How many atheist beliefs can be contained on the point of a needle?
Five.
I call Bollocks.
Humans get their beliefs from their peers and their parents. To take words from the OP - " indoctrination forced upon children too young to object" is EXACTLY what happens.
I’m not sure it’s correct, either, but I personally think that the statement “everyone is born agnostic” is much more accurate. Children know nothing about god or religion. They do not know if a god of any kind exists. That is agnosticism in its purest form. After having been exposed to religion, if they continue to think that no one knows if a god of any kind exists, then one might say it is an enlightened agnosticism.
.
I still disagree. Children are not born unsure whether God exists or not - this is agnosticism. CHildren are born completely lacking any concept of an invisible higher power. To me this is closer to Atheism than it is to Agnosticism.
**Shalmanese **is correct, sort of. We seem to be hardwired to develop certain beliefs or behaviors, even if we don’t exhibit them at the moment of birth. A new born infant is capable of very limited “beliefs”-- mainly, to suckle, to grasp and to cry. Perhaps a few others, but there is no evidence that belief in a deity is anywhere present in a newborn’s psyche.
That’s not what Shalmanese said. Omit the ‘to develop’. I was responding to what Shalmanese actually said.
That’s exactly my point. It is why I was one of the people who made the statement (in another thread) “Everybody is born an Atheist”
If I was to be more pedantic I would have said “Everybody is born without a belief in a Deity” but that would have been less effective.
Correct. We’re unlikely to come up with the idea for “higher powers”. We might develop a belief that a particularly gnarly tree by where we live is cursed and might not hurt us if we give it gifts.
I’m not sure if I’d call superstition the same thing as animism, humans have a tendency to read human patterns into inanimate things but that’s not really supernatural, it’s just being prey to the pattern matcher in our skull.
I think although “to develop” is not what the OP said, it’s what the OP meant, so it’s useless to argue against it.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: If people are not born with tendencies to develop animistic religions to explain the world, what accounts for the fact that (as far as I know) almost every culture yet discovered has or had originally an animistic religion and none had atheistic beliefs?
This is a trick question, right? The answer is none because there are no atheist beliefs.
The same way we explain that every culture we have discovered has a language. Yet, as far as I know no child has emerged from the womb talking.
Could be that the religious people killed - or at least shut up - the atheists, or just left more artwork and writings behind.
I know people can be born atheist because I was. I tried SO. FUCKING. HARD. to believe in god until about age 16. I wanted to so badly because I grew up in a very religious part of the country and with a strong sense of morals IMO, and I wanted to do what was right. I saw someone describe it perfectly in a thread here once: You couldn’t, no matter how hard you tried, convince yourself that Katie Holmes is standing behind you right now. That’s exactly how I feel about god.
So it would be reasonable to assume every culture has a tendency to develop language.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Might be referring to this.
Every child has a tendency to develop language, but cannot do so without outside stimulus from speakers.
It’s not exactly “faulty.” It is a consequence of human nature. We are social animals. We are not like ants, who have no individuality and serve the community by instinct. Nor are we like deer, who can thrive as lone individuals with no social group at all, even the family. We are like wolves – individuals, but dependent on the larger community to thrive. A “lone wolf” is a sad and stunted creature. A lone human even more so, like Victor of Aveyron. Humans need other humans for almost everything we need or want, starting with the most basic mental stimulus and development of language and socialization, and our ability to thrive is linked to our ability to communicate with others and persuade them, or dominate them, or beg of them, or bargain with them. It is instinctive in us to relate to others in human society that way – and we subconsciously assume we can relate to the natural world in the same way, that the blind forces of nature are beings with minds and feelings like ours whom we can treat with as we might treat with powerful mortals.
Of course, as they also have a tendency to develop explanations for phenomena they can’t otherwise explain.
It is also possible that the stone tools were “discovered” incidentally to sculpturing an object of spiritual or mystical importance. Stone to stone will shape a rock… that creature was probably making something of ritual or animist representation or importance. The “science” was incidentally discovering that the chipped shards could cut. It was finding the edge by accident.
We are born with minds that are configured to easily develop belief in gods and spirits, but that does not mean we are actually born with those beliefs. A child raised in a home where rational reasons are provided for all questions will, as the saying goes, have no need of the theistic hypothesis.
I also think everyone is wrong who is rigidly defining atheism as being without belief. If that were true, they would have called it ‘acredulism’. I have no beef if you feel like you need to split that hair, but don’t pretend that your definition is authoritative for anyone other than yourself. It’s not as if someone suddenly suggested there are Martians living in the earth’s core and I can’t be certain because I haven’t heard the evidence. Theistic beliefs have been energetically propounded for centuries, failed to demonstrate anything that even remotely passes for rational proof, and consequently fail to generate any new arguments. Ergo, I feel quite secure believing they are false.