rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on Apr 21, 2012 18:31:00 GMT
Thought I'd just post this up here because I've found that many many many people have simply misunderstood atheism or have gotten the definition wrong. This means that conversations are flawed from the get go, and it's tedious trying to explain how the premises are flawed. If we all understand each other from the get go, conversations will be more fruitful and fun for everyone. Atheism (-a -theism // -without -theism) is the lack of belief in a god i.e. this label tells you nothing about if they disbelieve in any gods. e.g. babies are atheists, since they do not have any beliefs in god. It doesn't mean they think that gods don't exist, they simply don't have that belief. e.g. 2) a person who is raised by animals is an atheist. this doesn't mean they think that god doesn't exist. they simply haven't heard of the concept even, so by default they are atheists. thus, atheism is not a belief (although certain atheists may have beliefs on the topic), otherwise babies are darn religious!! If you are still struggling to understand where many atheists are coming from then perhaps this analogy will help clarify: Atheism is as much of a religion as 'not playing chess' is a hobby. So, someone who actually believes there are no gods would be called a gnostic atheist, where 'gnostic' (-gnosis // -knowledge) refers to their knowledge of the subject, i.e. they believe that they know for sure that there is no god(s). So an agnostic atheist, would be someone who doesn't have a belief in god(s) but isn't sure about it.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Apr 21, 2012 22:03:30 GMT
You are making assumptions about the beliefs of babies and people raised by animals that are not supported by any evidence.
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on Apr 21, 2012 22:46:15 GMT
Yeah ok I guess technically, but if you want to be really pedantic about it, you have made an assumption about everything in your life.
Are you playing devils advocate or are you genuinely suggesting that babies thinking about the concept of god is a plausible possibility?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Apr 26, 2012 6:42:01 GMT
I really believe that babies believing in god is a plausible possibility.
Babies thinking about it (it being god) in the way that we do, no, not without presupposing lingual ability in babies, which seems unlikely given current evidence. However if we presuppose a deity which likes to be believed in, as most religions do, then it would be odd for him or her not to put a belief in the existence of him or herself in the minds of infants.
I make assumptions about many things, but most are supported by evidence in some way. In some cases I recognize that there is no compelling evidence one way or the other, and I make assumptions that are not supported but when building an arguement it is important to realize when we do so so that we can recognize what conclusions are strongly or weakly supported by the evidence.
(edited to make sure the central point was clear)
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on Apr 27, 2012 10:33:17 GMT
Well I think in this case there is compelling evidence 1 way, but not the other. The only "evidence" you have put forth is that vein gods like to be believed in so they may have planted the idea in their heads. This is just a hypothesis based on very very old literature, riddled with contradictions, paradoxes and so on. Not very compelling... at all. On the other hand, we know babies don't have the mental capacity to accomplish even the most trivial of tasks. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that they would have the mental capacity to conceive the concept of god. Furthermore, if the hypothesis you suggested was correct, I think the idea of god would be a lot more prevalent. For example, in those cultures where the idea (of god) is not something that is passed on (by humans) from generation to generation, you would think that the idea would still be prevalent, no? How would this be accounted for?
This idea you suggested is a useless belief to hold. Personally I would never even consider it, because I don't see how it could be useful in any way. But even though I have had to consider it now, I'd say the evidence against it coupled with the extremely weak evidence for- it only bolsters my position that there is no need for me to assume that babies are thinking about god.
We don't know what babies are thinking about, so they could be thinking about nuclear fission. Doubt it. Even if that were somehow true (and i'm talking about like 1 x 10^-50 chance or something), there would be no reason for me to assume that they do.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Apr 27, 2012 16:57:31 GMT
The idea of God is pretty close to universal, it's only in fairly recent times that atheism and Agnosticism have become wide spread.
babies are certainly not capable of holding as complex a concept of god as an adult is, but to say they are naturally atheist because they can't hold a complex idea is disingenious, there are plenty of adult Christians who don't hold a complex concept of god as they have never examined it in that much detail.
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on May 4, 2012 14:11:08 GMT
I think it's somewhat more disingenuous to assume that babies think about any concepts other than the most primitive ones that they actually express in some form, such as: i'm hungry! i'm cold! i'm happy! i'm sad!
If babies are born with any concept of god, then what happens to this when they grow up? Why aren't children telling us about deities rather than the other way around?
Do you think that babies think about photosynthesis?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on May 4, 2012 18:04:14 GMT
The natural human reaction to the concept of god is awe and reverence, babies certainly seem to be expressing awe and reverence sometimes.
As children grow up they are indoctrinated by their parents and other adults concerning the nature of the world, if you speak with a child they usually have some ideas about the nature of divinity, even when raised by parents who do not discuss this sort of thing with them.
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on May 4, 2012 19:06:30 GMT
Do you not think that the "awe" and "reverence" they seem to be expressing is more likely due to perceiving the world for the first time after spending 9 months effectively blind floating in warm liquid inside another human being? I'd guess they'd probably spend some time adjusting to their senses and this new environment. I'd think this could induce awe.
In response to your second part- I guess this just comes down to personal experience. I haven't met any toddlers or children trying to express god or the "divine" (I'm not quite sure what this means though). I imagine you have?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on May 4, 2012 23:41:33 GMT
I have yes. as far as why babies are in awe, there are plenty of possible reasons. An idea about God is one possibility.
|
|
rns
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by rns on May 9, 2012 15:55:59 GMT
I'm curious- in what ways did these babies/toddlers express "god" to you. as far as why babies are in awe, there are plenty of possible reasons. An idea about God is one possibility. Yeah, well technically everything is a possibility, it could be anything. Personally I'd rather go with the most obvious and simple answer rather than entertain theories which a) have no value (to assume the hypothesis to be correct) and b) for which there is no evidence for.
|
|