I took me until a significant number of years into my life before I even began to think about religion and then not until within the last several years that come to any sort of a conclusion as to what I believe.
Considering the alternate argument and effort required to explain an alternate "default" such as animist intuition, it is all too easy and understandable why in many cases arguing "everyone is born atheist" is an more likely assumption to come to consensus on.
David Thompson
· 1 year ago
Saying that everyone's born an atheist suggests that everyone starts with the concept of what a god is, and believes they don't exist. That's patently silly. "No-one is born a theist" would be less so, though.
I like the idea that everyone is born a storyteller. A good part of human learning is coming up with ideas (by induction or deduction) and casting them out into the world we perceive to see if they stick. Regardless of whether our theories have gods or spirits in them or not, we're essentially trying to tell ourselves and each other stories about the world that help it make sense to us. Both science and religion do that - albeit in different ways, at different levels and to different intentions.
Zzki
· 1 year ago
Good post.
I think you're assigning more meaning to the word 'atheism' than you should though. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. This includes anyone from a guy like Dawkins, to a newborn baby, since both don't have a belief in a god. You can't imply that atheism is some sort of intellectual exercise that rids the individual of theism and allows them to think clearly, since the person's ability to do this has nothing to do with their atheism.
I don't think it's anyone's 'atheism' that challenges our animist intuition, but rather our desire for knowledge. Just as we evolved to interpret our world through animism, maybe we're taking the 'next step' through scientific inquiry and intellectual discourse to find out more about our world.
I just don't see how we can ascribe atheism to someone's reason for doing anything, since it's nothing more than a lack of belief in god. If you're dealing with the term solely based on its definition, everyone is born without belief in god, as you have to be introduced to a god to believe in one.
Zaki
· 1 year ago
It's all semantics really--which is why this topic has caused so much confusion--but purely based on definition, we are all born without the belief in god which makes us atheists technically. We're also aunicornists, atoothfairyists, etc.
But this is exactly why I don't like labels anyway. They don't accomplish much in the end.
Children are born without the knowledge of there being a god, they do not judge that there is catagorically no god, as atheism does, nor do they have the capeability to know whether or not there is god. At best children are born agnostic, but they are not born thinking god does not exist.
flyndaran
· 10 months ago
What about me? I was never animistic or superstitious even as a child. I always assumed those stories told by adults at sunday school and parents were part of some unspoken game. I was six when I realized they actually believed them. It really creeped me out. After long talk with my father he allowed me to stay home. Both parents were non-denominational christians, so I must have taken them by suprise.
All Comments
I took me until a significant number of years into my life before I even began to think about religion and then not until within the last several years that come to any sort of a conclusion as to what I believe.
Considering the alternate argument and effort required to explain an alternate "default" such as animist intuition, it is all too easy and understandable why in many cases arguing "everyone is born atheist" is an more likely assumption to come to consensus on.
I like the idea that everyone is born a storyteller. A good part of human learning is coming up with ideas (by induction or deduction) and casting them out into the world we perceive to see if they stick. Regardless of whether our theories have gods or spirits in them or not, we're essentially trying to tell ourselves and each other stories about the world that help it make sense to us. Both science and religion do that - albeit in different ways, at different levels and to different intentions.
I think you're assigning more meaning to the word 'atheism' than you should though. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. This includes anyone from a guy like Dawkins, to a newborn baby, since both don't have a belief in a god. You can't imply that atheism is some sort of intellectual exercise that rids the individual of theism and allows them to think clearly, since the person's ability to do this has nothing to do with their atheism.
I don't think it's anyone's 'atheism' that challenges our animist intuition, but rather our desire for knowledge. Just as we evolved to interpret our world through animism, maybe we're taking the 'next step' through scientific inquiry and intellectual discourse to find out more about our world.
I just don't see how we can ascribe atheism to someone's reason for doing anything, since it's nothing more than a lack of belief in god. If you're dealing with the term solely based on its definition, everyone is born without belief in god, as you have to be introduced to a god to believe in one.
But this is exactly why I don't like labels anyway. They don't accomplish much in the end.
I've responded to your comments here: http://blog.figuringshitout.com/what-atheism-isnt