Are we born as atheists, or are we born as believers?

[Eudaimonist]

I wouldn't be surprised if the parents of the child are the first "gods" of that child. But I doubt that children are literally born with a pre-installed god-belief.

For my part, I had to have God explained to me when I was three years old or so. I didn't have any God-belief before then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

What's the default position?

I look at this the same way as this:

Is someone born a Red Sox fan, or a Yankees fan?

 

[timewerx]

What's the default position?

Probably my first spiritual hypothesis when I had first night terror when I was probably three is that there are dark energies in the dark depths of our minds.

Other than that, I made fun of religion. It wasn't until 12 that I had a spiritual experience and it was not initiated by anyone and not even in a church.

 

[ianb321red]

What's the default position?

I think your question exposes the difficulty with defining the term "atheist".

The correct definition is an absolute statement of "no god" - a theos, meaning there is no god.
The more commonly held definition of "a lack of belief in a god" is reasonably pointless, since it doesn't make an assertion about the object of belief or disbelief.

Therefore, using this definition a baby would be an atheist since it would lack a belief in a god. But what a pointless remark to make? We would expect that - so by the same token, saying you lack a belief in god is a fairly uninteresting position to hold, since it doesn't reveal whether you've even considered the thing (god) you lack a belief in.

So to answer the OP question, it depends on your definition of "atheist".

We're not born believers either, although as we are made in the image of God, as Paul writes in Romans 1:20 the existence of God is made plain to all and we are without excuse in terms of perceiving this.

 

[bhsmte]

Probably my first spiritual hypothesis when I had first night terror when I was probably three is that there are dark energies in the dark depths of our minds.

Other than that, I made fun of religion. It wasn't until 12 that I had a spiritual experience and it was not initiated by anyone and not even in a church.

I would imagine, most so called spiritual experiences, are self generated.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

According to the Bible, all people are born with an innate sense of the existence of their Creator. (Ro. 1:18-20)

All I need to disprove this naked assertion is to be aware of at least one person without 'an innate sense of the existence of their Creator (sic)'. As it happens, I am aware of at least one such person - me. I am therefor 100% certain that the Bible is false, and cannot be the work of a purportedly 'perfect' being.

Thanks for sharing my favorite disproof of the Bible, courtesy of the Bible itself.

 

[ianb321red]

All I need to disprove this naked assertion is to be aware of at least one person without 'an innate sense of the existence of their Creator (sic)'. As it happens, I am aware of at least one such person - me. I am therefor 100% certain that the Bible is false, and cannot be the work of a purportedly 'perfect' being.

Thanks for sharing my favorite disproof of the Bible, courtesy of the Bible itself.

All this passage is saying is that creation is clear evidence of a creator.
The passage does NOT say that all people will reciprocate/ affirm this evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

I think your question exposes the difficulty with defining the term "atheist".

The correct definition is an absolute statement of "no god" - a theos, meaning there is no god.
The more commonly held definition of "a lack of belief in a god" is reasonably pointless, since it doesn't make an assertion about the object of belief or disbelief.

Therefore, using this definition a baby would be an atheist since it would lack a belief in a god. But what a pointless remark to make? We would expect that - so by the same token, saying you lack a belief in god is a fairly uninteresting position to hold, since it doesn't reveal whether you've even considered the thing (god) you lack a belief in.

So to answer the OP question, it depends on your definition of "atheist".

We're not born believers either, although as we are made in the image of God, as Paul writes in Romans 1:20 the existence of God is made plain to all and we are without excuse in terms of perceiving this.

You make the mistake of choosing to 'define' words, rather than seeking meaning of words.

It suits your argument to portray a technical definition, whereas the overwhelming majority of atheists view their position as simply a rejection of God claims due to an absence of evidence.

But please, do continue to tell people what they must be thinking.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

All this passage is saying is that creation is clear evidence of a creator.

You can apply that same circular logic to literally anything. Coffee mugs are 'clear evidence' of coffee mug-making elves, if you imagine such things to exist.

The passage does NOT say that all people will reciprocate/ affirm this evidence.

You can very easily read it that way, depending on the translation.

To the point though, I don't care. You should be telling this to your fellow believers who use Romans 1 as an apologetic, not me.

 

[ianb321red]

You make the mistake of choosing to 'define' words, rather than seeking meaning of words.

It suits your argument to portray a technical definition, whereas the overwhelming majority of atheists view their position as simply a rejection of God claims due to an absence of evidence.

But please, do continue to tell people what they must be thinking.

Can't you see why your definition is unsatisfactory though? You appear to imply that those who believe in god do so on the basis of no evidence.

 

[ianb321red]

You can apply that same circular logic to literally anything. Coffee mugs are 'clear evidence' of coffee mug-making elves, if you imagine such things to exist.



You can very easily read it that way, depending on the translation.

To the point though, I don't care. You should be telling this to your fellow believers who use Romans 1 as an apologetic, not me.

You do care though - you're using this passage as your trump card to disprove the Bible, as stated in your post above?

 

[Hank77]

According to the Bible, all people are born with an innate sense of the existence of their Creator. (Ro. 1:18-20) Selah.

Born knowing God exists? No.

All this passage is saying is that creation is clear evidence of a creator.
The passage does NOT say that all people will reciprocate/ affirm this evidence.

Born with the ability to, at some point, recognized God in His creation, yes. I believe this is so because we are created in His image.

We're not born believers either, although as we are made in the image of God, as Paul writes in Romans 1:20 the existence of God is made plain to all and we are without excuse in terms of perceiving this.

I agree.

 

[quatona]

According to the Bible, all people are born with an innate sense of the existence of their Creator. (Ro. 1:18-20)

What a surprise.

 

[SteveB28]

Can't you see why your definition is unsatisfactory though? You appear to imply that those who believe in god do so on the basis of no evidence.

Insufficient evidence, yes.

But I'm more concerned with the portrayal of my position, rather than that of theists. Let them worry about where their meaning comes from.

 

[aiki]

All I need to disprove this naked assertion is to be aware of at least one person without 'an innate sense of the existence of their Creator (sic)'. As it happens, I am aware of at least one such person - me. I am therefor 100% certain that the Bible is false, and cannot be the work of a purportedly 'perfect' being.

Thanks for sharing my favorite disproof of the Bible, courtesy of the Bible itself.

Well, this "disproof" relies entirely upon your word, which I have no good reason to accept as true - especially when it contradicts God's Word. To put it very plainly, when you and the Word of God disagree, I will always trust the Bible over you.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

Born knowing God exists? No.

Of course not. A newborn has little cognizance of anything. But I think by seven or eight years of age a child may have some inkling of a "higher power" and certainly by the teen years one's innate sense of God's existence is in full bloom.

Selah.

 

[Soma Seer]

What's the default position?

As a very young child, my parents didn't read to me from a children's version of the Bible or any religious storybooks, etc. Back then, my dad was a non-practicing RC and my mom a non-practicing Lutheran. (She went through RCIA when I was 17, as did I at that time.)

Around age 6-7, I somehow came to own a picture book about Jesus. I used to take read aloud from it, while walking around my playroom and pointing my index finger at an imaginary audience to stress the teachings of Jesus.

These days, I don't attend any church but study the Bible for guidance and illumination. In that respect, I consider myself spiritual though not religious. But I still remember feeling close to Jesus and awed by his life and teachings--and his life teachings--discussed in that book. Again, no one ever read such stories to me--and, yet, I somehow understood them to be vital in some way.

That all said, I think it entirely possible for some souls to enter this world with remembrance of the "God Spark" within; others are completely ignorant of it at birth but come to realize it over time; and then some never seem to realize it at all. Like anything else, people (souls) seem to run the gamut on this issue.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well, this "disproof" relies entirely upon your word, which I have no good reason to accept as true

I have no need for you to accept it. It's predicated on the content of my thoughts, which is information only one of us has access to - me. As such, I am in the position to know, with 100% certainty, that your assertion is false, while you can only guess as to its accuracy.

And this method is accessible not only to me, but any atheist who chooses to apply it.

This video explains it pretty well if anyone reading along cares for an in-depth explanation,

especially when it contradicts God's Word. To put it very plainly, when you and the Word of God disagree, I will always trust the Bible over you.

You don't have 'god's word'. You have words you've imagined to be 'god's', which you cannot substantiate in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You do care though - you're using this passage as your trump card to disprove the Bible, as stated in your post above?

Yes, as stated in the post I was originally quoting. I do care to dismantle such vacuous non-arguments.

I do not care if you don't interpret this passage the same way as some of your fellow believers, who use it as an apologetic. That is an internal problem of your own, and is irrelevant to me.

 

[aiki]

I have no need for you to accept it. It's predicated on the content of my thoughts, which is information only one of us has access to - me. As such, I am in the position to know, with 100% certainty, that your assertion is false, while you can only guess as to its accuracy.

Well, humans deceive themselves about all sorts of things. Atheism is a prime example.

Selah.