I had to stop immediately at every baby is born a Muslim.

'Atheist' is not a specific 'sect' or 'alternate religion'. It's simply a word referring to not being a theist, or one who believes in some supernatural deity.

So every baby might well be an 'atheist', unless you are claiming that babies are 'born with belief'. It's not saying that babies are born 'disbelieving' in a God. It's just saying they're no more born believing in a God than they are born believing in SpongeBob. They have no such concept until they mentally develop to the point where they CAN have such a concept.

So yes, babies are born 'atheist', but that says nothing about whether they'll grow up to become deliberate non-believers or priests. It's just a semantic issue, not a religious one. You can't have 'faith' until you understand that there is something to have faith in.

They most likely believe things about their parents that we can't even imagine.

I think the author makes a good point. It's a silly argument either way and using babies to make a case seems particularly silly.

But there might ensue a raging argument on the issue prompted by this article, which could be hilarious.

And babies do not have a belief in a god until that idea is presented to them.

No belief in god = atheist.

Children are not born with a belief in Islam, Buddhism, Pastafarian or whatever, but there is a question of whether the tendency to grow up and get religious belief just comes down to what a child is taught, or something else. Are some people born to be a certain way?

For example, a lot of the Al-Q types were born to parents that were NOT extremists at all, some of whom were atheists that would NOT have raised their children to be intense Muslims. Osama Ben Ladin himself was from a family that took their religion very lightly, as show by the fact that Osama himself was the son of a concubine, one of several his father had, which is forbidden by Islamic law (especially the strongly enforced law in Saudi Arabia.) Now, the books will analyze for years wehther Osama's religon was a way to get back at Daddy, or something that would have grown despite efforts by the family to discourage it.

Or let's use a simpler idea: has anyone did a study to see how many children raised in relgious households go atheist and vice versa? While ancedotal evidence may be common, what would settle the issue is to do a study that analyzes changes in attitudes towards relgion, yay so many atheist families, yay so many religious, and see what the children actually do. This might seem silly, but keep in mind, until the scienstist actually did hard, number crunching studies, few would have talked about a child being "born" gay. Thankfully, people did the studies, and now it is accpeted that people are born gay, that it is just another variable.

And if indeed, the study was done, then we get the payoff, because religion, which is assumed to be a choice, would then be just another variable.

perhaps there is a predilection to be more or less religious that people are born with (just speculation) this would in no way point to which religion they would gravitate to. No one is born more prone to be a Christian or Muslim, that is a matter of where and to whom they are born.

Then prove that babies are born with it.

Do I really need to present proof to you that babies are curious?

So, yes, you made the claim and you need to back it up.

or not.

I don't need to do anything, particularly for someone who feels the need to personally attack me right out of the gate.

You should listen to your friend rug, after all, without evidence, you're simply posting fairy tales.

Words to live by.

or even a kitten, believes they are consumed with curiosity, awe, and wonder. It's a thing with newborns, learning, and brain development.

More likely, it would behoove you to prove they are not.

Without evidence, posting fairy tales, etc.

which one might call 'wonder'. They presumably do not, however, have 'wonder' in the spiritual sense, or even in the imaginative sense. While older preschoolers have a predilection for fantasy and magic, this is not found in infants: imagination does not appear to develop till the 2nd year of life.

Theory of mind, which makes it possible to have a concept of 'belief' at all, does not develop until the 2nd year of life at earliest estimates, and possibly not till the 4th or 5th.

or not. You are just making an assumption.

And what would it matter anyway? Making claims about a baby's religious state is just silly and senseless, imo.

religious state is senseless.
Hence Dawkins point that saying "Christian child" or Muslim child" is silly.

Is it Just the general statement that more children are being born into certain religious cultures?

I think most people would agree that a child is not born with religion but many are born into a religion.

the important part starts about 50 seconds in.

There are a variety of ways that one can apply and interpret religious labels. It may have to do with the family, the community, the culture. It may be used in a rather secular way, as we have often discussed here and have more to do with historical connections than religion.

In addition, he is talking about a religious story that was being put on and how children from families with different religious affiliations were being included.

The comparison with groups of a political persuasion, and particularly with groups of no religious persuasion, doesn't raise my consciousness at all.

While I agree with him that babies are born without religion, who is he to say at what point a child may religiously identify or whether religious identity, even if it is primarily cultural, is appropriate for children.

There is no such thing as a catholic, jewish, muslim or catholic child? He' wrong about that.

Some that babies are born religious or spiritual; some that they are born atheists.

'You are just making an assumption'

So are we all. So are you, when you say that babies are born 'with wonder'. All we know is that babies are born with a capacity for learning; anything that goes beyond that, with regard to their religious states, is an assumption.

'Making claims about a baby's religious state is just silly and senseless, imo.'

It may be. But on such claims there hinge many religious practices: e.g. infant versus adult baptism; not to mention the old concept of Limbo; etc.

statements about children not having any religion and encourages his audience to challenge this every time they hear it.

He gives no scientifically based guidelines about when it might be ok with him for a child to religiously identify nor does he make any distinction between a more cultural/secular identification as opposed to a faith based one.

When talking of babies, that may be true. But when talking about children, who is he or anyone else to say when it is no longer true.

or spiritual, just that there may be a genetic propensity towards being spiritual.

Wonder can be simply interpreted as curious. I think babies are curious and it doesn't really contradict your description here at all.

Rituals are a part of many aspects of a community, be they religious or not. Baptism is often about the parents raising the child in a specific religious tradition and I'm not sure what you mean about limbo in this case. Baptism at birth is generally followed by confirmation at an older age, when the child has undergone some education and is thought to be making the decision for themselves at that point.

One view (note that infant capacities/ incapacities are very clearly emphasized here):

http://gospelway.com/salvation/infant_baptism.php


An alternative view:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism


Limbo was the afterlife that some Catholics proposed as the likely state for people who were not capable of accepting or rejecting God at the time when they died: this included both unbaptized babies, and 'heathens' who had never been exposed to the Gospel.

Here is a famous verse by Wordsworth about babies' spiritual condition: a lovely poem, but possibly questionable in its viewpoint:

'Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!'

you might vehemently disagree.

It is not reflective of anything but itself.

Some denominations baptize at birth, others at an older age. It's really just about the ritual and how each group interprets it.

But there are certainly views on infants' capacities, and religious standing, that are embedded in the rituals.

[img][/img]

is that babies are atheist or theist.

nationality is about citizenship and country of birth.
It is a political designation used for legal reasons.

No one is born with Christian or Muslim beliefs, or a belief in any God.
It's apples and oranges.


Dawkins said babies have no religion, he did not say all babies are atheists, that is the author's invention.

It's stupid and I'm done talking about a ill-conceived worthless article like this.

speechless

Glad you said it first.

What is your deal?

I'm sure you had the best intentions, your kindness to atheists on DU is legendary.

That's your opinion, and no one else is required to accept it.

thing simply because that's not particularly his thing. religion and atheism is.

i rather doubt that he was dispute the notion that babies don't inherently know the culture of the nation in which they will be raised, he just doesn't care to discuss it.

might be an inheritable trait, at least for some.

It is an argument that rather intrigues me, as it is clear that some people do not choose to believe or not believe, they just do or don't.

there's a strong correlation between the twins being spiritual or not, pointing to a genetic component.

however, there is no correlation between *which* religion that points to genetics. the religion of your parents or secondarily, the local community, are the main determinants there.

but i think there's a distinction between religion and sprituality. i think it's that spiritual sense of wonderment that's the inherited trait. they have to be taught the rest.

I think "spirituality" is a better trait to study, as you point out. There is no doubt that family and community are huge determinants in which religion one may or may not ascribe to.

percentage of humanity. It's well documented.

But a specific active belief, isn't. I've not seen one shred of evidence that it could be, or has been.
Edit: Unblock said it better, above.

While the argument could be made that it is entirely passive and that babies don't really believe in anything, perhaps an equally valid argument could be made that atheism is an active rejection of a particular notion.

You've just stated the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism.

And some secular 'things', like secular humanism are, if not belief systems, built upon the same template as a belief system and difficult or impossible to distinguish from such.


But 'atheism' is a passive lack of, not an active belief.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. That's it. Agnostic atheism is, therefore, the default position -- the null hypothesis -- on issues of religious belief.

As for children having some biological, pre-programmed conception of a higher power... that's just ascientific, evopysch nonsense. Infants aren't aware of their own states, emotions, or motivations, much less "high" concepts like an invisible external consciousness ruling the damned universe.

There's a reason geography is strongly correlated with religious identity, why kids born in Christian countries tend to identify as Christians into adulthood: because religion is taught. Arguing that there's some kind of genetic, evolutionary reason for this, without actually having proof, is a lazy post-hoc justification for extant human behavior. Handing an Argument from Naturalism a test tube and lab coat doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Very few, if any, people identify as non-stamp collectors, have emblems on their cars or avatars that reflect their lack of stamp collecting or join/support organizations that are primarily for non-stamp collectors.

So, I would argue that in some cases atheism is really an active position.

That would lead me to conclude that there are two kinds of atheism - passive and active - and that a distinction might need to be made when discussing it.

As was said elsewhere, I don't think that children have a biological conception of a higher power, but they may have a genetically based predisposition towards spirituality (or not). Those that do would seem more likely to adopt the religion of their families or communities, while those that don't would seem less likely to do so.

Also it was mentioned above that twin studies have shown this to be the case, though I have not seen these studies.

and share their stamp collecting experiences, if they had a preponderance of TV shows and radio stations dedicated to promoting stamp collecting, if they lobbied the government to make laws favoring stamp collectors over non-stamp collectors...

then I suspect you might see a few avatars or bumper stickers in use by non-stamp collectors, too.

Your objection to the comparison is what's weak, cbayer.

The comparison is functionally appropriate. The reason no one self-identifies as a not-stamp collector is because society hasn't imposed distinctions between those who collect stamps and those who do not. People do not assume not-stamp collectors are inherently immoral and untrustworthy, that not-stamp collectors are un-American, or that not-stamp collectors are "just as bad" as stamp collectors. Not-stamp collectors, generally speaking, aren't prone to feeling isolated or ostracized; they don't feel the need to commune with other not-stamp collectors. None of this has any bearing on the comparison, however, which is all about demonstrating that not believing in gods can be as passive a position as not partaking in a niche hobby, sport, or interest.

and am not interested in going through it again. I am highly unlikely to persuade you that my position is correct and you are highly unlikely to convince me that yours is.

The twin studies mentioned show a positive correlation between spirituality/faith in twins, even when raised in different environments.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene

Hard, soft, strong, weak... you're just debating the appropriateness of the label, not whether disbelief requires a conscious effort.

I have not personally analyzed the studies he cites.

But based on what I have read and seen, I lean towards belief/disbelief not being a choice for some, if not many, people. Whether that is due to an innate degree of spirituality or whatever you want to call it, I just don't know.

The discussion about whether a baby is an atheist or not is really a pretty silly argument. It is taking it beyond that and making the case for not allowing children exposure to certain things or insisting on exposure, whether one considers them fantasies or not, that I would object to.

Those that consider religion a poison or a disease that needs to be eradicated are just as objectionable as the one wayers who believe everyone who doesn't think like them is going to hell.

He is the most evil atheist in the world - whatever sounds the worst is what they'll claim he said.

Have you not heard about that?

I happen to agree with his twitter statement.

You mean this?

And you are correct. He did use the word inculcate, but it's not really clear to me what he means by that. It could mean something as simple as just reading the same stories over and over again.

It seems a rather extreme opinion, imo, but he knew that when he said it.

"Inculcate" implies the formation of attitudes or habits through repeated, persistent instruction. Constantly immersing your child in fairy tales without thinking to explain to them that they are just stories can't be very conducive to their development. There's nothing wrong with reading these things for entertainment's sake, as long as you take the time to explain to the child what entertainment is.

And this isn't much of a stretch when talking about certain religious parents who, from day one, shove scripture down their childrens' throats without giving them the time or the means to evaluate it themselves or come to their own conclusions. I think we can agree that is damaging as well.

Most kids, mine included, like to hear the same stories over and over and over again. And they don't want to hear anything about them just being stories. They are being entertained in part because they believe there is some truth to it. I'm trying to imagine the conversation you propose and it's making me giggle.

Dawkins, being a very smart man, realized that he couldn't make the case for not telling children religiously based stories without including other "fairy tales".

Indoctrination is an entirely different thing, and he probably should have stuck with that.

And Dawkins is its pope?

This is what comes of pretending Atheism is a theology. It isn't. Forget babies. Take a fully grown adult. Now, assume that adult has never been exposed to, and completely unaware of any supernatural gods.

That person is by default, an atheist, even though he may not even be aware of the word at all.


Atheism is not a positive belief that one actively ascribes to. It's a lack of belief. It can be willful, or completely passive.
To the best of our understanding, a one day old baby has no concept of, or awareness of, any god or gods. Until that baby might be exposed to and adopt such material as belief, it defaults to a position of 'atheist'.

Where do these newspapers even find these idiot commentators?

Edit; Withdrawing the 'idiot' allegation. I reviewed the story comments, where the author is actively engaging. I'm starting to think his article was intentionally tongue in cheek.

"AndrewBrown Leopold1904
12 June 2014 10:13pm
Recommend
23 I think you'll find we've all been Buddhist babies. It's a phase you go through, over and over again."

That, is clearly a joke.

Edhopper is correct above, when he pointed out that Dawkins didn't say 'babies are atheists'. They are, by default, but that's not what he said:

""When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion.""

said baby would not have any reason to believe in completely made up invisible men in the sky

Since religions developed independently across almost all cultures, someone had to think it up.

who created an entire religion because his wife caught him cheating on her...
It is possible a religion could be born from hallucinogenics or someone with a creative mind

but since we know there is NO evidence ever, anywhere, from anyone, that any god exists, it had to be invented

not be accurate.

We just don't know and no one really has the standing to make a definitive claim either way.

Your story about this has about as much to back it up as the person who says god spoke to him.

There is no evidence either way and every individual comes to their own conclusions, but they are not more right than someone else.

Why?

One of the reasons is George W Bush thought they needed christianity...one of many reasons

just sayin

On another side note, I am watching the series 30 days. In one episode, a couple lives on minimum wage for 30 days. The only way they are able to make it is by accessing agencies, most of them religiously based, that offer goods and services that are essentials and not provided by any governmental or non-religious entities.

Why?

just saying

so while they get help here and there, without unemployment or medicaid or food stamps they would be way worse off

However, thanks to Gingrich and Bill Clinton, poor people do have to rely on religion more now than in a long time

Which is of course a nightmare if you are someone like me...

it's not sufficient and the big holes in the safety net are filled by religious organizations more often than not.

I think it can be a nightmare for a non-believer, particularly if you live in a community where the religious groups are aggressive proselytizers. I would love to see more secular organizations step up to the plate.

But the fact remains that religious organizations do a lot of good around the world.

Catholic Charities, for instance, received a majority of its funding from the US taxpayer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021362380

So it would seem the shoe's on the other foot - the religious groups aren't "stepping up to the plate," and it's the secular government bailing them out.

Does nothing to dispute my point, though.

Consider that. Lots of the grunt work is done by volunteers. It's a common situation.

Do you have any evidence to support it?

But it doesn't support your claim.

It is not a default position.

Theism is the thesis.

A-theism is the antithesis to that.

Atheism, to an infant, is no more a default positlion than Anislam.

Well the subject line is accurate anyway. You can't categorize someone 'without' X if you don't have X to compare to.

The antithesis in this case, being WITHOUT, not 'against' or some other positive structure that would require the awareness of the person to embrace.

So it's curious how you got it so completely wrong.

Would being the operative word.

But, given absence is the opposite (check the root) of presence, it's simply a fail.

Prove me wrong.

As others have told you repeatedly, your personal definition of atheism is incorrect

But you don't care about facts or honesty, you refuse to let us define our own beliefs or lack of them telling us over and over again what you think and what you believe.

Hope you are well and have a nice weekend.

It's certainly not the first time you've been called out and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Find someone else to shit on.

Lack of belief in gods versus the belief there are no gods. The majority of atheists seem to use the first definition while non atheists seem to enjoy the second definition. Babies are godless. They don't even have object permanence. Using the atheist definition of the word, babies are definitely atheists.

who uses it in which way.

I think you describe passive and active atheism and agree that the majority of atheists are more likely passive.

But those that sport avatars, join organizations and, most importantly, engage extensively on websites about religion, are much more likely to be active.

If you see non-atheists using the term in the 2nd sense perhaps it is because that is who they are most likely to engage with.

I am way to full (of chicken) and lazy to try to find and research that may not even exist on the subject right now.

so they aren't atheists or religious.

There's actually only two possibilities here. Theist or atheist.

The math is not complex.

People who have been exposed to the idea of god(s), and understand the concept of true and false belief, might be described as either theists or atheists. Even there, it's not totally clear-cut, with many adults being vaguely agnostic; religiously indifferent; or believers in non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, ancestor worship, or animism. The maths is in practice fairly complex even in adults.

In the case of infants, they have neither the concept of 'God' nor of 'belief'; therefore they cannot be classed as either 'believers in God' or 'nonbelievers in God'.

Theism/atheism is about belief.

if one does not have belief in a supernatural god, whether they have been exposed to the idea or not, they are by default, an atheist. Because they lack belief.

Words have meaning. (And being 'vaguely agnostic' has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or a theist)

(or probably isn't a god).

I don't think you can say that someone is an atheist if they simply have no concept of God. By that definition one would have to say that a cat is an 'atheist', or that people in the 19th century 'didn't believe in the Internet'.

But that is not required. All that is required is disbelief in any proposed gods.


It has to do with positive/negative statements. If I say 'the Abrahamic god does not exist', that's a positive claim. It is now my burden to prove that claim, or accept that the claim is just my opinion. If I say 'I don't believe your claim of the existence of the Abrahamic god', that's quite another matter. There's no burden upon me to disprove the existence of that or any other god.


Again, Theism is about belief. A-Theism is a 'without' modifier. It doesn't matter why the person is without belief. It might be a positive, firm, gnostic claim that there is no god. Or it might just be a Null Value to them, having either never been exposed to the idea, or having been exposed, and dismissed the idea as unconvincing. Both types are equally properly labeled 'atheist'.

I have absolutely no idea what people are talking about when they describe their god(s).

but I think it's very difficult for an adult in our society to have NO concept of God, if only the concept that many people think that there is a God that explains the world.

I suppose atheism doesn't mean believing that there is DEFINITELY no God; but it does involve having a world view that does not involve a God: thinking that the world is not explainable in terms of a God, or is explainable in other terms.

I don't think that young babies have sufficient concept of explaining the world, or of the ways in which other people do so, to have any world view at all, or to be either religious or atheist. I could of course be wrong. It is difficult to test what young babies know; and some recent studies have shown them to have more advanced concepts of certain things (e.g. object permanence) than was thought in the past. But it still seems unlikely to me that their concepts of the world are advanced enough to produce the types of explanations that we consider to be religious or atheist.

Nor do I think that this is some sort of criticism of atheism. It is a discussion of the sort of concepts, of which infants are capable. I am an atheist; I am also a left-winger. In just the same way, I don't think that babies are born either left-wing or right-wing: they don't yet have the conceptual development to form such views of society.

I chose my political affiliation, I did not choose to be an atheist.

I really don't know what is offensive here? If I AM possibly being offensive and judgemental here, it is of babies, not atheists.

As someone who normally agrees with you on issues, I don't understand why you find it so upsetting that some people don't think that babies are naturally atheist OR religious. I think you may be assuming that it comes with some sort of baggage that in my case doesn't exist at all. I do not agree with the entire article in the OP, which I think is pretty silly and pompous. I am just expressing a certain view from developmental psychology, NOT a judgement of atheism.

ETA: Although voting decision and party affiliation are choices, I am not at all sure that left wing and right wing 'core values' are entirely so, either.

I really wasn't exposed to the concept of God when I was young. I was very lucky to have spent my childhood on a small island in the most progressive state in the country. We had a 3 room schoolhouse, grades 1-8. Happiest days of my life.

I wasn't upset because of your opinion about atheist babies (which wasn't even what Dawkins said, his exact words were "babies have no religion&quot , I thought you were trying to redefine atheism. After 10 years of constant battles on DU you may have noticed that this issue gets me a little wound up.

I've known you for a long time and we agree on just about everything which is why I was confused by your posts.

I'm sorry.


I agree about core values, btw, thanks for the insight, you've given this much to think about.

I was coming to this as a developmental psychologist, not as a theologian or theological debater; and to be honest, I don't even know that much about all the arguments/definitions re atheism. I am fortunate perhaps to live in a country where atheism as such is not that often attacked, but where we still have to fight against anti-secularism at times.

Atheist means one who disbelieves in the existence of a god(s). It does not necessarily mean you hold the opposite position that there are no gods.

It is about lacking a belief. Nothing more. One who believes there are no gods obviously lacks a belief in gods thus explicitly making them an atheist. A person who neither believes in any gods nor holds that there are no gods also lacks a belief in any gods is implicitly an atheist.

I think that saying that young babies do or don't believe in God is a bit like saying that they do or don't believe in algebra.

By the way: I should point out in this context that I work in a field related to developmental psychology, and am coming to this topic from that point of view, not from the point of view of religious debate as such. I am a second-generation atheist myself, so as near to having been an 'atheist baby' as one can get; but I still think it's a misleading term in that context.

I also disagree that babies are born naturally religious, which is also a theory that has been brought up on DU.

Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 05:28 AM - Edit history (1)

But rather, to impress upon everyone else that it is not an active position. It can be, but it can also be passive.

Unfortunately the babies analogy is a good way of explaining that.

Belief being defined as holding a statement to be true, and disbelief being defined as not holding a statement to be true; babies make a good example of a person who does not hold a position to be true, while not holding the exact opposite position (that no gods exist) either.

I personally prefer using the example of a person born and raised on an island who has never head of Betty Crocker (you can insert a different fictional character of your choice if you want). They have never even heard of Betty Crocker and have no clue if she exists or not. They can neither answer true or false to the question of her existence.

I bet some people reading this are rushing to wikipedia looking her up to learn that she is a fictional character right now.

I am not fond of the baby example myself (as it sounds like we are trying to artificial inflate our numbers), but I get why it is used.

Marry me.

But I am not looking for any relationships at this time.

How about we just be buddies for now

Anything for you.

Then they do not believe in god. The definition of belief being holding statement to be true. Disbelief/non-belief being not holding a position to be true.

Disbelief does not necessarily mean or imply that one holds the opposite belief to be true either.

It generally means a person (or group or culture) who believe that there is no God, or is unlikely to be a God; and explain the world in other ways than through a God, or acknowledge that it cannot be fully explained.

Young babies do not explain the world at all.

According to your definition, one would have to say that a jellyfish is an atheist - I think the term is normally reserved for those with a capacity for a concept of 'God', whether they accept this concept or not.