drafterman

@drafterman - If there is a Judas in the game, would the DP end with their lynch or would they just convert? 

You confuse a physical state with a tendency. Children are born small but are born with a tendency to grow larger. Children are born knowing nothing but with a tendency to learn. A child that did not grow or learn would be considered odd, yes.

I have seen no proof of this. The human brain is curious and seeks out explanations for why reality is the way it is. This tendency often leads to false ideas about reality. This is true even for science.

No. All initial inquiry can be labeled "superstitious thinking". It is ad-hoc to bunch theism in with "superstitious thinking" to suit your argument. Even science has led us to wrong beliefs about reality. "Superstitious thinking" is wrong thinking. Both science and theism can fall under this banner. It is your bias that makes you equate theism with superstition.

You can't be born neither an atheist nor a theist. There is no middle ground between the two. You are either one or the other.

Not true. Children are BEFORE the determination of theist or atheist, just like Schrödinger's cat, we cannot say whether they are theist or atheist, so they are neither.

A person cannot be unconsciously atheist, as atheism requires a knowledge of theism, thus the name "a-theist".

Without theism, the definition of atheist makes no sense.

Atheism is not simply an absence of theism, it is a rejection of theism. In newborns, there is no theism, and thus nothing to reject.

I am proposing that theism naturally developed out of the myths and superstitions of ancient humans.

Even science developed out of the myths and superstitions of ancient humans! Both science and theism have had to separate and distinguish themselves from the old myths and superstitions of ancient humans. But all inquiry "lends itself" to superstitious" thinking.

It is just easy for your argument to label all theism as "superstitious thinking", but unfortunately for you, that categorization is also wrong.

Then it is convenient for your argument that you have already labeled theism as "myths and superstitions"! Getting to conclusions by means other than logic makes for poor arguments.

Try this....

Left to their own devices, a group of people would merely be superstitious and would most likely develop some sort of science as a crude explanatory model of the world (you know, as actually happened in human history).

...Is the above true? of course it is. You are trying to shoe-horn theism into "superstitious thinking" when science also fits the bill!

You contention has not been about thinking, but "superstitous thinking", which you equate with theism. So please clear this up for me. Is the following a correct representation of your position?

It is impossible to be completely, 100% non-superstitous. No person is, ergo every person has some level of superstitous thinking.

1. If you say the above is true, you then admit that superstition is NOT the exclusive domain of theism, but if you say the above is untrue, then 2. You DO equate theism with superstition.

1 undercuts your current argument, and 2 is obviously an atheist bias.

That is well and good, but you go further and substitute "theism" for superstitious thinking" in your argument. That is a fallacy. A perfect example using your claim above would be if you substituted "English" for language.

The propensity for superstitious thinking is innate in us, just like the propensity for English is innate in us.

Both substitutions render the statement incorrect. Superstitious thinking is not what is innate in us, curiosity is what is innate. Just as English is not what is innate in us, language is what is innate. It is just as illogical to substitute English for language, as it is to substitute theism for superstitious thinking, when talking about "innate qualities" in us.

Calling a baby an atheist rests on the incorrect definition of atheist as "without belief". But without belief in what?

All Roles taken from here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_pFVyzYrrc2kkwkX60hMmmTeYrM0bC3LejPCYtLZ9cQ/edit

1. Elminster
   
2. Speedrace
   
3. ILikePie5
   
4. Whiteflame
   
5. Lunatic
   
6. That1User
   
7. SupaDudz
   
8. Crocodile
9. Danielle
   
10. GreyParrot
    

Now we are getting somewhere. Allow me to summerize. You're saying that people are all  born atheist, but yet have a natural tendency toward theism. That they have a natural tendency toward the exact opposite of what they are born as!

It seems to me that you are ignoring the simplest explanation. Children are born neither and move one way or the other naturally.

Atheism needs to be reinforced by rational and skeptical thinking.

Does your "group of humans" theory stand up to critical scrutiny? The first theists could not possibly have been in groups. According to you, there were no theist! Unless you are proposing some mass event where whole groups of atheists morphed into theists simultaneously.

If children are born atheist, then you at least imply that is natural, but why would a natural condition of children need to be reinforced by rational and skeptical thinking?

As you say they are born atheist, it seems to me it would be theism that would need to be reinforced.

Your implication that theism is not rational is just your bias. Thousands of highly rational and skeptical people have been and are now theists. You seem to be assuming your conclusion right before your premise.

Sorry, but I still think reality contradicts you. Even you acknowledge the natural tendency humans have toward theism. Why would we have a natural tendency towards what was not innate in us?

I am reminded of a scientist who theorized that there can be no innate desire in humanity that does not have a  precipitator in nature. In simpler terms, man cannot have a natural desire for what does not exist.

Agreed. The idea that children start out as atheist is contradicted by the fact that there are theists! Reality contradicts you. I'm not saying that the existence of God refutes your idea, I'm saying the existence of theists refutes your idea. And I'm sure we both agree that theists can exist whether God exists or not.

It is obvious that children do not start out as atheists or theists. And if one proposes that they do all start out as atheists, one must then explain the existence of theists. Not God mind you, just theists.

The issue at hand is whether or not children start out as atheists, which is a discussion independent of there actually being a creator or not and related arguments.

If they start out as atheists, for the one's who become theists, what changes their minds as they get older?

Where did the God concept come from if it's independent of the issue at hand?

No, the subject at hand is whether or not children start out with a belief in God. They do not.

I'm the one who started the thread, and I can assure you it's not.

There is no neutral ground between atheism and theism. Atheism is the negation of theism.

Then how does an atheist become a theist?

In other words, there's probably a fairly subjective reason for a number of atheists to insist infants are atheists.

And a fairly objective one: they are atheists.

Then where does theism originate from since atheism supposedly negates theism?

Because it was in reference to something of a relationship with a creator which this discussion is not about.

The God concept had to originate from somewhere. Why would you dismiss relationship (experiencing, awareness) as an origin?

Around 5-6 to have the kind of abstract thoughts necessary.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you're saying that a 5-6 year old would be able to conceive of a creator without ever being taught the concept?

Science does, however, show us that infants lack the cognitive ability to form such abstract beliefs. No belief = no belief in a god = atheism.

And science does not however disprove the existence of a creator. And thus does not disprove the many claims amongst humans throughout history of having an awareness of a creator. This is not ad populum in that I'm not claiming this to be proof of a creator. It does beg the question can one really claim this to be irrelevant in the argument for a creator?

Whether I agree with this is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

The conversation at hand is whether or not children have a belief in god when they are born. They do not. This has nothing to do with whether or not a god actually exists and whether or not said god can interact with those children.

This is at least one of your statements where a misunderstanding takes place. The subject at hand is not whether or not children have a belief in God.

My opening statement was that I don't perceive them as atheists. I maintain the same view that DrFranklin takes. Infants are neutral in

terms of belief, or lack thereof in God/a god. If they're neutral, they can't be on one side or the other. They're not an atheist, or theist.

In other words, there's probably a fairly subjective reason for a number of atheists to insist infants are atheists.

Nothing is awful about it. It is just irrelevant to this conversation.

How would you know if you don't know what it means?

A belief in a god? Yes. I am sure about that. Infants lack the cognitive development to form such abstract beliefs. It takes well more than a year

for children just to realize that other people are in fact other people (rather than extensions of themselves) yet we're going to place on them the burden to conceive and understand the concept of a god?

You're giving me a time span implying that forming an abstract belief would have to reach beyond the definition of childhood. At some point

any given person will have the ability to form such an abstract belief. At what age would you say would be the minimum requirement for this achievement?

No atheism is not rejecting theism, it is a colledtion of ideas relating to rejecting religion, it is different

we can not go on with this defintion

I'm pointing out that there are times an adult's mind goes blank as to what happened a day or so ago. Your mind is blank as to what went on in your earliest infant years. So you don't really know if your mind was actually blank at the time.

Or do you?

As a believer I don't see any reason to rule out a conscious realization of a creator during infancy, even if not able to conceptualize the idea of a god. And of course biblically speaking it makes a lot sense.

Then this would be yet another area in which the Bible contradicts known science. If you're argument boils down to "Children are theists because the Bible says so and take the Bible

at

its word by default" then I have no refutation to offer and our conversation comes to a conclusion.

sorry for any religious reference, but it is a religion forum.

You used the term known science. Is there an unknown, or unknown as of yet science?

You certainly don't have to continue the conversation, but part of my opinion is based on scripture. but I'm not making that my argument. If we don't remember our earliest infant years, then how can you make any solid claim that we were unaware of something like a creator?

I would say it's likely to be a major catalyst in adults believing in God.

Science doesn't disprove a creator, nor the ability for a creator to interact with humans powerless to take any initiative in doing the same. If it does, please show me.

The scope of conversation for -isms is generally restricted to people (e.g. humans). I'm not prepared to talk about the atheism of slugs or rocks or such. They are out of scope.

I'm not trying to create a new definition of atheism for animals.

Unfortunately I think you've been side-tracked by the term.

Wouldn't you agree that a creator would probably have the ability to interact with it's creation, even if the creation lacks ability to comprehend everything about the creator? Infants don't even know everything about their parents. Do infants lack belief in parents if they don't know what they are?

Seriously!

A violation of what?

Have you ever seen a thread in this forum suggesting teaching children religion is abusive?

The definition is what you have stated it to be and your issue isn't with the definition. You simply don't understand that infants don't have beliefs and therefore atheists. You simply want them to have beliefs as that is consistent with your own beliefs as derived from the Bible. I can say nothing to this except that there is nothing about the real world that suggests it must conform to your established world view or that of the Bible. That this doesn't matter to you is contradicted by your desire to create a thread about this very subject.

I don't think you're implying that infants have absolutely no beliefs. Are you?

But again, in my opinion infants have a relationship with the creator that overrides the infants lack of being able to form beliefs. We can intermingle with ants even though they are powerless to understand what we are.

I don't even care to know what that means.

Why? What is so god awful, or appears to be so god awful about what I said?

The relevant fact is they lack the ability to form beliefs. Ergot they lack beliefs. Ergo they lack a belief in god. Ergo they are atheists. It can't get much simpler or iron clad than that.

And again, are you really sure an infant cannot form a belief?

Far more mentally mature people have drawn blanks at times via drugs and alcohol. It doesn't mean that during those lost hours no thoughts were going through the person's mind.

That we don't know exactly what is going in the heads of infants and toddlers does not mean we can't rule out some things. The presence of early child-hood amnesia still perplexes many people. Yet we do have a fair grasp of the generalities of cognitive development.

I think it's agreeable to suggest that conceptualizing the idea of a god requires a fair amount of abstract thought, as it is not rooted in any think physical or tangible in the real world. This kind of thinking really doesn't start developing until later childhood. But it has very fuzzy edges and abstract thoughts trickle in slowly at first and this type of thinking strengths and broadens as the child grows. We're talking ranges anywhere from 6 to 16, depending on a variety of circumstances.

Point being, an infant simply does not have the capability of forming any real beliefs as they don't have thoughts in the sense we understand them, let alone thoughts about abstract entities.

As a believer I don't see any reason to rule out a conscious realization of a creator during infancy, even if not able to conceptualize the idea of a god. And of course biblically speaking it makes a lot sense.

If you went to a remote section of a wilderness region and encountered some animals who've never seen a human, we could say by your definition that these animals were natural atheists concerning a higher intelligence (humans).

They allow you to intermingle with them, but lack the ability to understand what we represent in the animal kingdom. But is there now a relationship going on between you and the animals? Of course.

My definition of atheism leans a bit to this one:

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I don't think a newborn disbelieves. Or even lacks belief.

And I have to admit, in the back of my mind I may be thinking about how the suggestion of infants being atheists implies that introducing a religion or spiritual belief to a child is a violation.

But, really, if the definition of atheism is fairly loose, I suppose it doesn't really matter to me personally.

But again, in my opinion infants have a relationship with the creator that overrides the infants lack of being able to form beliefs. We can intermingle with ants even though they are powerless to understand what we are.

couple things come to mind

first, atheism is not simply not a theist,

someone could be deists or agnostics.

Atheism would be more if someone had reviewed the evidence and made up his mind that God does not exist, that is not children.

They do not have the comprehension to identify themselves as atheists, heck most don't even though they are

on technicality, I would argue they are more likely agnostics or simply unaffiliated,

they don't have knowledge to identify themselves with the atheism per definition and it makes more sense to go with agnostics who are people who think the knowledge is unmown or more likely unaffiliated/undecided.

I may as well clarify now.

I stated that in my opinion, children are not atheists. I'm actually not even claiming they are agnostics.

For one, we don't know what we believed, or didn't believe at early enough age. Unless you can tell me otherwise, your earliest infant years draw a blank.

We do know we forget things over time. We most certainly forgot many events that happened throughout our life, including our thoughts. So how would you know whether or not you, or any infant were aware of the existence of a creator?

If I understand you correctly, what would be the difference if the person was a child being asked the same question?

Let me create a scenario.

Two people approach you on different occasions.

You say to the first (for whatever reason) that god "X" exists. They tell you they don't believe such a god, or any god exists.

Is that an atheist?

You say the same thing to the second person who approaches you, and they say they never heard of god "x", and may, if they have time look into it.

Is that person an agnostic?

A child who was too young to understand an explanation of God....is an atheist.

I know what you're trying to say, but a child does not know whether or not there's a God.

By similar rules they are an agnostic by virtue of not making any claim of non-belief God. They are not conscious of not believing.

Just the innocence of their openness to knowledge should render atheism a wrong claim.

I think the definition of atheism has been too oversimplified over time.

Do you recall the moment you decided you were an atheist?

We may have a different interpretation of what an atheist is.

How can a child not believe in something they've never heard of from another human?

This is the second post that seems to suggest there are no agnostics.