Except you can’t teach a fish to be a Christian, which is sort of the point. Atheism is the default human state. Religion is something we layer on top of it. I think that’s something useful to keep in mind.
If atheism is the default human state, how come there were almost no atheists in the world until relatively recently, historically speaking?
The assertion seems to be that in the absence of specific religious training, it would never occur to anyone to believe in any sort of supernatural or divine phenomena. But in fact, such beliefs have existed in various forms in every known society in human history.
A recent major Pew survey to which I can’t conveniently link right now said that half of American children raised in secular homes become religious as adults. Even if the number were much less than this, it would seem to rebut the common atheist trope that religion only continues to exist because helpless children are brainwashed into believing.
Modnote: You revived a thread 15 days old so you could insult another poster in GD?
It is hard not to read this post as insulting Exapno_Mapcase. Please do not do this again.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
Sorry, you’re right, that was inappropriate for GD.
I don’t think it follows. Just because an infant has no conception of God, does not mean atheism is the default or natural state of a fully developed human.
Infants have no conception of permanence (peek-a-boo!) either. It may well be that questions about the universe naturally lead to the idea of a God.
There was a quote from Sid Meier’s Civilization IV Cicero,
Nature herself has imprinted upon all the idea of God.
~Max
I don’t know that, because it isn’t true.
In 2019, Christians represent 65% of the total adult population, 43% identifying as Protestants, 20% as Catholics, and 2% as Mormons. People with no formal religious identity at 26% of the total population.
That comes, wonderfully, from a Pew survey I can conveniently link to.
I said the majority don’t belong to a congregation. I didn’t say anything about what people self-identify as when asked by a pollster. If people aren’t a member of any religious organization, it seems reasonable to say they aren’t part of “organized religion”.
That all depends on how you define “atheist.”
But we’ve already had 1,256,982 threads that devolved into debates over definition of atheism; I don’t think we need another one.
Actually, though, looking at your link I think I may have misremembered the variable being measured. It says that the majority now attend religious services “a few times a year or less”. This obviously isn’t the same as measuring formal membership in a congregation, but it seems to point to the same general conclusion, that “organized religion” in its conventional form is in decline. The outlook for religion in general is less clear.
Or you might say an infant has an excellent model for god, being someone who provides for all their needs by seemingly supernatural means. Manna from heaven, milk from a nipple, what’s the diff?
There are a lot of other variables that make this kind of analysis pretty useless. Someone might believe in a god in a way that is not compatible with the churches near him. Someone might not want to go to a church with different political views or which she might think would press her to get more involved.
From 14 - 17 I never went to Temple but I was still a believer.
The Pew survey was not very good at identifying atheists as opposed to those without connections to religions. And in many places identifying as an atheist can get you into trouble, so someone might not want to identify even on a survey.
I would agree that a newborn has no particular beliefs about God. But it is equally true that a newborn has no particular beliefs about other things too. For example, a newborn has no particular beliefs about gun ownership, equal rights, or style of government. These are all things that this newborn will pick up from their environment while growing, learning, and maturing.
So what’s the point that you’re trying to make, when pointing out that absence of belief is the default state of a human?
That all those things: beliefs about gun ownership, equal rights, style of government, and religion, are things that are taught, not that are inherent.
k9bfriender already said this, but I’ll emphasize the point.
The only people who interpret “everyone is born an atheist” as that infants are making a conscious point to disbelieve in a god are religionists erecting straw men, as in this page from GotQuestions.
Any sensible reading of the phrase merely slots religion into a separate room from genetically innate - and governmentally protected - categories like gender, skin color, and sexual orientation (and I am aware that even those are not necessarily permanently fixed and can be willfully changed.)
Religion is a conscious choice, one that is easily changed at will or whim and can be done multiple times. Thing.Fish by their own admission gives a cite to this. Which is, I might remind everyone, is one cite more than they have provided for any of their other assertions.
The societal point is that having a religious belief should not be any more controlling over others than having a favorite sports team or YouTube channel. Anyone who announced loudly that Yankees fans get to write laws favoring Yankees fans and not only discommoding fans of all other teams but actively hostile to non-baseball fans would be laughed out of the room and denounced as an enemy of democracy. The same status should be placed on anyone who intends to write their religion’s beliefs into law.
Bottom line. Except out of politeness and consideration I, you, and everyone else in America should never have to hear a word about any individual’s religion or lack of one. That the word seeps into politics and government is an egregious wrong. That people are literally attacked for being the wrong religion or not having one undermines all pretense of being a civilized society.
I am so stealing this.
I don’t know whether we can say that a newborn baby has a sexual orientation, or only a predisposition to one: the seed of what will become a sexual orientation when the baby gets older.
As I understand it, there’s some evidence that humans are born with a predisposition to believe, or to be religious, and this is perhaps stronger in some people than in others—though it’s certainly not a settled issue.
All Some hail Prophet Heisenberg!
That’s what is called the Axial Age. Circa 600 BC when people started to conclude that the force of the universe cared about human morality in addition to throwing thunderbolts.
For some people, it is easy to change their choice of religion. Certainly there are some who have done it multiple times. But to say that it is “easily changed at will or whim” is way too broad of a generalization. People whose beliefs are strong and deep will not change those beliefs so easily. (Citation: People throughout history who were offered the choice of converting or death, and chose death.)
It might be compared to one’s political views. Someone who very strongly believes in the [insert political party here] way of running things might possibly change to another view, but only with very serious thought, and not on a whim.
Sorry, no. Some people are firmly convinced in the most ludicrous conspiracy theories and will never change their minds about them. We do not privilege them just because they are stubborn. Religion is a choice, just as being a flat-earther is a choice. You may see a difference in their legitimacy (others may not) but there is no possible argument that they are in different categories.