Are we born atheist?

Brian Shanahan

Saipanne wrote: »

I thought that too. I think "absence of belief" is a cop out, personally.


I did a quick Google on the op, and saw this:

To imply that babies have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming that they have a default language or nationality (not sure about nationality).

I've never heard of the author. But I "believe" ad hominem posts are imminent.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism

You've just linked to Andrew Brown, whose articles consist mainly of the assertion "I'm an atheist, but religion, its all true its all great, ITS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111oneoneoneoen11111eleven!" and the rest consist of denigrating those who want evidence for assertions as Daleks, as per the link in my sig.

To be honest, I've never seen a single thing from him worth spending my time over, much as I've tried to find value in his articles over the years.

silverharp

its all relative , for instance the term " settled community " has no meaning for me but put me in a field with a hundred travellers and suddenly you might have to use the phrase. atheism only has meaning because people are slow to drop cultural programming. if half the population believed in leprechauns youd have to invent a term to define those that didnt.

TheLurker

Liamario wrote: »

Personally, I think not. My 2.5 year old boy has no concept of a god either way, so to call him an atheist would be inaccurate.

I imagine most children left completely alone and not educated in modern notions of critical thinking and scientific explanations will invent their own gods. Human history would seem to very much support this, as religion seems to be pervasive across human cultures.

As such one could argue that human children have a natural tendency towards imagining deities exist. So if by "born atheist" you mean belief in deities is against our nature, I would say no.

PopePalpatine

Somehow this thread reminds me of the Mughal Emperor Akbar's language deprivation experiment to find the natural voice of humans.

Peregrinus

A newborn is an atheist in the sense that, say, a carrot is an atheist. They both lack any belief in god, which is pretty much the definition of atheism.

But I don't think it's particulary meaningful to say that a newborn (or, for that matter, a carrot) is an atheist. There is no significance to anybody's atheism unless they have the capacity to be a theist.

Turtwig

I'd like to think that someday there'll be no significance attached to atheism in the same vein of the over used example non stamp collecting.

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

I'd like to think that someday there'll be no significance attached to atheism in the same vein of the over used example non stamp collecting.

It would make the A&A Board a bit pointless, though, wouldn't it?

Turtwig

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would make the A&A Board a bit pointless, though, wouldn't it?

Yep but it'd be worth the loss. I'll miss the well wishes and gifts.

obplayer

Turtwig wrote: »

I'd like to think that someday there'll be no significance attached to atheism in the same vein of the over used example non stamp collecting.

Or indeed theism.

Turtwig

obplayer wrote: »

Or indeed theism.

Well that would negate the non stamp collecting comparison. I don't mind theism I just wish we didn't need a word for not being theistic.

smacl

seventeen sheep wrote: »

I think perhaps there's a distinction between being atheist and being non-religious?

I consider myself atheist. I was baptised Catholic, I was brought up as a Catholic. As I got older, I learned more about Christianity and about other religions. And I realised that I had no reason or desire to believe in any of the gods out there. It was (and is) a concious and continuous thought process, based on education and experience.

My child won't be baptised, although of course I'm happy for him to learn about every religion, from an academic point of view. But I think that I consider him to be non-religious, for now. He's not atheist (nor is he religious), because he doesn't realise what religion is, and it'll be quite a few years before he does.

I'm not sure that holds. I was raised atheist by atheist parents, and raise my kids atheist. Being aware that other people believe in gods, and continuing to declare you do not share these beliefs is enough to make one an atheist. My take on non-religious people are those who simply take no interest in religion whatsoever, regardless of whether they're nominally religious or not.

As for the opening question, I would consider I was born atheist, as I was born to atheist parents. Similarly, I would say someone born to Catholic parents who intended to raise the child Catholic was born Catholic. i.e. you are can be reasonably described as born into a tradition, much the same was as you can a place.

robindch

Turtwig wrote: »

I'd like to think that someday there'll be no significance attached to atheism in the same vein of the over used example non stamp collecting.

Off-topic question, but who collects stamps these days? Is it growing as a hobby, or is it declining to the status of collecting mail-headers?

Akrasia

From my experience of my own kids, here is the comprehensive breakdown of the beliefs of all children

0-3 months
Nihilist
What is everything and does it really matter anyway?

3-6 months
Epicureanist
(Feed ME!!!)

6-12 months
Communist
(no I don't want to eat your butternut squash that you're trying to shove in my mouth but thanks for sharing)

12-24 months
Ayn Randian style individualist
(It's mine and you can't have it me me me me me me me)

2-5 years old
Egoist/ human alchemist
I am everything that matters and I am also able to transform into anything I like at a split seconds notice

5 +
Beginning to form opinions about the nature of reality.. Still thinks he/she is 'the flash' sometimes


Young children are capable of believing in anything that they are told is real. Adults have a responsibility to make sure that these beliefs enhance their lives and do not have long term harmful effects. Eg, it's lovely that they believe in santa and the bfg and unicorns, and it would be horrible if they were convinced that the bogeyman really did live in their bedroom and was waiting for the opportunity to snatch them away to a universe of eternal torture and anguish.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

Off-topic question, but who collects stamps these days? Is it growing as a hobby, or is it declining to the status of collecting mail-headers?

Stamp collecting is both a hobby, and an investment strategy. Rare stamps are similar to art and gold as methods to hedge against the volitility of stock and currency markets

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-stamps-are-bond-king-bill-grosss-favorite-investment-2014-06-19

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

[...] it's lovely that they believe in santa and the bfg and unicorns, and it would be horrible if they were convinced that the bogeyman really did live in their bedroom and was waiting for the opportunity to snatch them away to a universe of eternal torture and anguish.

Call me a fun-squashing helicopter parent, but I don't really see what's lovely about kids believing in Santa. Yes, it's easy enough to see it as "cutesy", but I don't find that any more pleasant than luminous-pink Barbie dresses. With my own kid, I never said explicitly that Santa was there and didn't say he wasn't there either. We just talked about it as a nice story that people liked and she was fine with that.

jank

Humans are innately spiritual and in previously atheist countries religion is growing. This would mean that for whatever reason humans still look to religion for a truth, whatever that may be. In fact the fact that religion exists at all would indicate that we are not born atheist as religion had to come from somewhere.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

Call me a fun-squashing helicopter parent, but I don't really see what's lovely about kids believing in Santa. Yes, it's easy enough to see it as "cutesy", but I don't find that any more pleasant than luminous-pink Barbie dresses. With my own kid, I never said explicitly that Santa was there and didn't say he wasn't there either. We just talked about it as a nice story that people liked and she was fine with that.

Each to their own, I just think that reality is a harsh place and children are only innocent for a few short years so let them believe in magic and super heroes and fantasy when they're young. I don't go around telling them that magic is real, but I don't explicitly tell them it's not real either. I go along with their imagination most of the time and let them work it out for themselves.

If they ask me 'is this real' I often reflect it back onto them 'do you think it's real?'.
When they have bad dreams or are scared about something, I tell them that monsters aren't real and they can't hurt them, but it's fun to pretend sometimes and thats a balance I'm happy with.

Right now, my 5 year old son is more worried about supernovas than vampires because he knows that vampires are pretend, but supernovas are real. I just have to keep re-assuring him that the earth is safe from supernovas because our star is too small (but that our planet will eventually be engulfed by our star as it turns into a red giant before collapsing down to a white dwarf... maybe I should leave the bedtime stories to my wife)

Akrasia

jank wrote: »

Humans are innately spiritual curious and in previously atheist countries religion is growing. This would mean that for whatever reason humans still look to religion for a truth, whatever that may be. In fact the fact that religion exists at all would indicate that we are not born atheist as religion had to come from somewhere.

I edited your post there. I think the reason people have latched onto religion has always been that there were gaps in our knowledge that we filled with god(s).

People and nations with the highest quality education are more likely to reject the god hypothesis in favour of empiricism and science.

When people find religion in answer to a question, the problem is almost always that it was a poorly formed question to begin with.


"What is the meaning of life?" The reason nobody has ever answered this question is because it's not a fully formed question.

It's like asking "What is the difference between an orange?"

People can be tricked into thinking something is profound through tricks and wordplay. One of the silliest aspects of religion is that people often say it's a quest for 'truth' but never a quest for 'the truth'
Leaving 'the' out changes the meaning of 'truth' rendering it meaningless

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

Yep but it'd be worth the loss. I'll miss the well wishes and gifts.

We'll just turn it into the Jaffa Cakes and Hawai'ian Pizza forum. Problem sorted.

Shrap

Akrasia wrote: »

Right now, my 5 year old son is more worried about supernovas than vampires because he knows that vampires are pretend, but supernovas are real. I just have to keep re-assuring him that the earth is safe from supernovas because our star is too small (but that our planet will eventually be engulfed by our star as it turns into a red giant before collapsing down to a white dwarf... maybe I should leave the bedtime stories to my wife)

Oh dear, yes. Both my kids were scared of comet strikes at about age 5. Also got a bit panicked about CERN producing microscopic black holes in their large hadron collider experiments (stupid internet)! Currently are a bit concerned about ebola and anti-vaxers putting people at risk. A little information goes a long way with kids.

I hated them believing in Santa tbh. If I had been able to (and I wasn't, knowing that my youngest especially wouldn't have held back in telling his peers the TRUTH) I'd have handled it like robin. I was seriously unimpressed by being caught in the lie of my own making when little Thomás got the xbox, Pádraig got the PS3 and my kid "only" got the camera and the makey makey kit.....sigh.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

Currently are a bit concerned about ebola and anti-vaxers putting people at risk.

Good on 'em!

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

Good on 'em!

Yeah, they're not oblivious! However, my eldest is actually nervy about things beyond our control that are real and is only just finding out what it's like to come up against fears that aren't evidence based. It's like a battle of the fears - one side being the (fairly common in these parts) chem-trail/big-pharma conspirators, the other being those who are sh1t scared of "the stupid". Sigh. T'was ever thus.

obplayer

jank wrote: »

Humans are innately spiritual and in previously atheist countries religion is growing. This would mean that for whatever reason humans still look to religion for a truth, whatever that may be. In fact the fact that religion exists at all would indicate that we are not born atheist as religion had to come from somewhere.

Evidence and links please?

Brian Shanahan

Shrap wrote: »

Oh dear, yes. Both my kids were scared of comet strikes at about age 5.

A bit like this?

Shrap

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A bit like this?

Oooh....is that from Civilisation? The penny drops...





*beats self up for bad parenting*

Edit: It doesn't actually give "I bet the Jews did this" as an option, does it? :eek: Fcuk me, what else did it say through the game? :eek:


*beats self up for bad parenting, again*

Brian Shanahan

Shrap wrote: »

Oooh....is that from Civilisation? The penny drops...





*beats self up for bad parenting*

Edit: It doesn't actually give "I bet the Jews did this" as an option, does it? :eek: Fcuk me, what else did it say through the game? :eek:


*beats self up for bad parenting, again*

Europa Universalis IV from Paradox actually. I think the picture is of a modded version of the event (though it may be a variant for certain nations, the game replicates renaissance and enligthenment culture which was quite anti-semitic), the original version gives four choices:
It's an omen! (result=-1 stability)
The end is nigh! (result=-1 stab)
Ignore the peasant rabble (result=-1 stab)
Stop looking at the sky! (result=-1 stab)

Paradox's idea of a joke is to give you an event that hurts no matter what. It's not quite as bad as dwarf fortress (motto="Dying is fun!") but it can be pretty sadistic.

jank

obplayer wrote: »

Evidence and links please?

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a6d2a690-6545-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

Plenty of reading there.

Russia would be another example. Stalin did his best to stamp it out completely in the 30's (the only god was Communism and Uncle Joe), yet its still there today.

jank

Akrasia wrote: »

I edited your post there. I think the reason people have latched onto religion has always been that there were gaps in our knowledge that we filled with god(s).

See, there ya go. Assuming that I meant spirituality = religion/god when I did not. One can be spiritual but not believe in 'god'.

Akrasia wrote: »

People and nations with the highest quality education are more likely to reject the god hypothesis in favour of empiricism and science.

True in the West, not true in the East or Middle East though so the jury is out on that one.

Akrasia wrote: »

When people find religion in answer to a question, the problem is almost always that it was a poorly formed question to begin with.

A little presumptuous and high minded don't you think? As if you, one person knows what questions all the religious people in the world ask. This 'we know better, listen up stupid' type of rhetoric from peacocking atheists is just another way for them to look down on others.

pauldla

jank wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a6d2a690-6545-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

Plenty of reading there.

Russia would be another example. Stalin did his best to stamp it out completely in the 30's (the only god was Communism and Uncle Joe), yet its still there today.

You are conflating religion with Christianity there, Jank. The links you provide do not support your argument that previously atheist countries are becoming more religious, they show that the numbers professing Christianity are increasing. The contemporary rise of Christianity in China is inarguable (and worrying for the powers that be); the argument that religion in China is on the rise is much more complex and nuanced (did it ever really go away?)

Akrasia

jank wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a6d2a690-6545-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

Plenty of reading there.

From your third link

""If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added."

These are poor gullible people being sold a lie. China still has very low educational attainment compared with the west
Less than 5% of chinese people have third level education, less than 65% of the population have second level education.

Also, China censors freedom of speech. It is illegal for chinese citizens to discuss topics like religion and politically sensitive matters on internet discussion forums, so people are more vulnerable to being mislead and lied to because they do not have access to information that can verify what they are being told.

The people of China are not stupid, but because of the totalitarian regime, they are ignorant, because they do not have access to the information they need to fully assess the world around them.