Do children start out atheist?

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 174
Topic's author
#1
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
My opinion is no. That is, children do not determine that there's no God based on lack of evidence.

The only exception I've seen would be atheists who train their children to be atheists. Other than that, it seems far more natural for children to accept the existence of a creator. Particularly a loving one.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do theists not "train" their children to be theists?

Your argument is just another emotive plea from a trained theist.


Though do kids pop out of the womb as theists?.....No....You need to train them.


Topic's author
#3
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I didn't claim children are naturally theists. I said they weren't atheists.

The key is how a child responds to the explanation of God.

Have you ever known a child to dispute the existence of God due to lack of evidence?

#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Children tend to grow up accepting what they are told.....It's what is known as conditioning or programming.

Some are conditioned from an early age to accept  a GOD, and some aren't.

So young children tend not to dispute much, especially philosophical stuff....They might dispute the food they are given or bedtime or other things that impact directly upon their daily existence.....  As they get older and acquire new and contradictory data, they may start to question and maybe eventually alter their outlook..... Nonetheless, formatively acquired data remains well established.

I was raised as neither theist or atheist.....Christian religious festivals were customarily acknowledged, but there was no accompanying strict religious indoctrination, so consequently, I suppose that is why I have always been sceptical and questioning of religious hypotheses and philosophy. 

So if I am an atheist, it is because I lack belief, rather than refuse to believe.
#5
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
My opinion is no. That is, children do not determine that there's no God based on lack of evidence.
This is not the answer to the question posed in the topic. When a child is born, it has no concept of any god at all, and is therefore an atheist. In fact, they don't even know what evidence is, and they don't understand language. So yes, they are atheists, and there are only two options: atheist or theist, there's no third option. 

Have you ever known a child to dispute the existence of God due to lack of evidence?
Plenty of kids ask "how do you know?" or "why?" a million times.   

Would you agree that the childhood years are typically VERY Important for the formation of religious ideas? Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything  about religion,  any religion, but  taught critical thinking, science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real? 
Topic's author
#6
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

My opinion is no. That is, children do not determine that there's no God based on lack of evidence.
This is not the answer to the question posed in the topic. When a child is born, it has no concept of any god at all, and is therefore an atheist. In fact, they don't even know what evidence is, and they don't understand language. So yes, they are atheists, and there are only two options: atheist or theist, there's no third option. 
When you say there's no third option, are  you saying there are no agnostics?

Or does this no-grey-area option only apply to children?



Have you ever known a child to dispute the existence of God due to lack of evidence?
Plenty of kids ask "how do you know?" or "why?" a million times.   

Sure.

But asking questions is not disputing a claim. In it's purest form it's just that. Asking questions with the intention of finding something out.


Would you agree that the childhood years are typically VERY Important for the formation of religious ideas?
Yes, I would.

Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything  about religion,  any religion, but  taught critical thinking,
science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real? 

If you were a child who was taught by a person of any age (for lack of a better term) natural science without any mention of deities or religion; and one day the idea of a creator was proposed, would you reject the proposal or idea claiming it to be an unscientific notion?



#7
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything  about religion,  any religion, but  taught critical thinking,
science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real? 

If you were a child who was taught by a person of any age (for lack of a better term) natural science without any mention of deities or religion; and one day the idea of a creator was proposed, would you reject the proposal or idea claiming it to be an unscientific notion?

What's your answer to my question?

If you were taught critical thinking and the scientific method, you wouldn't reject it out of hand, but you'd end up rejecting it after examination, because there's no other real conclusion to make. 
Topic's author
#8
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you say that you were an atheist at let's say, the age of 4?
Topic's author
#9
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
What's your answer to my question?

If you were taught critical thinking and the scientific method, you wouldn't reject it out of hand, but you'd end up rejecting it after examination, because there's no other real conclusion to make. 
Maybe I'm not understanding your question then.

Do you think George Washington Carver wasn't taught critical thinking and the scientific method?

Science, no matter which way you slice and/or dice it, doesn't make any claim one way or another about the existence of God.
#10
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2

Do you think George Washington Carver wasn't taught critical thinking and the scientific method?

He wasn't taught the scientific method free of any influence of religion at an early age. My question: 

Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything  about religion,  any religion, but  taught critical thinking, science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real? 
Topic's author
#11
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x


Do you think George Washington Carver wasn't taught critical thinking and the scientific method?

He wasn't taught the scientific method free of any influence of religion at an early age. My question: 
Neither were most of the atheist members of the National Academy of Sciences.



Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything  about religion,  any religion, but  taught critical thinking, science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real? 

Here's the problem I'm having with your question.

I'm not sure if the 16 year old is the child in your scenario, or if I'm the 16 year old teaching a child.

#12
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'll rephrase: if you kept a person's influence absolutely free of any mention of religion at all for the first sixteen years of their lives (think of it like being totally isolated on an island where religions simply doesn't exist), and that child spent their time learning critical thinking skills and the demonstrable scientific reasons things happen, do you think after sixteen years you'd be able to convince them a god exists?
#13
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I'll rephrase: if you kept a person's influence absolutely free of any mention of religion at all for the first sixteen years of their lives (think of it like being totally isolated on an island where religions simply doesn't exist), and that child spent their time learning critical thinking skills and the demonstrable scientific reasons things happen, do you think after sixteen years you'd be able to convince them a god exists?
I think your question would depend on individual taste. I'm not motivated to use the scientific method as a way to disprove god's existence. Even if we live in an ideal world where we could reasonably conclude god's existence by way of the scientific method, I'd still willfully believe in god. I'd rather be a mystic than a boring physicalist. Imho, I acknowledge that this would play out differently with a person who has a vested interest in the scientific method. Now, for my case, if there is a way for atheistic soothsayers to convince me that magical things are free of divine influence, I'd be more inclined to believe them. This is just my opinion.
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@MarkWebberFan
THat's fine, you're just choosing something to believe because you don't want to be boring in your own view, you've the right to do so, but it's not a position from which you will convince anyone that it's true. t appears you recognize that, so I say mazel tov! 
#15
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
it appears so!
#16
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Children also accept the existence of Santa Clause if you teach it to them. 
Topic's author
#17
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
I'll rephrase: if you kept a person's influence absolutely free of any mention of religion at all for the first sixteen years of their lives (think of it like being totally isolated on an island where religions simply doesn't exist), and that child spent their time learning critical thinking skills and the demonstrable scientific reasons things happen, do you think after sixteen years you'd be able to convince them a god exists?

Not to put off answering your question, but this is important.

Are you considering the 16 year old a child?

And, what do you consider a child?
Topic's author
#18
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Danielle
Children also accept the existence of Santa Clause if you teach it to them. 

Sure. There's a similarity. And there's also a difference.
#19
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Just say you don't want to answer, man. It's not that hard, a sixteen year old is a child, for pete's sake.  I have an idea, why don't you define "child" because I'm pretty sure I know what a child is. If you want some sort of semantical trap door, go ahead and build one, or just skip the question for being somehow too impenetrable. 
#20
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Children aren't born theists.

An atheist is a person that isn't a theist.

Ergo children are born atheists.
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,664
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do children start out atheist?


 What a absolute stupid arse of a question. You really cannot help yourself can you?

 

#22
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@RoderickSpode
Most children will believe anything you tell them; it doesn't mean they "start out" believing in it. I'm not sure of the point of the OP. 
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,664
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Plenty of kids ask "how do you know?" or "why?" a million times.   
 Indeed and many have had the shit beaten out of them for asking prickly awkward questions about religion, the bible and god.

Topic's author
#24
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

Just say you don't want to answer, man. It's not that hard, a sixteen year old is a child, for pete's sake.  I have an idea, why don't you define "child" because I'm pretty sure I know what a child is. If you want some sort of semantical trap door, go ahead and build one, or just skip the question for being somehow too impenetrable. 
Are you aware that there are members here about that age that are probably more intelligent than you and I put together?

I think you're confusing this with legal age.

I do want to answer your question. You're just going to have to trust that I delay with other questions for a reason. This being a good example.  If I just ran with every question you gave me there'd be a big problem. If you think a sixteen year old is a child, then we're trying to speak to each other in 2 different languages.
#25
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Okay, I guess forget it then. Intelligence doesn't determine if someone is  a child or not. 
Topic's author
#26
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@drafterman
Children aren't born theists.

An atheist is a person that isn't a theist.

Ergo children are born atheists.
We may have a different interpretation of what an atheist is.

How can a child not believe in something they've never heard of from another human?

This is the second post that seems to suggest there are no agnostics.
#27
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
We may have a different interpretation of what an atheist is.
An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods.

How can a child not believe in something they've never heard of from another human?
Easy. You can only believe in things you've heard of (or at least conjured up yourself). So if you've never heard of it (or invented it yourself) then necessarily you don't believe in it.

This is the second post that seems to suggest there are no agnostics.
I suggest no such thing. Agnosticism is separate from atheism. It is not some philosophical middle ground between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism and theism are about belief.
Topic's author
#28
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Danielle

Most children will believe anything you tell them; it doesn't mean they "start out" believing in it. I'm not sure of the point of the OP. 
I might even go as far to say that all children will believe what you tell them at an early enough stage of maturity.

Out of curiosity, do you remember what you believed at about the age of 3 months?
Topic's author
#29
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@drafterman
An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods.
True!

How can a child not believe in something they've never heard of from another human?
Easy. You can only believe in things you've heard of (or at least conjured up yourself). So if you've never heard of it (or invented it yourself) then necessarily you don't believe in it.
A child who was too young to understand an explanation of God....is an atheist.


I know what you're trying to say, but a child does not know whether or not there's a God. By similar rules they are an agnostic by virtue of not making any conscious claim of non-belief (to themselves or anyone). They are not conscious of not believing. Just the innocence of their openness to knowledge should render atheism a wrong claim.

I think the definition of atheism has been too oversimplified over time.


I suggest no such thing. Agnosticism is separate from atheism. It is not some philosophical middle ground between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism and theism are about belief.

See above.

Do you recall the moment you decided you were an atheist?
#30
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
A child who was too young to understand an explanation of God....is an atheist.
Correct.

I know what you're trying to say, but a child does not know whether or not there's a God.
Belief precedes knowledge. There are many people that belief or disbelief that do not profess knowledge.

By similar rules they are an agnostic by virtue of not making any claim of non-belief God. They are not conscious of not believing.
Technically, sure. As if you don't have a belief you don't have knowledge. Though agnosticism has several flavors, most of which are positive statements about whether knowledge of God is attainable by anyone. They would not be those kinds of agnostics.

Just the innocence of their openness to knowledge should render atheism a wrong claim.
I am not aware of any definition of atheism that makes reference to the "innocence" or "openness to knowledge" as a requirement. Can you cite a reference?

I think the definition of atheism has been too oversimplified over time.
Your dislike of the definition does not invalidate it.

Do you recall the moment you decided you were an atheist?

I didn't "decide" to be an atheist. I was born this way and have been exposed to nothing that would change my position on the matter.