Why newborn babies are atheists

[John 1720]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

Hi Kim,
I think Jesus might disagree with your conjecture, especially that babes are unaware of God.

• Matthew 18:1-7 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

I think that puts a rather big exclamation point on the sin of corrupting or molesting of children. He goes on to say their angels are in the presence of the Father. The Bible define angel as messengers so in this case we are speaking about their spiritual messengers.

• Matthew 18:10 "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

 

[Uber Genius]

Why do they learn to have faith in God?

The same way they have to learn about every other feature of the external world.

This is an absurd argument on its face.

The genetic features of humans have nothing to do with the truth-value of their beliefs. The fact that babies have no pre-built in beliefs about everything means what? Everything they have to be taught about is therefore false?

Did you take one minute to think about your argument.

Did you have to be taught that argument? Oops then it must be false.

Sounds like a new atheist argument maybe Peter Boghosian?

Self-refuting arguments based on genetic fallacies are not helpful.

Try the hiddenness of God, or the probabilistic version of the problem of evil, or the problem of hell. They are valid arguments and can support an atheistic inference.

 

[salt-n-light]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

Atheist have a belief as well. Everyone have a belief in something. Newborns don’t have that capacity to exercise belief.

 

[Caliban]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

Of course this is the case. Remember, you have to teach and catechize children. "Train up a child..." The. default position is neutral. But, many will try to tell you that things are "written of our hearts"--whatever that means. One teaches doctrine by indoctrination. Funny how those two words are connected.

 

[Kaon]

Of course this is the case. Remember, you have to teach and catechize children. "Train up a child..." The. default position is neutral. But, many will try to tell you that things are "written of our hearts"--whatever that means. One teaches doctrine by indoctrination. Funny how those two words are connected.

Written on heart means spirit.

We all know what is right and wrong. We train ourselves to believe what we want to do is right - it is a trick as old as man itself, except we often do it to our individual self.

But, I personally tend to resist the temptation to say the above because we have to dive into consciousness, and spirit - of which most people dont know, and/or dont believe exists.

We make morality to see how many people agree with our "logic" - and therefore, vindicate our thinking - whether or not we know better. Over generations, accepted codes becomes cultural impressions of a society. It doesn't mean it is the truth (there is the truth), it just means it works.

 

[Caliban]

Written on heart means spirit.

We all know what is right and wrong. We train ourselves to believe what we want to do is right - it is a trick as old as man itself, except we often do it oursevles.

But, I personally tend to resist the temptation to say the above because we have to dive into consciousness, and spirit - of which most people dont know, and/or dont believe exists.

We make morality to see how many people agree with our "logic" - and therefore, vindicate our thinking - whether or not we know better. Over generations, accepted codes becomes cultural impressions of a society. It doesn't mean it is the truth (there is the truth), it just means it works.

If 'written on the heart' means consciousness, why the vague language? It can be made to support anything. Usually that passage is used to argue for moral instincts and not consciousness. I think we all share moral foundations but, not because a book says so, but because we are a social species and have adapted to meet certain societal norms and expectations. That has more explanatory power.

 

[Kaon]

If 'written on the heart' means consciousness, why the vague language? It can be made to support anything.

It is the spirit. But, it really doesn't matter what word is used: it is vague because humans limit their understanding by adhering to man-made thought-form like logic and morality. It is very simple.

"Freeing your mind" and "forgetting everything you know" aren't just empty platitudes turned spiritual cliche.

Usually that passage is used to argue for moral instincts and not consciousness.

Morality is a man-made thought form. It is based on optimizing the survival of entities that die. Spirituality, or religious adherence, is above basic moral needs to keep a society of living creatures going. Again, humans handicap themselves by adhering to these rudimentary thoguhtforms.

I think we all share moral foundations but, not because a book says so, but because we are a social species and have adapted to meet certain societal norms and expectations. That has more explanatory power.

Why do people murder for fun, then? Why do racists run proud? Why do adults think it is perfectly normal to molest children who don't understand what it means? Not everything is a mental illness, and it is the folly of society (and the desperation to go vindicate morality, as it were) that tries to tell a man who loves to murder he is crazy, or mentally ill. It does the society an injustice, and it will always be surprised when the "illogical" happens.

At best, morality is a consensus among society to behave a certain way - substantiated by agreed-upon codes, and enforced by agreed-upon authorities. It is an anthropological extension of tribe and totem. It isn't truth, and not nearly everyone shares the same morality.

 

[Caliban]

It is the spirit. But, it really doesn't matter what word is used: it is vague because humans limit their understanding by adhering to man-made thought-form like logic and morality. It is very simple.

"Freeing your mind" and "forgetting everything you know" aren't just empty platitudes turned spiritual cliche.



Morality is a man-made thought form. It is based on optimizing the survival of entities that die. Spirituality, or religious adherence, is above basic moral needs to keep a society of living creatures going. Again, humans handicap themselves by adhering to these rudimentary thoguhtforms.



Why do people murder for fun, then? Why do racists run proud? Why do adults think it is perfectly normal to molest children who don't understand what it means? Not everything is a mental illness, and it is the folly of society (and the desperation to go vindicate morality, as it were) that tries to tell a man who loves to murder he is crazy, or mentally ill. It does the society an injustice, and it will always be surprised when the "illogical" happens.

At best, morality is a consensus among society to behave a certain way - substantiated by agreed-upon codes, and enforced by agreed-upon authorities. It is an anthropological extension of tribe and totem. It isn't truth, and not nearly everyone shares the same morality.

There are naturalistic reasons for why people are racist. There are naturalistic reasons why people murder for pleasure. I don't see any need for the supernatural in these areas.

 

[Kaon]

There are naturalistic reasons for why people are racist. There are naturalistic reasons why people murder for pleasure. I don't see any need for the supernatural in these areas.

I am not talking about supernature. I am talking about the pure subjectivity of morality. There is nothing about morality that is objective. And, just because something happens doesn't meant it is natural.

Nature is subjective to people, especially people who don't know its full scope. What we call supernatural may be natural in truth, and what we call natural may be biologically abominable in truth. Science is a method for studying nature and drawing conclusions, but those conclusions are also subjective. Or at the very least non-unique. It may work, but it isn't the the truth.

 

[Caliban]

I have no evidence that there is or ever was something called "the truth." All I see is subjectivity in relationships with humans. I even see moral subjectivity in the Bible.

 

[Kaon]

I have no evidence that there is or ever was something called "the truth." All I see is subjectivity in relationships with humans. I even see moral subjectivity in the Bible.

Perhaps. But evidence is also subjective. What if you were blind, deaf, or developed hypogeusia? How would you do emergent (unified/coalesced) physics and math without eyes? How would you communicate your genius to the "lot" of us? You have to have something you trust beyond "this."

All of this we think is "truth" is subjectivity - even science. That is why faith is so important in the world besides the cultural West: it is understood we know nothing, for example, and that in order to keep from being paralyzed by existentialism, we continue with a measure of faith in our existence and operation.

Ignoring that measure of faith is dangerous, because it gives the false impression one is in control of one's destiny. When you don't have a destiny to fulfil "just existence to live," then it may become easier to actually live.

Incidentally, Christianity is not about subjectivity, but the Truth itself. Specifically, there is an Entity known as "Christ" who has ad part of His identity: Truth. In other words, all religions put their faith in the aforementioned understanding of their existentialism, and that there is something else beyond them that is Absolute.

Some people choose other humans as their absolute, others choose themselves.

 

[Caliban]

Perhaps. But evidence is also subjective. What if you were blind, deaf, or developed hypogeusia? How would you do emergent (unified/coalesced) physics and math without eyes? How would you communicate your genius to the "lot" of us? You have to have something you trust beyond "this."

All of this we think is "truth" is subjectivity - even science. That is why faith is so important in the world besides the cultural West: it is understood we know nothing, for example, and that in order to keep from being paralyzed by existentialism, we continue with a measure of faith in our existence and operation.

Ignoring that measure of faith is dangerous, because it gives the false impression one is in control of one's destiny. When you don't have a destiny to fulfil "just existence to live," then it may become easier to actually live.

Incidentally, Christianity is not about subjectivity, but the Truth itself. Specifically, there is an Entity known as "Christ" who has ad part of His identity: Truth. In other words, all religions put their faith in the aforementioned understanding of their existentialism, and that there is something else beyond them that is Absolute.

Some people choose other humans as their absolute, others choose themselves.

No, science is not subjective--that's the point. Faith is. If all of our scientific knowledge was destroyed tomorrow, humans would be able to re-discover everything in time because science is replicable. Faith however is not. Thor is not around. bacchus is not worshiped anymore. These gods are not replicable. The current gods will succumb to history also. How am I wrong?

 

[Silmarien]

Of course this is the case. Remember, you have to teach and catechize children. "Train up a child..." The. default position is neutral. But, many will try to tell you that things are "written of our hearts"--whatever that means. One teaches doctrine by indoctrination. Funny how those two words are connected.

For children, the default position seems to be talking to imaginary friends. They tend to live in what is in some ways a pretty intensely magical world, which is hardly a neutral state. (If there truly is such a thing as a neutral state, something I see no evidence of.)

As for doctrine and indoctrination, they're both connected to the Latin word docere, to teach, and it should be self-evident that any worldview, including naturalism, is the sort of thing that needs to be taught and internalized in some way.

 

[Kaon]

No, science is not subjective--that's the point. Faith is. If all of our scientific knowledge was destroyed tomorrow, humans would be able to re-discover everything in time because science is replicable. Faith however is not. Thor is not around. bacchus is not worshiped anymore. These gods are not replicable. The current gods will succumb to history also. How am I wrong?

Science is Greek for knowledge, and the basic knowledge we have has been proven to be obsolete in different paradigms. This is not objectivity; we don't have to call it subjective/matter of philosophy. But, knowledge is nothing without the truth; it is just another subjective commentary (albeit, perhaps, a finely tuned commentary). Technically, the scientific revolution came out of philosophy - which is not objective.

Only the Truth is objectivity, and since people do not know the Truth, the best they have is faith/trust. We can call it whatever we want, but if it was the Truth we wouldn't be so blind, myopic and degenerate. The absolute Truth is not confusion, and there is a clear divide. Society strives to fit into gray areas of inclusion for its people and the world, yet it is a bastion for truth?

 

[Principium]

Yes, kinda good point, no one believe in gods when they`re so young, if gods really existed wouldn`t we all or most of us pick it up by our surroundings early on?

 

[Kaon]

Yes, kinda good point, no one believe in gods when they`re so young, if gods really existed wouldn`t we all or most of us pick it up by our surroundings early on?

Your first exposure to "god" on earth should your parents. They are supposed to represent the tangible images of The Most High God the Father - who is invisible even to the angels: loving, caring, nurturing, self-sacrificing, forgiving, merciful, vengeful (for their child,) wrathful (for their child), a seeker of justice (for their child), etc.

I believe babies likely know much more than we know as adults; we are taught to think a certain way by the time we enter primary school, and very rarely do people deviate from that type of psychology.

 

[Principium]

Your first exposure to "god" on earth should your parents. They are supposed to represent the tangible images of The Most High God the Father - who is invisible even to the angels: loving, caring, nurturing, self-sacrificing, forgiving, merciful, vengeful (for their child,) wrathful (for their child), a seeker of justice (for their child), etc.

I believe babies likely know much more than we know as adults; we are taught to think a certain way by the time we enter primary school, and very rarely do people deviate from that type of psychology.

Still strange a little sort of, it`s like gods are invisible

 

[Kaon]

Still strange a little sort of, it`s like gods are invisible

I agree; it is exactly "like" gods are invisible. But that is just a testament to our poor ability to perceive our surroundings.

 

[Principium]

I agree; it is exactly "like" gods are invisible. But that is just a testament to our poor ability to perceive our surroundings.

Yes of course, could be

 

[Bobber]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

I couldn't help but chuckle at the title of this thread.

Well can a newborn baby believe or not believe anything? That would require intelligence to properly assess, weigh and decide on what's valid information. Ha...I'd think the only thing a baby is assessing is whether it's hungry or not.