Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Thinking critical]

We cannot do this, we cannot define newborns with terms like "atheist" before they even have knowledge of things of that nature. When we are born, we are born as blank slates. I think that it is inherent in everyone to feel a deep connection to the world...but that doesn't necessarily mean they feel small in the presence of some "higher power."

Obviously we can do this and it has been done. Atheism is not a label which we attach to infants, however definitively speaking Atheism is a default position due to the fact a neonate has no way of comprehending a concept such as God. Infants do display a cognitive pre-disposition of being extremely open minded to countless possibilities of supernatural and meta-physical entitles, this is human nature we are a curious and inquisitive species; often if knowledge, logic and reason are incapable of satisfying these desires the imagination takes over and creates it's own explanations.

[Bermudj]

If I remember well, I think that I began to hear the word God when I was 5. I truly have very little memories before that. So I certainly was born an atheist. Now I believe in a God.

[Thinking critical]

If I remember well, I think that I began to hear the word God when I was 5. I truly have very little memories before that. So I certainly was born an atheist. Now I believe in a God.

As is the rest of the population, atheism is the natural state of humans.

[Bermudj]

(Nested quote removed.)


As is the rest of the population, atheism is the natural state of humans.

Yes you are very right, that is the natural state. But the problem was that once I was very ill under the depressive phase of Bipolar-I. I had no hope of future, I had abandoned myself, defecating on the streets. So in desperation I went to a place where I had worked before, about 8 years before. The ex-colleagues thought I was around there on holiday and one of them suggested I do a bit of work to assist me in paying for the hotel bills. When I began working the illness changed its course and I am here to tell the story. Now I have thanked the ex-colleague who offered me work. But such an unrealistic event has made me grateful to God. And even though you may not like me putting words into your mouth, if it happened to you, you would be too.

[Thinking critical]

(Nested quote removed.)

But such an unrealistic event has made me grateful to God. And even though you may not like me putting words into your mouth, if it happened to you, you would be too.

I'm sure it would too, I appreciate the many benefits one may have as a direct result of believing in God, in circumstances similar to your own, believing in God has certainly proved it deserves a place in our society.

[Syamsu]

Are we born an atheist then come to believe in god as we are educated about religion?

Or does a neonate have a cognitive predisposition to believe that a higher power must exist?

Perhaps we are born agnostic, unaware that later on in life we are given a choice?

Is it an infants lack of knowledge in regards to the natural world that leads him to veiw the world as result of the supernatural? Thus opening the door for the belief system of a higher power as we age?

People are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Subjectivity is natural, as is also objectivity natural by the way. Infants already have an intuitive understanding that love and hate decide things. The thought naturally occurs to people that there may be one who decides over all, because the thought is a simple generalization of looking at things in terms of freedom. The thought that there are 65 who decide over all, or 1 who decides half of everything does not so much occur naturally. The ideas of "one" and "all" are basic and given, while 65 and "half", you have to some work to think those up. So it is not lack of knowledge that leads to the supposition that God exists, but having emotions and straightforwardly accepting the legitemacy of emotions, that naturally predisposes to belief in God.

Likewise you can see that adult atheists generally have a problem with accepting the legitemacy of subjectivity. Mostly atheists only support to accept the existence of anything on an objective basis, when it can be measured or calculated, never subjectively. That is why atheists treat love and hate as being electro-chemical reactions in the brain, they do no support reaching the conclusion that love and hate exist on a subjective basis.

[Belinda]

Newborn infants probably do have an unlearned ability to absolutely trust their caregiver, especially perhaps the nursing mother with her milky smell. In later life the religions interpret the natural reliance of the child on the main caregivers as 'God' up in the sky typically as I remember from the attractive hymns I learned in the infant classes.

It is the reinterpretation of natural and wholly functional orientation of the child that is not innate but is superimposed by the prevalent culture of belief.

A baby cannot be an atheist or anything else that depends upon self conscious cognition.

[Xris]

Newborn infants probably do have an unlearned ability to absolutely trust their caregiver, especially perhaps the nursing mother with her milky smell. In later life the religions interpret the natural reliance of the child on the main caregivers as 'God' up in the sky typically as I remember from the attractive hymns I learned in the infant classes.

It is the reinterpretation of natural and wholly functional orientation of the child that is not innate but is superimposed by the prevalent culture of belief.

A baby cannot be an atheist or anything else that depends upon self conscious cognition.

I agree belinda.We all abuse our privileged position and influence our children's thoughts. But is not instilling a belief in god preferable to perpetuating a belief? We are neither atheist not theist. We are all naturally agnostic. The evidence is there. Christian produce Christians, Muslims produce Muslims.

[Thinking critical]

(Nested quote removed.)


People are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Subjectivity is natural, as is also objectivity natural by the way.

The fact that subjectivity is a natural state of consciousness does not mean the we have a cognitive predisposition to believe in God, if you want to make that conclusion are you willing to explain how?

Infants already have an intuitive understanding that love and hate decide things.

Love and hate does not decide anything, love and hate influence our decisions. Loving and hating anything is not something that we can control, just like most other emotions they are subjective feelings we experience. Love and hate have nothing to do with the existence of God, so this is not evidence to support your claim.

The thought naturally occurs to people that there may be one who decides over all, because the thought is a simple generalization of looking at things in terms of freedom. The thought that there are 65 who decide over all, or 1 who decides half of everything does not so much occur naturally. The ideas of "one" and "all" are basic and given, while 65 and "half", you have to some work to think those up. So it is not lack of knowledge that leads to the supposition that God exists, but having emotions and straightforwardly accepting the legitemacy of emotions, that naturally predisposes to belief in God.

Again this does not support your claim, accepting the legitimacy of our emotions is just that, accepting.

Likewise you can see that adult atheists generally have a problem with accepting the legitemacy of subjectivity.

Atheist have a problem with accepting the legitimacy of other peoples subjectivity, not there own. The very definition of subjective means perspective or interpretation changes from the point of view of the subject, hence why it's not a valid process to gain true an accurate knowledge.

Mostly atheists only support to accept the existence of anything on an objective basis, when it can be measured or calculated, never subjectively. That is why atheists treat love and hate as being electro-chemical reactions in the brain, they do no support reaching the conclusion that love and hate exist on a subjective basis.

Some knowledge is acquired through personal experience, other knowledge is acquired through objective observations. Love and hate is emotional thus means it is subjective and requires personal experience. Yet two people may never experience love and hate in the same way, so no one can rightfully argue to have more knowledge of love or hate than someone else. So I don't no where you got your information that atheists don't accept that love and hate exist on a subjective basis from, are you willing to provide any references that support your claim so that the discussion can go further?

-- Updated July 30th, 2013, 4:59 am to add the following --

Newborn infants probably do have an unlearned ability to absolutely trust their caregiver, especially perhaps the nursing mother with her milky smell. In later life the religions interpret the natural reliance of the child on the main caregivers as 'God' up in the sky typically as I remember from the attractive hymns I learned in the infant classes.

It is the reinterpretation of natural and wholly functional orientation of the child that is not innate but is superimposed by the prevalent culture of belief.

A baby cannot be an atheist or anything else that depends upon self conscious cognition.

That maybe the case for affirmative or positive atheism that states they DO NOT believe in God, a child is born with an absence of belief in theism which is atheism by definition, no one can be born agnostic. Just like I was born not a doctor infants are born not theists (atheists).

[Belinda]

(Nested quote removed.)

I agree belinda.We all abuse our privileged position and influence our children's thoughts. But is not instilling a belief in god preferable to perpetuating a belief? We are neither atheist not theist. We are all naturally agnostic. The evidence is there. Christian produce Christians, Muslims produce Muslims.

Yes it is wrong to indoctrinate anyone especially a helpless child. My daughter in law I heard answering her own daughter when she was at a C of E primary school(yes ! ) "God is something that some people believe in". The little girl progressed to be at top of the 6th form in religious studies

[Geordie Ross]

Technically they're more agnostic, they simply don't know, they have no religious affiliation, I've never known a child to exit the womb doing hail Mary or shouting Allah u Akbar. They only become religious during their formative years.

[Misty]

I think it is misleading in an everyday context to refer to fetuses, newborns, mice or even trees simply as atheists--particularly since people often falsely use the words atheist and agnostic as mutually exclusive in an everyday context. Technically, however, these--the fetuses, et al.--all would presumably fall into the category of implicit atheists which is the weakest form of atheism, defining atheism simply as the lack of positive belief that one or more gods exist.

Does this mean that these same fetuses also have weak or no personalities, or are they born with a self that is personality? Children eventually (even without religious training) ask the age old questions about where they come from and all the other whys that lead to where did mankind come from and why are we here.

[Syamsu]

Love and hate does not decide anything, love and hate influence our decisions.

Children are more spontaneous than adults, they have an intuitively correct understanding of choosing as being spontaneous, as realizing an alternative future in the moment. Growing up people learn more to conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, because their parents tell them, but also because it is in their biology to sort out the best result.

So as explained the question of the existence of the "one" who owns "all" decisions naturally arises, simply as some kind of generic default generalization to look upon everything in terms of freedom. The generalization comes up aside from a multitude of subjective identity issues about the people in their life, for which identity issues they use the exact same logic which they also use with proposing belief in God.

[Misty]

Xris wrote, I agree belinda.We all abuse our privileged position and influence our children's thoughts. But is not instilling a belief in god preferable to perpetuating a belief? We are neither atheist not theist. We are all naturally agnostic. The evidence is there. Christian produce Christians, Muslims produce Muslims."

Yes it is wrong to indoctrinate anyone especially a helpless child. My daughter in law I heard answering her own daughter when she was at a C of E primary school(yes ! ) "God is something that some people believe in". The little girl progressed to be at top of the 6th form in religious studies

All children are under indoctrination within the belief system they reside from childhood until the age of majority. Habits are indoctrination. If one is taught there is a God or if one is taught there is no God or not taught anything one way or the other - results in indoctrination. However, it is clear that millions of people reared either way, will, as adults change their indoctrinated view for many reasons like to please a love, or they don't like the belief system, or the belief system wasn't the problem but the teachers were cruel, etc.. One also may embrace childhood indoctrination because it is not possible to get away from it and live, etc.. Ones childhood creates ones social interaction family so to speak, and may be influenced to embrace something they hate just to keep their place in the social family they know and love. My point is, it is impossible to rear a child without indoctrination so it can't be "wrong." per se.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


Does this mean that these same fetuses also have weak or no personalities, or are they born with a self that is personality? Children eventually (even without religious training) ask the age old questions about where they come from and all the other whys that lead to where did mankind come from and why are we here.

But the questions should come before the answers Misty.