cry out to them. Now, this particular scenario doesn't really involve anything like faith, but I think it might just lay the groundwork, along with some genetic predispositions to listen to elders and authority figures, for theistic belief.

In short, I think that if you consider psychological development and the situation of an infant, you can't really state that an infant completely lacks belief. The belief may be strangely defined or even mostly undefined, but I think the state of mind is there. It takes a certain level of maturity to accept the world as it is, rather than as you would like to see it.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. Thanks for the insight

Consider, however, the POV of an infant. A superior being (or group of them) provides you with everything you need from above, and all you have to do is cry out to them. Now, this particular scenario doesn't really involve anything like faith, but I think it might just lay the groundwork, along with some genetic predispositions to listen to elders and authority figures, for theistic belief.

That makes a lot more sense when I try to figure out people's predilection to believe these things. From an infant's/ child's perspective "magical things" like food, comfort, easing of pain, protection from danger, occur when they beseech the "higher power(s)".

Parents (and other adults) then begin re-enforce this belief system with other myth systems (Santa, Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogey Man, etc).

I am not popular with many friends and family as I refuse to play along with the whole "Santa" thing. I won't go out of my way to "spoil" the game or "contradict" a parent directly, but I REFUSE to lie if asked a direct question by a child. Santa, like God, is used as a behavior control device.

OK, I am now prepared to be reamed out by parents outraged by this view.

My own belief is that we should NEVER lie to children, as children eventually figure it out, and a parent's authority is diminished as is their credibility when they do. One may defer answering questions based on emotional maturity, etc, but one should never flat out lie. There may be exceptions, but they would be VERY rare.

[Odin2005]

49. This atheist thinks this is a very interesting post!

Thanks! :)

[rug]

61. I pick Wrong.

There must be a concept of a theos before proclaiming disbelief in that concept. Atheism is not simply disbelief or skepticism; it is a specific disbelief.

[darkstar3]

63. There is a whole subthread above that tackles that topic,

and therefore there was no need for you to rehash it here. Most dictionaries recognize more than one definition of atheism, and those opposed definitions come from the opposing viewpoints of believers and atheists. You will recognize that atheism can be a simple lack of belief, or you will join the ranks of the religiously intolerant.

[rug]

64. One line is hardly a rehash.

And your ultimatum indicates an irony deficiency: "You will recognize that atheism can be a simple lack of belief, or you will join the ranks of the religiously intolerant."

[darkstar3]

65. That's your choice.

After all, if I were to insist that Catholicism were a multi-theistic cult of death-worshippers, and no matter what you tried to tell me I kept repeating that line, you'd call me intolerant. I see no difference between that and the believer's insistence that atheism is merely an active belief that is no different from any other religion.

[rug]

67. That would be a thoughtful response had I said that.

[darkstar3]

69. You didn't say that?

So #61 does not claim, even through implication, that atheism is an active belief that there is no god?

[rug]

70. No.

It doesn't.

Really.

[darkstar3]

72. Your terseness once again works against you.

There is clear implication in #61. You can try to expound and POSSIBLY explain it away, but that would require you to write more than four words.

[rug]

73. It might indeed.

[laconicsax]

66. I'll bet that I can name a dozen things...

in which you have disbelief despite having no concept of what they are.

[rug]

68. Be my guest.

[laconicsax]

76. Ok, here's a list of 12 things in which you have no belief and no prior concept of what they are:

-Arquelipsism
-Schnenkentria
-Schnintenk'tia
-V'sskistic Harktism
-Nohorosh's Gambit
-Rectifiated solenoquism
-Troreschi
-Key'he'ahn
-Cszabalism
-Ltlihtlth
-[    ]
-Ististicism

As you have no belief in these twelve things and no prior concept of what any of them are, how then is it impossible to have no belief in a god without a prior theos concept?

Edit: spelling

[rug]

78. I wouldn't say I was born an acszabalist either.

[laconicsax]

81. Your response doesn't make sense--One isn't a Cszabalist or acszabalist.

It's an -ism the same way as Catholicism or Protestantism.

[rug]

84. or atheism.

[laconicsax]

85. That's twice you've dodged the fact that you were wrong. n/t

[rug]

86. [ ]

[Iggo]

71. Yes.

And it's an absence of belief in gods.



;-)

[struggle4progress]

79. I thought everyone was born a solipsist and then passed into ego-maniacal magical thinking

The first notion of "other" is typically "omnipotent parent"

[kwassa]

80. No one is born an atheist.

The problem with my statement, and your statement, is this:

Nobody knows WHAT a baby believes, because the baby can't articulate a belief, or anything else, for that matter. The concept that atheism is a default position is unprovable because of this, and therefore this concept is essentially useless.

What is more telling is that humans all over the world and throughout the ages, independently of one another, have developed religious beliefs. This would indicate that such beliefs are natural to who we are as humans. Like it, or not.

[darkstar3]

82. You could have done just fine without the last paragraph.

Evolutionary psychology is a ridiculously inaccurate field of study that essentially boils down to armchair quarterbacking. You might also want to keep in mind that frequency of religion in no way validates religion.

[kwassa]

90. I think frequency does validate religion

at least the religious impulse. If it is universal, which it is, then there is meaning to it. There always has been, and there always will be. It is part of who we are.

It adds a great deal to the quality of life experience, too.

[darkstar3]

95. It is not universal, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It is not universal, or there wouldn't be a growing number of self-identified atheists in the world. It is not universal, or religions would share some sort of central tenet. Cast a wide enough net to include Buddhism, Hinduism, and other ancient religions and you will find no such centrality.

Frequency validates nothing. Otherwise masturbation would be socially acceptable and expected.

Universality confers no meaning. Otherwise soil would be the most profound thing on earth.

You've done nothing here but invoke two separate logical fallacies. Myopia and fallacious reasoning do not enhance the quality of my life experience.

[laconicsax]

83. Superstition is a result of how our brains work.

Superstition is the result of an ingrained aptitude for seeing patterns and connections where there are none and religions are born out of superstition. Like it, or not.

[kwassa]

88. In your opinion

Many million would disagree.

[darkstar3]

89. "Many million" also believe that gravity is just a theory.

[kwassa]

91. whatever

I didn't expect to change your mind.

Religion is a central experience in all human cultures.

My basic point in this thread has been made, about the tiresome and false meme that atheism is a default position, a favorite and unsubstantiated belief of some atheists, for which no evidence exists.

so, some atheists believe things without evidence? Hmmm.

[cleanhippie]

97. whatever, indeed.

Religion was developed, first as a way to explain the unexplainable, then as a mechanism of power and control. Even cursory glance at the history of religion reveals that simple fact, something you seem to have missed or are ignoring.

[kwassa]

114. Religion is still a way to explain the unexplainable.

There are great limits to our knowledge, and there are many things that are currently unexplainable. As knowledge is potentially limitless, we are limited in our capacity to know all at any point in history, including right now. There is so much more to be discovered. What fills that void?

By the way, I notice you have not responded to my point that no ones knows what babies believe, therefore the idea that we are born atheists has nothing to support it. Do you have anything to say about this?

[laconicsax]

93. ...and that's a fallacy

More specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum">Argumentum ad populum.

[darkstar3]

94. Where would R/T be without fallacious argumentation?

[Angry Dragon]

87. To argue about a god one must first define a god

[cleanhippie]

98. Agreed.

That is why I am not arguing about god.

[Angry Dragon]

100. Can one have a religion without a god??

Just trying to understand your perimeters of religion

[cleanhippie]

101. My perimeters?

I don't have any. If someone asserts something is true, it falls on that person to prove the assertion. I have attempted to do so in MY OP regarding atheism. That is the only claim I have made.

I make no claims about the truthfulness of religions, I have a lack of belief about them all, as I have seen no evidence of their validity.

Was there a specific point you would like to discuss?

[Angry Dragon]

102. Used the wrong word

I do not think a baby has any concept of god in the way that adults do
Having said that, no one knows what information a baby is born with

[cleanhippie]

103. You make an interesting point.

I do not think a baby has any concept of god in the way that adults do

So, if adults had not asserted that there WAS a god in the first place, would we even HAVE a concept of god to discuss at all?

[Angry Dragon]

106. Man has to apply what is around him to what he understands

Man has spent, since the beginning of his existence, to understand the world around him.
To make sense of it all. To understand why.
It is easier for man to think of a being creating the world than have it come about from nothing or
a fluke. I feel that man has always felt there was something larger in the universe than man.
He has always felt a "god". Look at the pagans. They believed that power came from plants and trees.
People had sun gods.
Everything in the universe is connected. Everything has an effect on everything else.
Man will always search for answers, to see how he fits into the universe. Children always
will try to see how they fit into the world, their family. Perhaps babies do it from the
time they are born. Don't know.
Organized religion is a very exclusive and controlling organization.
To think of a power that is larger than man is scary at times.
If one can give it a face makes it easier to accept.

[cleanhippie]

108. Agreed.

I cannot disagree with you at all. I can see how in earlier times, creating a "god" would help explain the unexplainable. But as we have progressed in our understanding of the world, I no longer see a need to create a "god" to explain the things we have yet to understand. I think it is all a matter of time before we "know" the next big thing we currently do not understand, and history has shown that "god" has been responsible for none of it, so why should we expect the next thing we understand to be caused by "god"?

[Angry Dragon]

110. Fear

It has been shown that people will revert back to something that gives them hope for the future
when they hit a time of stress or have a fear of the future.
The people that follow a religion today have a great fear of what the future holds for them
and mankind. It is easier for them to believe in something that they have no control over.
That this "god" will make things right instead of relying on themselves or others like them.
I only have to believe to be saved. The world around them is too much for them to handle
without this belief. Their problem lyes (sp) with whom they believe is telling them the truth.

If someone wants to believe in a god and it helps them travel through their life and makes it
better then I do not have a problem with that. it is when they try to force their beliefs on others and
close off their mind to new wonders of the universe, then I have a problem with them.


Not everyone is created the same.

[cleanhippie]

113. We are not so different after all.

If someone wants to believe in a god and it helps them travel through their life and makes it
better then I do not have a problem with that. it is when they try to force their beliefs on others and
close off their mind to new wonders of the universe, then I have a problem with them.

Pretty much sums up mine, and just about every other atheists mindset. Too bad the rest of the believers cannot "get it".

Thank you very much for the reasonable, rational conversation. In the end, it turned out we weren't so different after all. Perhaps some of the others reading our sub-thread will take a lesson from us.

:toast:

[Angry Dragon]

118. There is a slight problem with that

I do not consider myself an atheist

I have searched and studied religion for over 40 years.
I don't know.
No one will know until the journey is over.

[cleanhippie]

119. You don't have to...

consider yourself an atheist.

[houstonintc]

92. In the same sense...

A tree is an Atheist since it technically doesn't have an opinion on the subject and it's most immediate "thoughts" are not really about some spiritual realm or anything like that.

A babies concerns are significant;y closer to itself since it is unaware it was even born, will eventually die or could even see let alone recognize itself in the mirror.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

96. you're right...

Sometimes we are insecure and make a religious choice to gain more security.

[cleanhippie]

99. Or

have it forced upon by our parents because we trust them not to take advantage of our ignorance.

[AlecBGreen]

104. this is an issue I am grappling with CH

'(forcing) religion on my kids'

I do not have children but my wife and I are planning on starting our family next year. I have been wondering what I will say to/teach my child about my beliefs. My wife is not a believer so how will that come into the equation? There are no easy answers.

Of this I am certain: there are truths which a child must be taught before they can possibly understand intellectually. Some are practical (dont drink anything you find in the cabinet under the sink), some are cultural (dont cuss or spit), some are ethical (do not steal even if you know you wont get caught). To me personally, religious belief could be the same. I will teach my child WHAT I THINK IS THE TRUTH, knowing full well that I myself have an imperfect understanding of reality. As they mature, I will welcome their questions and discuss any topic to their hearts content. Until they reach that age, I will teach them what I think best. I know its not perfect but I am at a loss for what else to do. I cant just let them go and hope for the best. Its a hard, hard thing to think about.

If you dont mind my asking, do you have kids?

[cleanhippie]

105. I read a book that changed my whole mindset on this

No, no that book, silly! Its called Parenting Beyond Belief by Dale McGowan. It illustrates that is is not only possible, but easy to raise you children without imposing your own beliefs (or lack of them) and instead teaching your children how to think critically. to be skeptical, to educate them about the religions of the world (religious education as opposed to religious indoctrination) and allowing them to form their OWN opinions about religion, then SUPPORTING that decision, even if its not the one you made for yourself.
It also prompted me to join the local UU Fellowship, where I have met some of the nicest, most tolerant and inclusive people. We have a congregation headed by an gay minister who has a Masters Degree in Theology, but is an atheist, comprised of a majority of Atheists, some Wiccans and New Agers, a smattering of Christians and a few others form various religious persuasions.
I implore you to have a look at that book and see how some people have chosen to raise their kids without imposing their own beliefs (or lack of them).

[AlecBGreen]

107. It looks like a good book and not too pricey either

I agree with you that children MUST be taught to think critically and analyze situations and decide for themself.

It will be very tough for me to support some of my child's decision if I think it is the wrong one. Some may be easier than others ("well, I wouldnt dye my hair purple but its your call son") but others I dont see how I could ever support. If the kid takes to hard drugs, I CANNOT support that. It only leads to death. Likewise, how can I support a child's decision if I think it leads to spiritual ruination?

The key words are "I think." I am not so arrogant as to assume I have a lock on reality. But where do I draw the line? I am 100% positive that becoming addicted to heroin is bad. I am likewise 100% certain that living solely for oneself without concern for others wellbeing, leading a life without reflection through prayer/meditation/etc will be an unfulfilled life. How can I be be a good parent without raising my child to believe the same?

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I trust raising a child will be the hardest thing I ever do so I truly appreciate any input or advice you can offer.

[cleanhippie]

109. Well, I think the subject of "accepting"

in the current context was simply "accepting" whatever it is they choose in regard to a belief (or lack of belief) system, as long as that decision was an INFORMED one.

The drugs, hair color, etc, are unrelated to the current topic, and I think discussing them further in THIS thread will only cloud the issue, no? I would be happy to discuss those "choices", just as a new topic.

But yes, raising a child is difficult. We have a nearly 2 year old, and it is taking much vigilance on my part NOT to try and shape her opinions to conform to mine (on this subject). I struggle with it every day about how to answer that first "question". The Santa Clause problem is a great dry run. Try reading this story, http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=4982 , and see what you think.

[Desertrose]

115. Wrong.

There is a difference between atheism, religion and spirituality.

Most children have a sense of wonder & connectedness with spirit until they are taught otherwise by authority figures telling them they are wrong.

From my observations over many years.

[cleanhippie]

117. You are right, but not about me being wrong.

There is a difference between atheism, religion and spirituality.

Atheism is alack of belief, but religion and spirituality are active belief systems.

And I also agree that children have a natural sense of wonder about the world, but have it suppressed by authority fiugres who do not want THEIR beliefs (often irrational ones even children can recognize) questioned.

[Codeine]

116. I certainly was.

My mom never taught me religion, God, Santa, or any of that other shit. She didn't teach me atheism either, but I always have been. Even as a tyke I knew it was balderdash.

[Deep13]

120. I don't know if that is true.

While one cannot be in any specific religion without being exposed to its dogmas, I tend to think that there are aspects of human nuerology and psychology that causes a person to think that there is some underlying, universal purpose to how the world works. Assuming and inferring purpose of specific things (tools, animals, plants etc.) and processes (weather etc.) may have survival advantages in our prehistoric condition. Likewise, our inate tendency to see ourselves as somehow inhabiting our bodies rather than being our bodies (psychological dualism) lends credence to the idea that an incorporeal directing power can exist. Likewise is our brains' ability to make shit up to explain apparently nonsensical sights and sounds. A small fraction of what we see at any given moment is hallucination anyway: the brain must fill in the gaps caused by blood vessels running in front of our retinas.

These things have no bearing on whether or not a god or some other kind of directing spirit exists, but they can make it seem feasible an uncritical mind and may be our uneducated default position. It would help explain the prevelance of religiousity in the world.

[peopleb4money]

123. Children are born without any ideology

I see atheism as an ideological structure. Infants are just clueless and completely innocent of all the stuff that we fight over at a later age. They have no attachment to any of it or emotions invested in an identity. Yah, they might not believe in dogmatic and anthropomorphic interpretations of God, but as one who believes that there's a divinity within our selves and within the whole universe that interconnects all consciousness together, I can't really say that they don't believe in God or aren't aware of a sacredness that the ego only clouds as we get older and that we all face in life as a challenge to overcome. I see God as just another human label that does a poor job of translating meaning from person to person.

[laconicsax]

124. Really? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the "ideology" of atheism.

Particularly upon which beliefs you think atheism is based.

[peopleb4money]

125. Its an assertion about reality

A lot of atheists also think they'll be able to save the world too if they convince everyone to be atheist. A lot of them hold it as a kind of tenant and build an identity out of the label. Usually their reasons for not believing in god follows a set of arguing points like any ideology. Infants just don't have that ability yet.

[cleanhippie]

126. "A lot of"... how many is that?

and where do they meet? How are they organized? Who is the leader?

[LAGC]

129. Their leader is Richard Dawkins, and he's out to spread his ideology by force.

Clearly he wants to convert every believer into a rigid atheist, so that none are left to oppose his atheist agenda.

[laconicsax]

127. I don't think you actually understand what you're talking about.

Do you understand the difference between atheism and anti-theism? I take it that since your response is about anti-theism rather than atheism, you don't.

Many atheists (probably most) also have a primary reason for not believing in a god that has nothing to do with a "set of arguing points." That reason is a lack of evidence offered in support of the claim that any given god exists. Withholding belief in lieu of a reason to believe isn't at all ideological, it's a normal reaction to an extraordinary, unsubstantiated claim.

If someone told you that they had the recipe for a magic sandwich that prevents and cures cancer, you probably wouldn't believe them. Would you say that your amagicsandwichism is the result of an ideology, or simply the result of withholding belief in lie of a reason to believe such an outlandish claim?

[Pterodactyl]

128. Not quite. I think folks are born with a natural curiosity about spiritual matters.

[Codeine]

130. I wasn't.

Not a shred. The whole subject smacks of silliness and bores me -- always has.

[cleanhippie]

131. Can you provide any evidence that what you "think" has any merit as a fact?

Not being snarky, but on what do you base that conclusion? Your feelings on the matter or an actual study?

[humblebum]

132. Your opinion does in fact have some merit. It has been theorized that

there is an a priori knowledge or innate tendency to ponder the possibility of a supernatural or metaphysical existence. The "god-gene" hypothesis also suggests something of this nature and studies of isolated and ancient cultures add credence to these ideas.