The atheist mindset

branie2

Have you ever been to Lourdes, Knock and Fatima?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I did see that sentence. But I don't see that that helps you.

You are certainly free to believe that "bodily Assumption" and "assumed, body and soul" does not mean, well, the assumption of the physical body. Personally, I'd go with the text that's there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christians don't understand the general resurrection of the dead as involving physical flight up into the sky, so a parallel between the Assumption and the general resurrection doesn't go very far towards justifying your claim.

Have a read of the 1 Thessalonians which I quoted above:

1 Thessalonians 4 wrote:

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

I think that's clear enough - resurrected people will fly up into the air - unless you're going to claim that "caught up", "clouds" and "air" are also metaphorical in some sense.

Anyhow, I think we should agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, the primary meaning is clear enough, albeit ridiculous - which is really the point I'm making.

kelly1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's a big difference between having an open mind, and accepting any old woo as fact without any credible evidence at all. Hardly a sign of intelligence, quite the opposite.

I'll just leave this here, not going to argue over the interpretation:

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here, not going to argue over the interpretation:

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

Could you maybe explain to us what the point or purpose of that quote is?

branie2

robindch wrote: »

You are certainly free to believe that "bodily Assumption" and "assumed, body and soul" does not mean, well, the assumption of the physical body. Personally, I'd go with the text that's there.Have a read of the 1 Thessalonians which I quoted above:I think that's clear enough - resurrected people will fly up into the air - unless you're going to claim that "caught up", "clouds" and "air" are also metaphorical in some sense.

Anyhow, I think we should agree to disagree on this. As far as I'm concerned, the primary meaning is clear enough, albeit ridiculous - which is really the point I'm making.

The rapture!

RichieO

branie2 wrote: »

The rapture!

Thanks for contribution, one word that explains exactly what you need to know...

Rapture from the Greek word meaning "to snatch away"

Dictionary. Rapture;
Ecstasy, bliss, euphoria, elation, exaltation, joy, joyfulness, joyousness, cloud nine, seventh heaven, transport, rhapsody, enchantment, delight, exhilaration, happiness, pleasure, ravishment...

I'll go with Ecstasy, you have to be on it to believe any of it...

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here, not going to argue over the interpretation:

In responding to the drive-by poster I was referring more to crystals, reiki, homeopathy, reflexology, etc. but if you want to drag christianity down to that level be my guest!

ginger_hammer

I don't get why non-atheists (yes double negative but it makes more sense to me) assume that atheists are a) a group and b) think that science has all the answers to everything. Science is just applying theories, making observations, revising theories when new data comes to light, etc - its not a belief system! Quite the opposite!

Also all the religions are mutually exclusive, in that if the christians/bible is actually 100% correct, then all muslims, hindus, etc are all wrong. The same applies to them all and the only logical solution is that they are all wrong.

Another thing that interests me is if a very religious person now was born before their religion was invented, then what would they believe? Say a Christian was born 2000 years ago, when Christianity wasn't yet invented. I suppose the holy books must insert some get-out clause.

RichieO

ginger_hammer wrote: »

I don't get why non-atheists (yes double negative but it makes more sense to me) assume that atheists are a) a group and b) think that science has all the answers to everything. Science is just applying theories, making observations, revising theories when new data comes to light, etc - its not a belief system! Quite the opposite!

Also all the religions are mutually exclusive, in that if the christians/bible is actually 100% correct, then all muslims, hindus, etc are all wrong. The same applies to them all and the only logical solution is that they are all wrong.

Another thing that interests me is if a very religious person now was born before their religion was invented, then what would they believe? Say a Christian was born 2000 years ago, when Christianity wasn't yet invented. I suppose the holy books must insert some get-out clause.

ALL babies are born atheist by default, religion is passed on from the parents, with the help of whichever church they belong to, only brainwashing can sustain religions...

keep looking, question EVERYTHING always....

One eyed Jack

ginger_hammer wrote: »

I don't get why non-atheists (yes double negative but it makes more sense to me) assume that atheists are a) a group and b) think that science has all the answers to everything. Science is just applying theories, making observations, revising theories when new data comes to light, etc - its not a belief system! Quite the opposite!

I don't think tribalism, in-group and out-group thinking is particularly peculiar to theists, deists or pantheists (see what I did there? ), or atheists for that matter, some of whom actually do regard themselves as a group, a collective, people whom happen to share at least one idea in common. Categorising people into their various groups is particularly useful in the social sciences, which depending upon other common traits among their peers, can often lead to some fairly funky belief systems coming to the fore of popular science. The physical sciences do of course lend themselves more naturally to the use of the scientific method, the metaphysical sciences - not so much! They tend to lend themselves more naturally to beliefs, whether it be philosophy, political science and so on.

Of course if you were like myself to view science itself as an all encompassing, abstract concept, then science is all around us, and it inspires us to investigate phenomena. The investigation of the physical sciences (in most of the Western world anyway) uses the scientific method, and has done for many centuries, because it's proven reliable for one thing - it is dependent upon consensus through peer review. In that context at least, it could be argued that because of the need for a common standard to examine evidence when it is presented, agreement is reached through a belief that the evidence is credible, falsifiable, etc. That's exactly why a theory will hold, until new data comes to light which may be offered as a more credible explanation for observed phenomena.

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Also all the religions are mutually exclusive, in that if the christians/bible is actually 100% correct, then all muslims, hindus, etc are all wrong. The same applies to them all and the only logical solution is that they are all wrong.

I don't know that I'd agree that all religions actually are mutually exclusive. Certainly while idolatry being forbidden is one of the basic tennets of the major world religions, they also all share a commonality as monotheistic ideologies derived from Abraham, so there's quite a bit of cross-over between the bible, the quran and the tanakh, For what it's worth, you may have noticed that literalists tend to tie themselves up in knots, as much of the texts of each of the different religions tends to be contradictory in many places. This is often due to misinterpretation, but much more of it is due to misrepresentation, so it's understandable at least, even logical, that contradictions are going to arise due to how different people can often interpret the exact same set of circumstances or events differently. Nobody started writing this stuff down until relatively recently in human history, and even then the bible at least was only popularised by the invention of the printing press!

The exception on that list of course is Hinduism.

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Another thing that interests me is if a very religious person now was born before their religion was invented, then what would they believe? Say a Christian was born 2000 years ago, when Christianity wasn't yet invented. I suppose the holy books must insert some get-out clause.

Could believe anything really, or nothing. It's impossible to know really. One thing is for certain at least - a Christian couldn't have been born before Christianity. What get-out clause might you think is necessary exactly?

RichieO wrote: »

ALL babies are born atheist by default, religion is passed on from the parents, with the help of whichever church they belong to, only brainwashing can sustain religions...

keep looking, question EVERYTHING always....

Actually I used believe too that people were born atheist by default, until it was pointed out that if a person has no awareness whatsoever of the concept of God, Gods, etc, then they would equally have no concept of atheism, which takes a position on the nature and concept of God, Gods, etc. Therefore it's more accurate to suggest that people are born non-religious by default, and then you could at least suggest that by exposure to the various social constructs, people form their identities, and they may lean more towards one group or another depending upon any number of both internal and external influences to which they are exposed as they develop from infanthood to adulthood, throughout their lives.

With regard to the efficacy of brainwashing, well...

First things first: There is no scientific proof that brainwashing (a theoretical form of mind control) exists or is even possible. The term itself is no longer used by mental health professionals (well, reputable professionals, that is), and no peer-reviewed experiments or studies have been done that demonstrate that it is even possible.

Source: Is Brainwashing Real?


Though I do agree that it is healthy to ask questions and seek answers to those questions, from as many sources as possible. Google isn't very helpful right now but I do remember reading a paper before that suggested that critical thinking is an innate ability in humans anyway, and even moreso in children, so the idea even that a child could be forced to believe something which doesn't make any sense to them is a misguided belief in itself, which definitely I would say warrants further questioning and investigation, should you be so inclined.

RichieO

Actually I used believe too that people were born atheist by default, until it was pointed out that if a person has no awareness whatsoever of the concept of God, Gods, etc, then they would equally have no concept of atheism, which takes a position on the nature and concept of God, Gods, etc. Therefore it's more accurate to suggest that people are born non-religious by default, and then you could at least suggest that by exposure to the various social constructs, people form their identities, and they may lean more towards one group or another depending upon any number of both internal and external influences to which they are exposed as they develop from infanthood to adulthood, throughout their lives.

Atheism is not a concept. I became agnostic then atheist long before I had heard either word, I doubted, then I stopped believing, in the ensuing 60 + years nothing has given me any reason to believe I had backed the wrong horse, I never stopped looking, questioning and learning...

One eyed Jack

RichieO wrote: »

Atheism is not a concept. I became agnostic then atheist long before I had heard either word, I doubted, then I stopped believing, in the ensuing 60 + years nothing has given me any reason to believe I had backed the wrong horse, I never stopped looking, questioning and learning...

Atheism is of course a concept, and whether or not you were ever or never aware if it as a concept is neither here nor there, nor is your age relevant, unless you were attempting to prove a point by suggesting you still possess the mentality of an infant with regard to your concept of atheism.

Do you apply the same standard of awareness of concepts to other concepts, such as gravity? I don't see any evidence of infants floating about the place either due to their lack of awareness of the concept of gravity.

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

keep looking, question EVERYTHING always....

Especially atheism! Do you often look under the theology or philosophy rocks?

But seriously, you can't really question *everything*! You'd go bonkers if you did. Scepticism is good but I think it can be taken too far. There's so much we have to take on faith. When's the last time you measured the speed of light? A bit of a stretch I know, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point.

Then there's scientism. Seems a lot of atheists trust only what can be empirically verified. What's wrong with pure reason? Why assume everything must have a natural explanation? Are atheists afraid of looking stupid?

It's really struck me in the past week the total intransigence and stubbornness in this forum. Most responses to my posts were no, no, but, but. A couple of reluctant agrees followed by but. Frankly it's a bit draining.

I sense too some peer pressure element, wanting to confirm to the atheist orthodoxy, and downright rejection of different ideas without due consideration, frequent knee-jerk reactions. Point scoring instead of trying to understand the other side. I also see a pattern of what appears to be prepared responses learned through wearisome debates, too many cliches being trotted out.

A bit of a rambling post I know, more of a emotional response than any kind of solid argument. Yes, I'm human.

The End.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Especially atheism! Do you often look under the theology or philosophy rocks?

Yes, I've looked there. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Not much in the way of substance.

kelly1 wrote: »

Scepticism is good but I think it can be taken too far.

Your quote from Bush above is reductionist to the point of nihilism. Would you count that as "scepticism taken too far"?

kelly1 wrote: »

Then there's scientism. Seems a lot of atheists trust only what can be empirically verified. What's wrong with pure reason? Why assume everything must have a natural explanation? Are atheists afraid of looking stupid?

What you refer to as "pure reason" - as far as I can see, it's rhetoric - elegantly dressed words, resonant phrases, orotund verbiage which - when boiled down - represents nothing. You haven't deployed anything that I'd call "pure reason" yet. But feel free to have a go.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's really struck me in the past week the total intransigence and stubbornness in this forum. Most responses to my posts were no, no, but, but. A couple of reluctant agrees followed by but. Frankly it's a bit draining.

Again, have you considered the possibility that you might be the one with the faulty thinking? Bear in mind that there are thousands of religions that you don't believe in, all of whose believers reckon that you're wrong, just as you reckon they're wrong. All believers can't be right, since they all make different truth-claims. However, they can all be wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

I sense too some peer pressure element, wanting to confirm to the atheist orthodoxy, and downright rejection of different ideas without due consideration, frequent knee-jerk reactions.

Atheism is not a religion and people here don't do it to "look cool" though I concede that there appear to be a lot of religious people who believe that atheist believers form peer-groups in the same or a similar fashion to the way religious people form peer-groups. We don't.

Though I can't help but wonder if your experience with peer-pressure in religion is - again - leading you to think about posters here in the wrong way.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

It's really struck me in the past week the total intransigence and stubbornness in this forum.

what did you expect? the scales to fall from our eyes?
do you think an atheist posting consistently in the christianity forum would have any more luck than you have had here?

you simply haven't presented an argument which has convinced people; the failing is not on the side of the audience.

RichieO

I think we use different dictionaries, a concept is an abstract idea in my book, so atheism is label stuck on people who do not believe in the concept of a deity, gravity is a fact not an abstract idea... Arguing semantics is only exposing the vulnerabilities of labels...

Optimalprimerib

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In responding to the drive-by poster I was referring more to crystals, reiki, homeopathy, reflexology, etc. but if you want to drag christianity down to that level be my guest!

This is my problem. Atheists put themselves on a pedestal above anyone who has a belief that does not match their own. They close their mind to other beliefs or mantras because science cannot prove it yet. That does not mean that there is no grounding to that belief. It just has not been found yet.

Look there are plenty out there that believe blindly on certain things, but if they can get a comfort from that without harming others, it puts them in a happier place.

I have religious friends. Some that truly believe in the gift of prayer, that it offers a comfort or gives resolve. Some that go to mass because they are afraid of their mammy. Go late and nearly trip over themselves falling out the door as soon as it is over.

I have atheist friends as well. Some that I never knew were atheists as they keep it to themselves unless asked. Some that I knew were atheists before I knew their name.

On both sides, they have different levels of intelligence on different aspects of their lives. So to say that atheists have a higher IQ or intelligence than non atheists is folly even a little arrogant. There is nothing wrong in believing the unbelievable if it makes you a better, stronger person.

smacl

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

So to say that atheists have a higher IQ or intelligence than non atheists is folly even a little arrogant.

It might be worth pointing out here that the post that asserted that religious people have lower IQs was made by a Catholic poster, Peregrinus and this post was backed by a Wikipedia article that linked a number of studies in this area. As and atheist, I pointed out a number of potential issues with this assertion, where I suspect on the one hand there are confounding variables at play and on the other the dangers of misapplying IQ as a metric. I would suggest you re-think where the arrogance is here. My opinion is that it is arrogant to try to polarise the population into theists and atheists and then pass sweeping unsupported generalisations across as fact which are actually no more than biased anecdote.

There is nothing wrong in believing the unbelievable if it makes you a better, stronger person.

I'd agree, but there is no reason for anyone else to consider such beliefs to be credible to the extent that they should share those beliefs. Someone tells me they're a Christian or Muslim and they derive great strength and an improved life from prayer, I'm happy for them. If they suggest I join in their prayer, I say thanks but no thanks. If they try to foist their beliefs on my children through schools funded by my taxes, I object strongly and vocally. If they say their God considers homosexuality an abomination, or attempts to restrict what a woman can or cannot do with her body, or attempts to restrict access to contraception, I become extremely critical of their God and their religion.

Samaris

I really do not get why people come in to a forum called atheism and agnosticism, espouse religious views, attempt to convince said atheists and agnostics of the truth of their religious views ("My faith will prove strong enough to convert the heretics where all others have failed before me!") and then get offended when the above don't agree with them because, y'know, they're atheists or agnostics and have almost certainly heard it all before. As you can tell from the extremely well thought out and researched posts refuting the same old points.

Like, who's being intransigent and obnoxious here? Can I not have my lack of belief respected in the same way that I respect the Christians' rights to their religion in the Christianity forum?

The majority of people in here seem quite happy to live and let live as long as religion is not being forced down their throats (certain issues with Irish law for some). Many are even happy to talk about religion. But unsurprisingly, there will be few converts gotten from here. You'd have an easier time with AH, although they'd probably be a lot more blunt about it and the thread would rapidly degenerate into a row, because AH.

Intransigent my rear end, it's like going into the farming forum to discuss the merits of BSE and then being offended when the farmers don't agree. Well, that could have been predicted.

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

It might be worth pointing out here that the post that asserted that religious people have lower IQs was made by a Catholic poster, Peregrinus

somehow i had it in my head that Peregrinus is CoI; not that it matters (and not that i'm asking him/her to 'out' themselves). that woud be an ecumenical matter.

Peregrinus

Full disclosure: I'm a Catholic.

The point about religious people having a lower IQ was first made by Splashuum in post 73; I came in in post 75 to say, basically, yeah, that's right, but it might not mean what you might think it might mean, and to try and keep the discussion focused on the issue of whether the IQ evidence says anything meaningful about an "atheist mindset".

One eyed Jack

RichieO wrote: »

I think we use different dictionaries, a concept is an abstract idea in my book, so atheism is label stuck on people who do not believe in the concept of a deity, gravity is a fact not an abstract idea... Arguing semantics is only exposing the vulnerabilities of labels...

I'm not arguing semantics at all. If I had truly wanted to be pedantic, I would have pointed out that in your earlier horse racing metaphor, the atheist position would be that they have no horse, as opposed to backing any particular horse in the running. To extend that metaphor to cover your own position then would be that you don't believe that any of the horses has the possibility of winning (or being correct about their assertions about their particular deity or deities), and so given you haven't actually backed any horse at all, you aren't really risking anything! Of course I understood what you meant though, so I wasn't going to be pedantic about it.

Now, with regard to both atheism and gravity, both are actually abstract, intangible concepts. A lack of awareness of gravity, or an awareness of gravity, doesn't make any difference to the effects of gravity itself. A lack of awareness of the question of a deity or deities has no effect on the concept of atheism. Atheism is still an abstract concept which would exist regardless of an individuals self-identity.

Hotblack Desiato

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

This is my problem. Atheists put themselves on a pedestal above anyone who has a belief that does not match their own. They close their mind to other beliefs or mantras because science cannot prove it yet. That does not mean that there is no grounding to that belief. It just has not been found yet.

Many beliefs have been proven false by science e.g. flat earth, homeopathy. 'Keeping an open mind' to proven falsehoods is certainly not a sign of intelligence as you claimed.

On both sides, they have different levels of intelligence on different aspects of their lives. So to say that atheists have a higher IQ or intelligence than non atheists is folly even a little arrogant. There is nothing wrong in believing the unbelievable if it makes you a better, stronger person.

I made no such claim.
You however claimed that they are less intelligent than the 'keepers of an open mind', though, which is nonsense.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now, with regard to both atheism and gravity, both are actually abstract, intangible concepts. A lack of awareness of gravity, or an awareness of gravity, doesn't make any difference to the effects of gravity itself. A lack of awareness of the question of a deity or deities has no effect on the concept of atheism. Atheism is still an abstract concept which would exist regardless of an individuals self-identity.

Apples and oranges tooth fairies. Gravity demonstrably exists and hence is no more an abstract concept than heat or light. The existence of deities cannot be demonstrated (perhaps because they don't exist), and hence are abstract concepts at best.

RichieO

I acknowledge I am shoite using metaphors and analogies, but if I asked you if you believed in Santa and you said "no" I would not think "what a strange concept"...

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Apples and oranges tooth fairies. Gravity demonstrably exists and hence is no more an abstract concept than heat or light. The existence of deities cannot be demonstrated (perhaps because they don't exist), and hence are abstract concepts at best.

Whether they are or aren't abstract concepts wasn't really the point though. The point was more a commemtary on awareness (or lack thereof), doesn't change the fact that both gravity, and the question of deities exists. To suggest that people are born atheist would be incorrect, because they are born without an awareness of the question in the first place to follow by taking a position one way or the other on the question itself.

RichieO wrote: »

I acknowledge I am shoite using metaphors and analogies, but if I asked you if you believed in Santa and you said "no" I would not think "what a strange concept"...

You wouldn't, but that's a commemtary on your own individual mindset, as opposed to the shared mindset you're alluding to in your opening post which is a commemtary on your observations of the differences in the mindset of people who are atheist and those people who are religious.

It reminded me of the example of when scientists were mapping the human genome a few years back, and some scientists were convinced they had discovered a gene related to IQ. Unfortunately their excitement was short lived as further investigation using a greater sample set revealed their discovery to be false. I would suggest that with a greater sample set and further investigation, your discovery too may well prove to be false. That's one of the dangers of the correlation/causation fallacy at an individual level - you can tend to convince yourself of extraordinary claims without the requisite requirement for extraordinary evidence, because confirmation bias will lead you to believe what you believe is indeed true.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whether they are or aren't abstract concepts wasn't really the point though. The point was more a commemtary on awareness (or lack thereof), doesn't change the fact that both gravity, and the question of deities exists. To suggest that people are born atheist would be incorrect, because they are born without an awareness of the question in the first place to follow by taking a position one way or the other on the question itself.

Not really. A baby will experience gravity from the moment it is born and become aware of it as soon as it becomes generally aware, falling over being something babies do a lot of. The same baby may never become aware of the question whether or not God exists, and by virtue of not being aware of the notion of God will be an atheist. Atheism only requires that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. it doesn't demand the atheist considers themselves an atheist. Person who does not know about gods isn't in a position to believe in them.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Not really. A baby will experience gravity from the moment it is born and become aware of it as soon as it becomes generally aware, falling over being something babies do a lot of. The same baby may never become aware of the question whether or not God exists, and by virtue of not being aware of the notion of God will be an atheist. Atheism only requires that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. it doesn't demand the atheist considers themselves an atheist. Person who does not know about gods isn't in a position to believe in them.

While a person will undoubtedly experience the effect of gravity, it doesn't logically follow that they will become aware of the concept of gravity, any more than it follows that they are aware or unaware of the concept of theism and the contrary theological position that is atheism.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any method to determine whether an infant is either passively or positively aware or unaware of the concept of a deity or deities and therefore there is no way to determine whether they do or don't believe in a deity or deities until they develop the cognitive capacity to articulate and communicate their thought processes in some form.

The best we could accurately determine IMO is that we simply don't know one way or the other whether a person when they're born is either a theist, deist, pantheist or atheist. The belief that all people are born atheist is somewhat reminiscent of the 'blank slate' theory in human cognitive development, which isn't a theory I subscribe to either, as it implies quite like the opening post that the human mind is a fixed one-track mind in each person, which flies in the face of modern scientific theories regarding how the human brain actually functions.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While a person will undoubtedly experience the effect of gravity, it doesn't logically follow that they will become aware of the concept of gravity, any more than it follows that they are aware or unaware of the concept of theism and the contrary theological position that is atheism.

The mere fact that everyone experiences the effect of gravity makes them aware of it as a natural physical phenomenon, which of course is what it is. It is not a concept, i.e. unlike God or the tooth fairy it is not an imagined thing.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any method to determine whether an infant is either passively or positively aware or unaware of the concept of a deity or deities and therefore there is no way to determine whether they do or don't believe in a deity or deities until they develop the cognitive capacity to articulate and communicate their thought processes in some form.

The best we could accurately determine IMO is that we simply don't know one way or the other whether a person when they're born is either a theist, deist, pantheist or atheist. The belief that all people are born atheist is somewhat reminiscent of the 'blank slate' theory in human cognitive development, which isn't a theory I subscribe to either, as it implies quite like the opening post that the human mind is a fixed one-track mind in each person, which flies in the face of modern scientific theories regarding how the human brain actually functions.

The problem with that line of argument is that theistic religion is a natural progression from non-theistic supernatural beliefs, such as ancestor worship and shamanism. While the specifics have developed over time, the notion of gods is a taught concept. A religion such as Christianity was conceived by relatively few people and propagated to many other over time. Babies don't spontaneously become Catholics, Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs, rather it is something inculcated in them later as children by their parents and community. While different children might buy into the god story given to them to varying degrees, it is not something the vast majority would ever come up with by themselves. As such they are born atheists and remain atheists until they're given religious instruction of some kind.

Samaris

Well, it is possible that a person would come up with a mythological explanation for the world around them, much as religions developed in general, particularly if they have no other way of explaining X, Y or Z. It's a bit of a difficult one to test, since it would require having someone with no concept of religion living out in the wilds somewhere!

Some individuals might come up with fanciful ideas of what the lightning was, why the sun rose and set. Others might not. Some of them might be naturally inclined to theism, others may be naturally inclined to atheism. Some of them might even get the right explanations. But I don't see how you could predict which would be which.

If all people were inclined to be atheists with no outside push, presumably religions would not have sprung up in the first place. Yet it seems perfectly likely also that there have always been atheists, they just had to keep very quiet about it.