Are newborn babies atheist?

[Charlie Brown]

"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? "



.- Really???
And who taught their "Ancestors"?

 

[Nihilus]

This thread was concisely answered in the 2nd reply over 5 years ago.

 

[Paulhoff]

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

Someone that couldn't for whatever reason just say the magic words, or the ones they had at the time.


"I Don't Know"

Followed by, "Let's try to found out".


Paul

 

[joesixpack]

Someone that couldn't for whatever reason just say the magic words, or the ones they had at the time.


"I Don't Know"

Followed by, "Let's try to found out".


Paul

You seem to have some pretty high expectations of the neolithic peoples. Honestly, the idea of building something so rudimentary as a microscope would have been impossible. You seem to think the lack of solid science in the stone age was a result of "goddidit" thinking.

 

[Paulhoff]

"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? "



.- Really???
And who taught their "Ancestors"?

Just because someone, somewhere, at sometime needed to have an answer, any answer does not mean we all do.

Let's try it this way, No child has ever come to the same religion as their parents on their own, without outside infuence.



Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

You seem to have some pretty high expectations of the neolithic peoples. Honestly, the idea of building something so rudimentary as a microscope would have been impossible. You seem to think the lack of solid science in the stone age was a result of "goddidit" thinking.

I'm the kind of person that comes up to a car with its hood open, with someone looking in, asking the question, "what is wrong", no matter what that person sex etc is. I assume they know something.


Newborns are atheist about everything.

Do you see the key word, NEWBORN.



Paul

 

[Mister Agenda]

- 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?

If I didn't know how mountains and sedimentary rocks were formed, I might think finding fossil seashells at the top of a mountain was a sign the water had once been that high, too.

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)"

Same as I explain all the others: guesswork, generalizing from analogous earthly processes, and making stuff up. There are only three possibilities for the initial state of the universe in terms of size: pretty much the same as now, started bigger and got smaller, or started smaller and got bigger. I would expect some cultures to come closer to the findings of science than the Hebrews did by chance. Although the above story is more impressive if you take all the numbers out.

 

[Mister Agenda]

This thread was concisely answered in the 2nd reply over 5 years ago.

It was answered more consisely in the 3rd reply.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

It doesn't say that at all. Speculating how far back religion went before the first evidence of it is...speculation. 10,000 years or 50,000 years, who knows? Our lack of that knowledge can't be used as the basis for a claim about when humans first came up with religion, it only gives us a 'no later than'.

 

[Mister Agenda]

"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? "

.- Really???
And who taught their "Ancestors"?

Really??? Answering a question with a question? Is your idea of where our ancestors got their stories from so outre' that you're unwilling to say it directly?

Nobody taught them, the first person to tell a story made it up themselves; out of their experiences, dreams, and imagination. Do you not think our ancestors had those in sufficient capacity to make up a story?

 

[Paulhoff]

It doesn't say that at all. Speculating how far back religion went before the first evidence of it is...speculation. 10,000 years or 50,000 years, who knows? Our lack of that knowledge can't be used as the basis for a claim about when humans first came up with religion, it only gives us a 'no later than'.

It the same type of thinking that makes gods.


Paul

 

[Charlie Brown]

"You seem to have some pretty high expectations of the neolithic peoples."

.- OUCH!!
joesixpack, I salute you.


Besides, some people seems to ignore some things:

1) Religions and theism are totally different and non inclusive terms/ideas.

2) Not all religions were used to subjugate people or justify atrocities, wars etc. I've never heard of a war in the name of Buddha, Thor or Osiris. Actually this religion usage is relatively recent in Human history. RELATIVELY.

3) Religions are bad, wrong and stupid, but they are not the only bad, wrong and stupid things a human could come up with. Religions could be considered "helpers" to evil and stupidity, but wars and other "subjugating" things many have other causes. Rapacious greed, for example.

4) We are not talking about Religion, let alone organized religion. We are talking about theism and the primary origin of superstition/deity/magical belief in Human beings.

Please have in mind that I don't want to be perceived as a smarta$$ neither I have the "last word" or the "only truth."

I just giving you things to think about, things that I consider reasonable and worthy of debate.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Are the some people who seem to ignore some things posting in this thread? If so, can you give a post number for one of them for consideration? I'm in agreement with your points, just not sure they've been violated.

 

[ynot]

“Are newborn babies atheist?”

Well no newborn babies are theist (or even agnostic).

 

[Charlie Brown]

"No child has ever come to the same religion as their parents on their own, without outside influence."

.- Because a Religion is a cultural thing, among other things.

The problem is we are not talking about Religion, not about specifics about any religion in particular and neither their consequences/implications.


We are talking about the human tendency to invent/embrace/believe in deities and the origin of magical thinking and the supernatural.

How and Why. The "when", well, I don't have an exact number but apparently is pretty old, much older than any organized religion or concept of a god.

 

[joesixpack]

I'm the kind of person that comes up to a car with its hood open, with someone looking in, asking the question, "what is wrong", no matter what that person sex etc is. I assume they know something.


Newborns are atheist about everything.

Do you see the key word, NEWBORN.



Paul

I honestly have no idea what your lack of presumptions about a stranger's knowledge of auto repair has to do with this discussion.

Either way, saying a newborn is an atheist about everything seems to be a stretch of the definition of 'atheism.' The entire debate as to whether a baby is an atheist really boils down to the definition of the word. You may choose to define it in any way that you wish, but if you don't tell me what that definition is I won't understand what your meaning is. My working definition of the term doesn't allow for complete ignorance to be equated with atheism. People may choose to define it otherwise, and that's perfectly fine, but they'll need to explain themselves if they expect to be taken seriously.

You seem to be avoiding Charlie Brown's point.

 

[joesixpack]

It doesn't say that at all. Speculating how far back religion went before the first evidence of it is...speculation. 10,000 years or 50,000 years, who knows? Our lack of that knowledge can't be used as the basis for a claim about when humans first came up with religion, it only gives us a 'no later than'.

The simple fact that all cultures invent theistic beliefs seems to imply that this is a natural product of human consciousness. You're absolutely correct that we are stuck with "no later than" as an answer, but they all seem to have it, and there's absolutely nothing surprising about that to me. Humans desire understanding of the world around them, and they are very inventive. Combine ignorance and creativity and you get both science and superstition.

 

[Charlie Brown]

"Well no newborn babies are theist (or even agnostic)."

.- Actually, since they have no knowledge or references of anything, they would be more toward agnosticism than any other of the available options.

But

No reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. Not a single one

Neither is accepted by many reputed atheists philosophers scientists and also is not accepted in many atheists sites by many "commonners" like me.

Some, like Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher of science, considered one of the major figures of the logical positivist movement, goes even further, not even accepting implicit atheism as valid Atheism:

"Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

" I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject."


And last but no least, 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 or the "implicit Atheism" concept

I'll be posting all the links in the near future. Before my 15th message I'm not allowed to post URLs

I have plenty.

 

[Charlie Brown]

"Specuculating how far back religion went before the first evidence of it is...speculation. 10,000 years or 50,000 years,"

.- Speculations? Who told you what I said were speculations?

Do you think I made this up?

I'll give you the links when I'm allowed.

In the meantime, do your own research.



Who knows?

.- Anthropologists, Historians, Investigators, Scientists, Archeologists, Paleoanthropologists, etc.

 

[Charlie Brown]

"Combine ignorance and creativity and you get both science and superstition."

.- And Imagine a Bronze Age man looking at a Rainbow!

Go figure...