We're all born atheist - without belief in a god. Kids raised with no exposure to a god-belief tend to remain atheist.

And the difference between atheist and theist is that the theist believes in a god, the atheist doesn't.

We're all born atheist.  We don't know about the concept of god until we are taught it. 

LOL

Implicit atheism is the fallback position, so it is our position at birth. But it is important to realize that 'implicit atheism' merely is a complete unawareness of the claims of theism.

In other words, we are born without knowledge of theism. We have to be taught theism.

On the other hand, we are born with the ability to project out anthropomorphic expectations onto the universe. A child can consider a piece of lint, flowing across the floor, as something intentional, sentient... we can call this animism, although I think it's more correct to call it anthropomorphic-projectionism. So I'd say that a child has the ability to create, on their own, a primitive 'weather god' like sense of polytheism/theism....

So, we are born implicit atheists, yet, as long as we develop normally, with some positive human contact, we carry with us the potential to create (recreate) a primitive, animistic type of 'god'

So, what does this mean? It means that  if you're an atheist, you've read this as proof of the fact that we are all born atheists... and if you're a theist, your take away message is that we are born theists......   Seriously, I think what we should take away from this is that there is no 'proof' of the truth of theism to be taken from human development....   human development provides a more parsimonious explanation for 'god beliefs' than an actual 'god etiology'

Hey Noor,

True enough, most kids I know [including myself] didn't believe in god or anything else when we were born. We were just there and then people started filling our heads with all sorts of stuff. Then at some point we might have become a 'believer in god' or an atheist. But the whole thing had to start somewhere way back in evolution at a time before our ancestors in Africa [or where ever it was that the first humans evolved] began teaching their kids about the 'spirit beings' dwelling in nature — somebody, somewhere in history, for the first time had to come up with the idea that god or gods exist.

So because that actually had to happen somewhere in the hoary past then it could be fair to say that humans evolved a belief in god as a natural tendency within their evolution and that at sometime later some guy finally figured it out that the whole thing was a farce [thus the first atheist]. This guy, whoever he was could be the missing link in the theory of evolution because they propably killed him and disposed of the evidence

If this is true or even partially true then my conclusion would be that we are not born atheists or born 'believers' — we are simply born in ignorance and then the journey begins.

Cheers!

Hi Susan,

Thanks for the warm welcome to this forum. I'll take your advice and get more acquainted with the way the folks think on this site.

In the meantime I would have to say that by contemporary analysis of what it means to be a 'theist' [synomous with Christian] then I am a staunch atheist. But when the victory of the atheist is gained against an oponnent as child like as even the greatest Christian theologian or scholar — I remain still unconvinced that the concept of atheism has rightfully claimed the victors crown and glory. I would like to see atheism prevail over more intellectual and knowledge bearing systems of thought than just Christianity. What knowledge do they have in the first place?

Is there a hidden reason why as atheists we don't take on Jewish theology [possibly for fear of being sued!] or Moslem theology [possibly for fear of being nixed!] or the Buddhists, the Krishnas, the Zoroastrians, or a host of others. Is it simply politically incorrect to do so?

After all, beating up the little kids on the block doesn't really say much but if we can take on someone with the strength of for example Mike Tyson then at least we have something to boast about.

What I am saying is that in my years of study and research in the theist vs atheist debate I have not been that impressed with the arguments on either side although each has scored at least a few points in my opinion.

Theist or atheist — ultimately in this case I am neither. But I am looking for the truth.

Cheers!

Hi AA,

Great wit. I like that part about the pigeons. My neighbor keeps pigeons and the things crap all over the place.

But hey, what happened to:

"Innocent till proven guilty" American Judicial System

Cheers

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [Rom 1:18-23]

 For this passage to work, we'd have to be born without a disposition to believe in God.  This fits with the idea that we are dead in sin, unable to respond to God's call.

The last few verses detail what happened when the apostle penned these words: people started worshiping creation rather than Creator.  Nowadays, a very different transaction takes place: people worship NOTHING.

People are born atheists.  Let's call them default atheists.  Some learn of God, some do not.  The ones that do not may perhaps remain default atheists, or they may discover God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature" and "clearly percieve" them "in the things that have been made."

Those that learn of God, either by parents or by "clearly percieving" Him in creation will perhaps become more studied in sciences, like many of the people here, and then realize that there is, at best, sketchy evidence in favor of God.  They might perhaps decide that there is no God, and so graduate from being a default atheist to what most people here are: intellectual atheists.

I'm not sure if I just answered your question or wrote another essay! 

I saw that, and I saw that most people seemed to miss my insight.  I've been so sad lately because it doesn't seem that anyone cares about what I write.  Here's the long explanation.  And then I saw some actual support from a very unexpected source... so I decided to come back.

Coincidence?  God lending me some moral support?  I'd say the latter, but I know what everybody here is gonna say. 

Question is slightly more complicated that it seems

Our believes are based on two factors

1) our biological computer hardware (the brain), which exists from around 20-24 weeks after conception

2) its programming which occurs throughout life

We definitely do have a genetic tendencies to assign explanations to thing we do not understand (it can help us survive) and there does seem to be a tendency to think we are somehow not 100% material. There is obviously zero tendency from birth to believe in any religion thats just programming

If you define an atheist as 'someone who has thought about whether god exists' then obviously no baby is an atheist

If you define it as 'I do not believe in god' then of course a baby is one in the same way as they won't believe in an aircraft,a tree, a rock until they see one

I think this is a classic example of talking past the issue. Taken in themselves, both are correct.

Everyone is born an atheist in the sense of our not being born with a belief in god.

But it's also true that atheists are made in that one can study the history and arguments as one grows and 'becomes' an atheist in the sense of having an informed perspective on the atheist/theist question.

Well, personally I don't even think there should be a term 'atheist'.  I forget who originally coined the term.  Atheism also isn't necessarily based on knowledge, per say.  Its simply a lack of belief in a supernatural being.  For example, lets say you had an indigenous tribe somewhere who held no god-belief themselves and had never been exposed to any other god belief.  They have no knowledge and they still don't have a belief in god.  All atheism is ia a non belief.

Edited for grammar

I don't know what year that was, but I figure it was some time after the Theory of Gravity was proven fact and some time before Quantum Theory was proven fact.

Do some reading on the scientific method. Scientific fact is always called theory because the default position of the skeptic is to assume that his knowledge is incomplete. This is a formal use of the word "theory" and should not be confused with colloquial uses in which "theory" means something unproven.

Evolution is fact in the same way that heliocentrism is fact. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean in your first sentence.  I have friends who are theists (and deists) and the only difference between us really is the fact that they think god(s) exist and I don't.  A belief can become quite dangerous when that belief is used to harm other people or to deny other people rights.  White Europeans believed that black Africans were inferior and enslaved them. 

Atheism really is a lack of belief.  Therefore, there is no belief. I don't see proof of a supernatural being, so I consider myself 'atheist'.  If I have proof of god, then I will become a theist. 

I can agree with your assessment of the 'ignorance' position of an infant.

I'll also agree that ignorance in atheism or theism should not be tolerated.  I think you'll find that most people here strive to educate themselves and diminish ignorance.

To be ignorant of a concept is to necessarily not believe in it. You are trying to draw a distinction between 'being ignorant of a god concept' and 'not holding as true', or 'not holding a belief in a god concept', that does not exist. If I have never heard anyone mention the concept of a god then I am an atheist in no different way than one who finds the god concept completely unbelievable is an atheist. Why would you require one to have knowledge of non-existence to deny a concept that there is no evidence to support in the first place, or even worse, as in the case of the god concept, one that is  fundamentally incoherent?

I for one do not say god does not exist. In fact, my favorite atheistic argument is that it is right to be an atheist EVEN IF there is a god.

I think for most it happens because people tell you all sorts of things god can do or will do and none or it ever happens. At this point one is right to doubt the claims of theists. So I still think that atheism is doubt about theism more than it is a positive assertion that theists are wrong.

Everyone is born an atheist. Most people get brainwashed into religion beginning as a toddler. Some fall to it as a confused adult or adolescent. Some break free, some don't. I never had to, I've always been an atheist. I always will be, unless a/all god(s) proves itself/themselves.

I see this error all the time. To pronounce innocence or guilt is to already accept the existence of the accused.

The more accurate analogy is proven or not proven.

Once you use the more accurate, analogy, you can see the error for yourself: No evidence, nothing 'proven'.

No, just using the RRS.  He used the most unlikely people at the least likely times.  That seems to be a persistent theme throughout that book you guys hate so much. 

What? I don't hate mythology! LOL. 

I have joked with religious writers before that their arguments range from appaling to pathetic. I would consider the pathetic arguments outnumbering the appaling ones a definite improvement!

If you were born in a place where religion (or anywhere such an ideology that a 'creator' exists) did not exist, chances are, you wouldn't have a god to believe in. Because the earth exists as it would if there WERE no creator, it's safe to say that if there weren't man made ideology, yes, we would all be without religion. 

One word to describe the difference between atheists and theists? Comprehension. People who are theist tend to comprehend things in a profoundly different manner than people who are not. If you were taught how to think and analyze at a young age and then were introduced to something that defied all logic and means of comprehension you had been taught, something that in it's very essense threw out every method of thinking and analytical capabilities you had honed to perfection all of those years and one day you are asked to forget it all and just dive right in without question...it would seem pretty absurd to believe in something that could never be proven, wouldn't it? Atheists are those who were either born without religion or who were able to teach themselves to comprehend properly. I myself questioned at a young age, was stiffled by theists then found through a philosophy course on God, ironically, how to accurately question and analyize. It's all been uphill from there. 

Most theists were taught from an early age that some things are not to be questioned or to be answered, they just "are." But people who were taught to question and analyize ideas typically are not fooled by religion. If someone can not understand or comprehend how something can exist without some unknown creature creating it...chances are...they haven't yet done enough analyzing yet.

Theists comprehend differently because they were programmed to think in a manner counterproductive to the human mind. We are meant to ask questions and if an answer is not good enough we should keep seeking answers.

The reason that science never has been interested in the idea of "god" is because everything on this earth exists as can be explained and as it would had a creator not existed as humans claimed once did. If it can't be explained by science it stands to reason that it shouldn't be explained by non-science.

It's all in the method of comprehension.  

Then we aren't actually agreeing on anything!

There's nothing more concrete, nothing more certain, than a complete lack of any knowledge being a (implicit) fallback position.

Here's a proof:

Did you believe in aflaufoiahvgoqwjhfp9oawmr7pc9182   prior to my just mentioning it? Can you even say, as of now, whether you 'believe in it' or not?

You must remain as you were, an implicit lack of believer in aflaufoiahvgoqwjfp9oawmr7pc9182. 

"god" is an incoherent term. No one can believe in a cipher. What you believe in is an anthropomphism of the term, and to believe in that you first have to have a set of experiences of humanity. 

Most everyone here seems to agree on the idea that atheism is the default position at birth. I don’t agree with that line of thinking. In my way of thinking atheism or anything else that is not based in knowledge is a product of ignorance. Ignorance is the default position at birth.

Take for example, no one told you about hygienic toilet practices when you were born and so the default position is that out of ignorance you pass stole and urine on yourself. Also because we have not yet been told what to put in our mouth a baby will sometimes try to eat everything and anything in sight, pills, safety pins, toys, even their own stool. Yea, that does happen sometimes and all because of ignorance.

Go on analyzing and see how many default positions at birth you can find that are actually good. There aren’t any. So why is default atheism anything to be proud about?

Gradually various natural propensities develop in a human child like walking, etc. but at birth there are only two things that a baby does or wants to do by default that are essential for live and even those often require prompting and assistance.

Are there any mothers here who would like to tell us what those two things are?

Without critical analysis of any given subject we cannot have complete knowledge of it and if we are going to know for sure if god exists or not then critical analysis will be required. Simply lack of belief in god isn’t enough — you could be wrong. Go deeper.

If you have your English to Sanskrit dictionary handy — the type of critical analysis I am talking about is Sankhya. Read up on that in your spare time.

My conclusion: Atheism as a default position is a product of ignorance. Thus unless an atheist takes the trouble to gain comprehensive knowledge about what life actually is he/she remains in ignorance and is thus no better off than the Christians that he/she so regularly bashes.

Ever "hang-ten" on the bow of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier at 30+ knots?

Hi Nimitz68,

No I never hung- ten on the bow of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier at 30+ knots but I did "hang-5" on the bow of the USS Saratoga when we were docked in Mayport back in 1963-64.

These days I prefer a 19' runabout with a 50hp OBM or an old fashion 10' banana model nose rider.

Cheers

Why not? All implicit atheism is is a lack of awareness of the claims of theism.

How can one be a theist without any knowledge of theism?

To make the claim, you'd have to demonstrate that people are born with knowledge of theism. This is a falsifiable hypothesis. It can be examined to see if there are any humans, anywhere, who are unaware of the tenets of theism.

That is what implicit atheism is.... a total lack of awareness of the claims of theism.

So you actually agree.

So, it's likely that you are reading the word 'atheism' to denote something other than a lack of belief.

Babies also don't make poor stock investments or set up pipe bombs in school gymnasiums ... you've managed to focus solely on what supports your belief, and to ignore anything that falsifies it.

There may well be an infinite amount.

You're confusing your limited imagination for the world.

Well, leaving aside your strawman of the issue, who says anyone is proud of default atheism?

It seems to me that the truth is that it bothers you that implicit atheism is the default.

That's what implicit atheism is in the first place.