Are newborn babies atheist?

[joesixpack]

That is why I talked about language. Just because one can learn something (like the idea of a god) doesn't mean we jump to the idea that a god will come out of our questions about the universe. Some are easly lead that way because we come to believe what our parents tell us, that is also in our makeup as humans. But I have yet to hear that god idea jump out of a child's mouth without that input from an older person, most likely the parent. Also, funny how the god is the same as the parents god, a child doesn't come up with a new one.

When I was a child I was told about god as an answer to many of my questions, that god idea did not come from me. At the age of about 7, that god idea did not make any sense to me and so that idea went away. Why, because it didn't fit the world I read about, it was not logical.



Paul

I'll address the bolded part first;

You had the luxury of reading about the world, something that our ancestors did not have the benefit of. It's highly unlikely that you would have discovered the method of reproduction that some plants use was dependent upon bees carrying pollen and you may have just as likely concluded that God or gods had painted the flowers for our benefit UNLESS you had access to a few centuries worth of scientific work (as you do now). Your understanding of what the stars or planets are has nothing to do with what you've discovered on your own, it has everything to do with being in a world with Libraries and schools.

As this applies to the rest of your post, early humans applied their intelligence to the problems of survival, and most of the questions to which they applied it had to do with cause/effect relationships in the world around them. They saw that when certain constellations were visible that hunting would be better on the plains, or that berries would be ripe in the hills. Did the stars cause these things to happen? To them it may have seemed so. Many more questions seemed to hinge on things which would have been invisible to them, so they tended to invent invisible agencies to explain them. Religion and superstition did not spring fully formed from the mind of one single human, it arose dialectically in the herd. It would be rather bold to presume that religion and superstition would not be a natural result of human intelligence lacking access to the scientific knowledge we currently have. And I haven't even turned to the questions of morality or emotional solace that religious fantasies are constructed to address.

Finally, I have to wonder what questions you would have asked as a child which would have elicited "God did it" answers? The origin of rainbows? The source of thunder and lightning? I grew up in a pretty religious household and never got any answers about the physical world that weren't based on late 20th century scientific understanding. The only questions that God was called in for were questions of morality and an afterlife. I find it odd that you consider yourself an atheist based on what you understood about religion as a 7 year old. As I have said on other threads, not believing in a God as depicted in the old testament is hardly worthy of the term "atheist".

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Yes, Babies do not have any inherent belief in any god(s).

 

[Paulhoff]

I'll address the bolded part first;

You had the luxury of reading about the world, something that our ancestors did not have the benefit of.

We can talk about this till the cows come home, we can't test this idea in real life outside that children seem to go the way of the parent and/or the culture they grow up in. Yes, I had books, but I also had eyes etc and the world view of religion did not fit for me, I most likely would have be burned and/or killed at a young age in the good old days.


Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

I find it odd that you consider yourself an atheist based on what you understood about religion as a 7 year old. As I have said on other threads, not believing in a God as depicted in the old testament is hardly worthy of the term "atheist".

Atheist, is not finding the so-called evidence to support any god to be true and/or based in any facts.

Now because you think a 7 year old can't figure that out is not my problem, I on the other hand know my thoughts. I'm not the only one that I have talked to that broke thru the BS at a young age. We are all equal when voting, it does not mean we are all equal in all ways.


Paul

 

[joesixpack]

We can talk about this till the cows come home, we can't test this idea in real life outside that children seem to go the way of the parent and/or the culture they grow up in. Yes, I had books, but I also had eyes etc and the world view of religion did not fit for me, I most likely would have be burned and/or killed at a young age in the good old days.


Paul

Well, if history is any guide, The cows are in the barn for the night. There should be at least a few examples of atheist societies from ancient times as examples. One would presume that these would have been the most advanced societies. Instead, we see that every single society for which we have any knowledge has had some form of religious/superstitious belief system, and that these beliefs were most entrenched among the most advanced societies.

You are correct that babies grow into adults who are the product of their cultural indoctrination. This underscores the meaningless of the question as to their beliefs. One should ask "Are newborn babies materialists?", though that's hardly any more meaningful itself.

 

[Charlie Brown]

"Just because one can learn something (like the idea of a god) doesn't mean we jump to the idea that a god will come out of our questions about the universe."

.- Are you sure the idea of a god/deity/magical beings is something you learn?

Who taught the primitive people between 50.000 and 30.000 B.C. about deities? And what language they used? Did they use the word god or the concept of god as we know it? Who taught the Sumerians about "Gilgamesh" and a "Universal flood", 800 years before the oldest known "Dead Sea manuscript"? How the Algonquians native Americans came up with the "Manitou" and what language or concept did they used? How the Aztecs (several hundreds Years (if not thousands) before Abrahamic Religions) came up with "Quetzalcoatl" "Tezcatlipoca" etc.? To whom the Incas, Aztecs, Chibchas, etc, made sacrifices?
How they described what we now know as gods and what word they used for that concept? Who taught native Polynesians Islands the middle of nowhere about the myth of "Māui", the polynesian deity who stole the fire from the "Mudhens"? WHAAAT?!?! A Polynesian Prometheus? I'm no expert but AFAIK, the Ancient Greek never were in Polynesia.

Who taught the mysterious Mayans about Hunahpú and Xbalanqué, of their Popol Vuh? Is there a word in K’iche’ (Mayan) language for "god"? How the Mayans came up with a Creation myth, about 2,000 Years before Columbus First voyage? Who taught them?
Which was the concept or definition a deity 30,000 B.C.?

And so on.

 

[Paulhoff]

Instead, we see that every single society for which we have any knowledge has had some form of religious/superstitious belief system, and that these beliefs were most entrenched among the most advanced societies.

Do you know of any society that came into being without coming from another one.


Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Who taught the primitive people between 50.000 and 30.000 B.C. about deities?

I don't know, I wasn't there. Maybe it was someone that wanted an easy job.


Paul

 

[Charlie Brown]

.- And yet another $64,000 question:

How can you explain the fact (yes, an historical fact) that civilizations so far apart culturally, chronologically and geographically like Mayans and Sumerians have "Universal floods" in their mythology?
How can you explain the presence of "Creation myths" in Mayans and the ancient Chinese (among many others)?:

"Heaven and Earth were once inextricably commingled (hun-tun) like a chicken's egg, within which was engendered P'an-ku (a name perhaps meaning "Coiled-up Antiquity"). After 18,000 years, this inchoate mass split apart, what was bright and light forming Heaven, and what was dark and heavy forming Earth. Thereafter, during another 18,000 years, Heaven daily increased ten feet in height, Earth daily increased ten feet in thickness, and P'an-ku, between the two, daily increased ten feet in size. This is how Heaven and Earth came to be separated by their present distance of 9 million li (roughly 30,000 English miles). (1961:382-3)"

 

[Paulhoff]

I had an atheist at a meeting last night that could not get his mind around the idea that I never smoked because I didn't give into peer pressure. He said that it couldn't have been strong enough, has if I couldn't resisted it if it was. I have never followed a dummer and/or had the need to been one.


Paul

 

[joesixpack]

Do you know of any society that came into being without coming from another one.


Paul

I can certainly assume so for sake of argument. Where are you going to go with this?

It seems to me that "magical thinking", religion, and superstition all seem to be one of the earliest products of human intelligence. Societies having their roots in earlier societies seems to be the way this lore was passed down.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

.- And yet another $64,000 question:

How can you explain the fact (yes, an historical fact) that civilizations so far apart culturally, chronologically and geographically like Mayans and Sumerians have "Universal floods" in their mythology? How can you explain the presence of "Creation myths" in Mayans and the ancient Chinese (among many others)?:

"Heaven and Earth were once inextricably commingled (hun-tun) like a chicken's egg, within which was engendered P'an-ku (a name perhaps meaning "Coiled-up Antiquity"). After 18,000 years, this inchoate mass split apart, what was bright and light forming Heaven, and what was dark and heavy forming Earth. Thereafter, during another 18,000 years, Heaven daily increased ten feet in height, Earth daily increased ten feet in thickness, and P'an-ku, between the two, daily increased ten feet in size. This is how Heaven and Earth came to be separated by their present distance of 9 million li (roughly 30,000 English miles). (1961:382-3)"

Every society has some story about how the earth got here, Nothing new.

 

[Paulhoff]

How can you explain the fact (yes, an historical fact) that civilizations so far apart culturally, chronologically and geographically like Mayans and Sumerians have "Universal floods" in their mythology?

Again, show me any civilzation that didn't come from another one.



Paul

 

[Mister Agenda]

-.Hello everybody, this is my first post and is an honor to be here sharing with you!

Welcome, Charlie! I hope you like it here. We really should have a feature that prevents a thread that hasn't been commented on before from being resurrected, but at least it shows you looked around before making your first pos.

Well, not only I find the claim that a "Baby is an Atheist" broad and plain ludicrous, I also find the silly quest some atheists have engaged in to associate ATHEISM with absolute ignorance or total unawareness self damaging and with zero argumentative value.

Some of us are just sticklers for defintions and are fine with atheists being defined as 'not-theists'. It's a binary position, either you're a theist or you're not, regardless of the reason. There are plenty of atheistic philosophies to describe atheists further. BTW, babies are also apolitical and amoral. Noting that someone who is ignorant of theism, politics, and morality is an amoral, apolitical, atheist does not mean you're defining atheism as ignorance. One can also be apolitical, amoral, or atheistic for thought-out reasons. It's why a distinction is made between nominal and explicit atheism. And it has 100% argumentative value against the claim no one is an atheist unless they had a bad experience that turned them away from God.

First, I think that, suggesting that the realm/origin/principle of Atheism is total ignorance and absolute lack of understanding, we are actually giving the theist and the religious arguments to discredit Atheism.

We are giving them a loaded gun and begging to be shot!!

I don't change the meanings of words because I don't think they make me look good. The important thing is accuracy. Whether I like being called short has nothing to do with whether I AM short.

To say that the belief in deities, superstitions and supernatural beings is an "unnatural, artificial fact consequence of indoctrination" is uninformed to say the least. I'm not an expert but, like it or not, the belief in some kind of deity or supernatural beings has been with us practically since the beginning of, well, human species. At least this has been true throughout recorded human history. Human burials from between 50,000 and 30,000 B.C. (yes, that far back!) provide evidence of human belief in an afterlife and possibly in deities.
Not only this is an historic fact but also anthropological. No matter how remote and isolated a human community is (or were), you'll find at least some kind of primitive tribal animism or supernatural belief.

Who indoctrinated them?

Their parents. These theologies were not made up by babies. Small children maybe, but not babies.

These facts tells me that, at least, there is some kind of innate human predisposition to embrace the supernatural.

There is an innate predispostion for small children to believe what adults and older children tell them. There is an innate predisposition to attribute agency to events. These qualities make it understandable that religion and superstition would catch on if there were no competition. What about the tens of thousands of years preceding the earliest evidence of relgious observance?

On top of this, this ridiculous "Atheism=Absolute Ignorance" concept/definition is argumentatively useless..

Since you're the only one saying that and you recognize that it's ridiculous, maybe you should stop saying it. The people to whom you're talking allow for the naive or ignorant atheist who is an atheist because they are not aware of theism, as well as the explicit atheist with a thought-out position. We don't define atheism as ignorance.

It doesn't add nor take anything away to the fact a god /deity is an imaginary, fantastic and, most likely, non existent being. It doesn't give us any pragmatic advantage in discussions, debates or arguments. It does not change a bit the fact that we atheists don't carry the burden of proof. Even if this concept was technically correct, (which I seriously doubt) It actually does "water down" the atheist stance and perception from an active conscious position out of critical thinking, reason and enlightenment to a mere passive psychological state consequence of absolute ignorance or total unawareness.

I would like to hear the definition of 'atheist' that inherently refutes all arguments against it, but I expect it will be pretty long. Until the appearance of such a definition, I am happy to just say 'I'm an atheist' and make my case for why that's a reasonable postiion seperately.

And, I don't know about you but, as an Atheism advocate, I personally prefer to be associated with reason rather than with sheer ignorance.

If you'd like to be associated with reason, don't cite what you'd rather as an argument for changing the definition of a word.

I'd like to add that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. Not a single one. Do your research. And, I haven't heard (please note I saying "I haven't heard") the "babies are atheists" concept from any reputable and well known Atheist/philosopher/scientist. Not even from the ones who advocates to the "Lack of Belief" definition.

Many of those dictionaries say 'deny or disbelieve'. Look up the definition of 'disbelieve'. Note that if you want a definition of atheism that shows atheists don't carry the burden of proof, rejecting 'lack of belief' would, as you put it, be shooting yourself in the foot.

It was philosophers, btw, who first made the distinction between nominal and explicit atheism, it's we amateurs who insist on continuing to argue it. You don't see it in philosophy because it's been dealth with, and easily so.

Best regards

Likewise.

 

[Paulhoff]

It seems to me that "magical thinking", religion, and superstition all seem to be one of the earliest products of human intelligence. Societies having their roots in earlier societies seems to be the way this lore was passed down.

The point is about newborns, not the societies they are in. Just because we can be trained into believing in god(s) doesn't mean we can't be trained not to and/or have the ability not to believe them.


Paul

 

[Mister Agenda]

"Just because one can learn something (like the idea of a god) doesn't mean we jump to the idea that a god will come out of our questions about the universe."

.- Are you sure the idea of a god/deity/magical beings is something you learn?

Who taught the primitive people between 50.000 and 30.000 B.C. about deities? And what language they used? Did they use the word god or the concept of god as we know it? Who taught the Sumerians about "Gilgamesh" and a "Universal flood", 800 years before the oldest known "Dead Sea manuscript"? How the Algonquians native Americans came up with the "Manitou" and what language or concept did they used? How the Aztecs (several hundreds Years (if not thousands) before Abrahamic Religions) came up with "Quetzalcoatl" "Tezcatlipoca" etc.? To whom the Incas, Aztecs, Chibchas, etc, made sacrifices?
How they described what we now know as gods and what word they used for that concept? Who taught native Polynesians Islands the middle of nowhere about the myth of "Māui", the polynesian deity who stole the fire from the "Mudhens"? WHAAAT?!?! A Polynesian Prometheus? I'm no expert but AFAIK, the Ancient Greek never were in Polynesia.

Who taught the mysterious Mayans about Hunahpú and Xbalanqué, of their Popol Vuh? Is there a word in K’iche’ (Mayan) language for "god"? How the Mayans came up with a Creation myth, about 2,000 Years before Columbus First voyage? Who taught them?
Which was the concept or definition a deity 30,000 B.C.?

And so on.

I think it was their ancestors, and that if you go back far enough, someone was telling a story. Who do you think taught those people those things?

 

[Paulhoff]

One of the biggest reason for religion to go on for so long was Kingdoms. Who was the one that gave them the right to rule, mmmmmmmmm. And who was the one that protected the religion, again, mmmmmmmmmmm.



Paul

 

[joesixpack]

The point is about newborns, not the societies they are in. Just because we can be trained into believing in god(s) doesn't mean we can't be trained not to and/or have the ability not to believe them.


Paul

Which makes the question entirely meaningless. Saying that a baby is born not believing that the earth is at the center of the universe does not make him a heliocentrist. It merely make him ignorant.

Again, you seem to be avoiding Charlie Brown's point which has to do with the propensity of humans to invent religion when faced with a world full of unanswerable questions. The reason this question impinges on the question of "what a baby knows" is that, at some point in human history people began applying "religious" (for lack of a better term) answers to these questions. Some of these were useful and some were simply non-harmful. Either way, religion emerged from this.

ETA I find it surprising that I have to say this, but no one is suggesting that kids can't be trained to be atheists as easily as they are trained to be theists.

 

[joesixpack]

One of the biggest reason for religion to go on for so long was Kingdoms. Who was the one that gave them the right to rule, mmmmmmmmm. And who was the one that protected the religion, again, mmmmmmmmmmm.



Paul

MMMMMMmmmmmmm, no one's denying this. Organized religion certainly had an utility for rulers. Again, saying that you don't believe in the religious justification for a monarchy is hardly worthy of the term "atheism".

 

[Charlie Brown]

"Do you know of any society that came into being without coming from another one."

.- Yes but who came up first with the idea of a deity?

The fact that so far back as 50,000 B.C. a very primitive idea of afterlife and and supernatural existed, only says that idea of a deity or any sort of magical thinking could easily be as as old as Human conscience.

Hardly "unnatural" from my point of view.

And also tells me that a civilization, (if you can even call these group people a civilization(*) so primitive and undeveloped, probably didn't need to have a formal concept, not even an specific word, to describe what they believed in.

But, back to your question (and mine).

Why are some of their myths so similar and yet so different at the same time?
Why don't they have the exact same gods, myths, stories etc?

Have ever pass your mind that myths are mythology are similar, yet there are so many different versions of them, because, all Humans have (and have had) the same questions, and/or fears?

AFAIK, We all share the same Earth, Natural phenomena, we all die, we all give birth, we all see lightnings, Volcanoes, Stars, we all have wondered how and why we are here, and a very long etc.

I really doubt that any human, specially a primitive human, has never been asked himself I.E. hat happens after he dies.

We all have different answers, even radically different answers,

But the questions remains exactly the same.

(*) The emergence of civilization is generally associated with the Neolithic, or Agricultural Revolution, which occurred in various locations between 8,000 and 5,000 BC, but that's still controversial. Some historians go as far as 12,000 BC.