Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Matt the Poet]

By my evaluation criteria, yes. The same way if you are a child of two Americans missionaries living in Africa and speaking only Swahili. Their child would still be considered an American.

How? What would be the difference between me and a child raised by liberal Muslims or Hindus who took the same outlook?

 

[Beth]

Not one that I am aware of. It seems to me that it is more usually a conscious choice of parents to bring a child up according to some religion or not as the case may be.

Of course. But generally, the community they are living in assumes the child has the same religion as the parents rather than assuming that the child of Christian parents is Jewish or Muslim or Atheist. That is all I meant by social custom.

Only according to your arbitrary rule. I very much doubt that either he, his mother or his father would have termed his birth nationality "Russian/English". I don't think that "Russian/English" could even be meaningfully termed a nationality.

It would represent a dual nationality. That's typical for children with parents of different nationalities.

It would make my kids "Christian/Atheists".

Okay. My children would have been agnostic/atheist when they were young. They both consider themselves atheists now. So?

By whom?

By me. Also by the U.S. government. A child born to two U.S. parents is an considered a U.S. citizen regardless of where the child was born or where the family lives.

 

[Beth]

How? What would be the difference between me and a child raised by liberal Muslims or Hindus who took the same outlook?

The religion of their parents.

 

[Matt the Poet]

The religion of their parents.

So as a child I could have exactly the same relgious, or nonreligious outlook and be a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu depending solely on the religion of my parents?

Does this happen at birth? If my parents convert to Islam when I am 6 months old do I automatically become a Muslim also?

If this is the case, in what way am I a Muslim, given that I as an individual have no opinion on whether or not there is any God but Allah, or on whether Muhammad is his messenger? If this is no the case then what particular thing is it about me, again as an individual, separate from my parents, that makes me a Christian?

Finally ( apologies for all the questions but this is honestly one of he more bewildering opinions I have encountered), assuming that I maintain the same beliefs from childhood to adulthood, at what point do I stop being a Christian and start being whatever I am,and given that nothing about me as an individual has changed what is it that causes this miraculous change to happen?

 

[Beth]

So as a child I could have exactly the same relgious, or nonreligious outlook and be a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu depending solely on the religion of my parents?

Yes.

Does this happen at birth?

Yes.

If my parents convert to Islam when I am 6 months old do I automatically become a Muslim also?

Yes.

If this is the case, in what way am I a Muslim, given that I as an individual have no opinion on whether or not there is any God but Allah, or on whether Muhammad is his messenger? If this is no the case then what particular thing is it about me, again as an individual, separate from my parents, that makes me a Christian?

Until a child is old enough to make such choices for themself, IMO, the most appropriate way to describe their religious affliation (in as much as they can be said to have one) is with their parent's.

Finally ( apologies for all the questions but this is honestly one of he more bewildering opinions I have encountered), assuming that I maintain the same beliefs from childhood to adulthood, at what point do I stop being a Christian and start being whatever I am,and given that nothing about me as an individual has changed what is it that causes this miraculous change to happen?

IMO, it would be the point at which you have understood the situation and specified one or another designation as being most appropriate yourself. For some people, this can occur at a relatively young age, for others perhaps not until their teen years. Myself, I didn't become an agnostic until I was 17. I'd never even heard the word prior to that. BTW, I don't think it's a miraculous change, just one of many attributes that may change as children mature.

 

[Matt the Poet]

I don't really understand why it's necessary to have a way of assigning a child to a religious affiliation at all. Certainly not in secular states where such an categorisation has no administrative consequences.

Being a Christian means, surely, having at least some sort of opinion on the existence and metaphysical status of Jesus Christ, or it means nothing at all. Calling someone a Christian when they don't have such an opinion... You might as well call them a Gefortzleblog, for all the effect it will have on anything in the universe.

On balance, I rather object to your viewpoint on the grounds that it's unduly authoritarian. Stuff my parents and their opinions, at any age I was, am and will be, like everyone else on the planet, exactly what I am, no more and no less. Where do you, the state or anyone else get the right to claim any different?

 

[Beth]

I don't really understand why it's necessary to have a way of assigning a child to a religious affiliation at all. Certainly not in secular states where such an categorisation has no administrative consequences.

It's not necessary. There's merely been a conversation about whether or not babies should be considered atheists. My opinion is that babies should be considered to have the religion of their parents until they are old enough to make a choice for themselves and that they should not be universally considered to be athiests.

Being a Christian means, surely, having at least some sort of opinion on the existence and metaphysical status of Jesus Christ, or it means nothing at all. Calling someone a Christian when they don't have such an opinion... You might as well call them a Gefortzleblog, for all the effect it will have on anything in the universe.

Likewise, I don't think they can be considered athiests. However, it is customary to assume that a child with Jewish parents is Jewish, a child with Christian parents is Christian, etc. rather than presume them athiest until such time as they declare a personal preference.

On balance, I rather object to your viewpoint on the grounds that it's unduly authoritarian. Stuff my parents and their opinions, at any age I was, am and will be, like everyone else on the planet, exactly what I am, no more and no less. Where do you, the state or anyone else get the right to claim any different?

I'm not sure the state has any interest on the matter. I don't think it made any claims along those lines. I have the right to hold my opinion on the matter and state it on the internet. That's all I'm doing. You are free to hold your own opinion and tell me you think I'm wrong. Which you have. You have not, however, persuaded me I am wrong. That would require a better argument that you have made thus far.

 

[Robin]

Of course. But generally, the community they are living in assumes the child has the same religion as the parents rather than assuming that the child of Christian parents is Jewish or Muslim or Atheist. That is all I meant by social custom.

I don't know that I could tell what the majority of any particular community would assume - many would assume that the child is a blank slate, a new page and not wish to heap any baggage on it.

It would represent a dual nationality. That's typical for children with parents of different nationalities.

Again, not as far as I know. A child can have legal dual nationalities depending on the various laws of the birth country and the parent's nationality.

As I said, I doubt that either of my father's parents would have, for a moment, considered him to be Russian/British. Or anybody else for that matter.

I don't think there is any general rule you can apply to something like nationality.

Okay. My children would have been agnostic/atheist when they were young. They both consider themselves atheists now. So?

Even if you were to consider "atheist" a religion, it would make no sense whatsoever to call "Christian/atheist" a religion.

By me. Also by the U.S. government. A child born to two U.S. parents is an considered a U.S. citizen regardless of where the child was born or where the family lives.

But the child might be considered African by the parents. He/she might be considered African by the people in the local community.

Again - no general rule. To me the child is a blank slate.

 

[Matt the Poet]

You keep wavering between claiming that your opinion is 'customary' (according to what custom and why the hell do I have to sign up to it?) on the one had, and on the other simply your opinion.

If it is the former, then my argument is that unless I have an opinion about Jesus
Christ it is meaningless to call me a Christian. If this is not the case, then what on earth is it that you think 'being a Christian' means?

If it is the latter, I have a second argument: possibly one of the few things you do not have a right to in this world is an opinion on my mental state. I am, even before I can articulate it, the final and ultimate authority on this matter. I may, of course, lie abouty state but you don't seem be claiming this - you're telling me (well, my five
year old self) that I'm a Christian whether I like it or not, which makes no more sense than claiming I have blue eyes regardlessmof what colour my eyes actually are.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Apparently, the atheist mindset has a lot to do with troll-feeding.

 

[Christian]

It seems most of the posters in this conversation understand each other, and for the most part, agree with each other at least conceptually. You seem to be the odd man out in not understanding and not making yourself well understood. The evidence suggests the responsibility for the miscommunication is yours, and if you were being honest, which does seem to be difficult for you, you would acknowledge that and work to overcome your shortcomings in that area.

I'm going to use this quote to make a general comment. I think the problem is theoretical background. For example, to understand my framework a pre-requisite is the understanding of Statistics (specifically hypothesis testing and experiment design). Beth understands my construction because she is well versed (I have concluded) in this subject.

To solve this problem, what is necessary is to first lay the ground work of the theory and then continue. This is not an easy thing to do. And I wanted to avoid the pedantic scenario.

I can't do this right now, but later tonight, I will begin this foundation. And answer poster who I couldn't for lack of time today.

The topics we really need to cover are hypothesis testing, experiment design, how the brain works and brain development.

This idea that babies are atheists needs to be put to rest. (A two year old is beginning to understand object permanence. This stuff has to compute.)

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
I can understand the problem with defining a baby as "atheist" as a default, because it's not so simple. Raised in isolation, the baby obviously wouldn't randomly come up with the exact same idea as any existing religion, but I expect that it might invent its own god(s) or create similar magical thinking, at least temporarily as it grew through the imaginative stages of childhood.

I'd suggest that children don't need taught to create imaginary friends, attribute special powers of comfort to a particular blankie, and so forth. They do it naturally, some more than others, some for longer time periods than others. Religion is just a natural extension of those urges.

Yes. We are born magical thinkers by default.

I agree with both these. I think the belief in myths and legends are innate; the belief in supernatural beings is hardwired in the brain.

It's not necessary. There's merely been a conversation about whether or not babies should be considered atheists. My opinion is that babies should be considered to have the religion of their parents until they are old enough to make a choice for themselves and that they should not be universally considered to be athiests. <snip>
I have the right to hold my opinion on the matter and state it on the internet. That's all I'm doing. You are free to hold your own opinion and tell me you think I'm wrong. Which you have. You have not, however, persuaded me I am wrong. That would require a better argument that you have made thus far.

I agree with this as well.

I don't believe babies are "blank slates;" they come loaded with innate characteristics that tend toward supernatural/magical beliefs. This inclination to belief can obviously be overridden through various processes (e.g, absorption of the disbelief of those around them; learning and deciding on other ways of thinking; disenchantment with some specific belief).

 

[Piscivore]

I agree with both these. I think the belief in myths and legends are innate; the belief in supernatural beings is hardwired in the brain.

Not quite. A propensity to believe (actually, to be strictly accurate I'd say a propensity to make stuff up) is hardwired into the brain, but no actual beliefs are. Babies don't inherently know about Zeus or Tlaloc, or leprechauns or unicorns, right out of the womb.

 

[FattyCatty]

Not quite. A propensity to believe (actually, to be strictly accurate I'd say a propensity to make stuff up) is hardwired into the brain, but no actual beliefs are. Babies don't inherently know about Zeus or Tlaloc, or leprechauns or unicorns, right out of the womb.

I didn't specify any specific god or being. I mentioned belief in myths, legends, and supernatural beings. Like the monster under the bed. You're right that I should have said "tendency to have a" before belief. I did use it later in my post.

And the "propensity to make stuff up" is what leads to beliefs.

 

[Robin]

I'm going to use this quote to make a general comment. I think the problem is theoretical background. For example, to understand my framework a pre-requisite is the understanding of Statistics (specifically hypothesis testing and experiment design). Beth understands my construction because she is well versed (I have concluded) in this subject.

I think you will find there are a number of people well versed in the subject of statistics and experiment design. And you will also find that there are many here who are well versed in the matter of how the brain works.

So I think you can skip the groundwork and foundations and present your experimental design straight away.

This idea that babies are atheists needs to be put to rest. (A two year old is beginning to understand object permanence. This stuff has to compute.)

You seem not to be paying attention. It is a matter of definition. If someone defines an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in God or gods then a baby is by definition an atheist. If you define an atheist (as I do) as someone who, if they understood the question 'Do you believe in God, or in gods?' and answered it truthfully, would not answer 'yes'. Under that definition a baby is not an atheist.

By the way, an average two year old is way, way beyond object permanence. Did you mean months?

 

[Robin]

I agree with both these. I think the belief in myths and legends are innate; the belief in supernatural beings is hardwired in the brain.

I agree with this as well.

I don't believe babies are "blank slates;" they come loaded with innate characteristics that tend toward supernatural/magical beliefs.

That may or may not be true, I am not sure how the hypothesis could be tested.

But I fail to see that a baby comes hardwired with the particular belief system of their parents.

 

[Sledge]

Is a baby also a member of the Conservative party? The postal workers union? Any organisation that one or both parents are members of? If not, why not?

 

[FattyCatty]

That may or may not be true, I am not sure how the hypothesis could be tested.

But I fail to see that a baby comes hardwired with the particular belief system of their parents.

I didn't say that babies come hardwired with the particular belief system of their parents. They probably do absorb it as they grow; that is how babies learn, from observing the world around them, with some inborn tendencies in how they interpret it. When they're older, they may stay with the beliefs they grew up with or they may diverge from them.

Is a baby also a member of the Conservative party? The postal workers union? Any organisation that one or both parents are members of? If not, why not?

Primarily because membership in most organizations is for adults. I do believe that children echo their parents' beliefs in all sorts of categories: religion, politics, prejudice, whatever. This lasts varying amounts of time for varying individuals. Babies don't even talk, I don't expect them to express political or organizational opinions.

 

[Robin]

I didn't say that babies come hardwired with the particular belief system of their parents.

That is what I meant when I said blank slate. Obviously babies are hardwired with whatever stuff humans are hardwired with.

But I meant it was meaningless to say that a baby was a Christian or a Muslim or Rooshian, French, German or Prooshian.

 

[Piscivore]

That is what I meant when I said blank slate. Obviously babies are hardwired with whatever stuff humans are hardwired with.

Yep. In my experience babies are not a blank slate, they are a camcorder with a blank tape and a bunch of odd filters over the lens.