Her Father must be very proud

[_DoubtingThomas]

My daughter very much considered herself a Christian for years (my wife and I never took her to church, but she was close friends with her Baptist cousin. I remember one day finding a Bible she'd hidden in her room). I told her all through her childhood that she was going to have to figure questions like that out for herself.

About two years ago, she decided that she didn't believe in god. She's still a teenager.

They're out there.

Interesting, but for some reason most women like to be religious. Only 32% of Atheists are women in the US.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-lands ... y/atheist/

[_Chap]

I hope someday the law allows teenagers to vote...

Pedo much?

Is this person an idiot?

Why, on the basis of the comment quoted, I think the answer has to be 'yes'.

Horrifying thought: could this be a sock puppet for Mr Musk???

[_Kishkumen]

One must be taught to be an atheist as well. One can not "reject" what one does not know. Furthermore, I dare to say that no one knows what an infant believes or does not believe when it is born - their communication skills are rather rudimentary.

Indeed.

[_subgenius]

One must be taught to be an atheist as well. One can not "reject" what one does not know. Furthermore, I dare to say that no one knows what an infant believes or does not believe when it is born - their communication skills are rather rudimentary.

By this it appears you view atheism as exclusively an active disbelief in the God of one's parent culture rather than a position of non-belief requiring no a priori knowledge whatsoever.

It can appear, obviously, however you like. However, my post notes that the assumption for an infant's beliefs are simply assumptions. And if religion is taught then atheism is taught as well.
Tabula Rosa is not the same as atheism.

I'm curious if your kids (if you have any) intuitively believed in Ganesha until you taught them such belief was irrational and they should instead believe in the physical deities of Mormonism?

It's good to be curious, congratulations.

[_Kishkumen]

By this it appears you view atheism as exclusively an active disbelief in the God of one's parent culture rather than a position of non-belief requiring no a priori knowledge whatsoever.

I'm curious if your kids (if you have any) intuitively believed in Ganesha until you taught them such belief was irrational and they should instead believe in the physical deities of Mormonism?

The word atheism has meant a number of different things in history. Subgenius’ definition is hardly unheard of or inherently incorrect. You are free to call all infants atheists on the basis of their inability to believe or disbelieve in deities, but it makes as much sense to me to say they can neither be atheists not theists because they lack the cognitive apparatus to be either.

[Guest]

By this it appears you view atheism as exclusively an active disbelief in the God of one's parent culture rather than a position of non-belief requiring no a priori knowledge whatsoever.

I'm curious if your kids (if you have any) intuitively believed in Ganesha until you taught them such belief was irrational and they should instead believe in the physical deities of Mormonism?

The word atheism has meant a number of different things in history. Subgenius’ definition is hardly unheard of or inherently incorrect.

a) Shades made the claim about infants being atheists.
b) My comment was about subbie's narrow definition. The point being his use pointed to his non-recognition of other definitions than that atheism refers to active non-belief in a particular god or gods. So, yeah.
c) Narrowly defining atheism to only mean it the way subbie used it signals a poor understanding of what the spectrum of non-belief includes.

You are free to call all infants atheists on the basis of their inability to believe or disbelieve in deities, but it makes as much sense to me to say they can neither be atheists not theists because they lack the cognitive apparatus to be either.

Ok.

If I had made the comment Shades had made, I'd be more inclined to view infants as proto-Taoists. The shattering into the many thousand things is a kind of violent poetry applied to the cognitive exploration of a new born sorting out what is what, where they end and the "other" begins, how this "other" is divided into countless objects each with traits to be explored and understood so as to put the world into its necessary boxes to be dealt with...yup. Taoists.

[_honorentheos]

Tabula Rosa is not the same as atheism.

You confuse skeptism with atheism. Skeptism meets your narrow demands while atheism can very easily accommodate non-belief through ignorance.

I'm curious if your kids (if you have any) intuitively believed in Ganesha until you taught them such belief was irrational and they should instead believe in the physical deities of Mormonism?

It's good to be curious, congratulations.

I'd bet if you had real experience with raising kids it would include needing to teach them about God. I wouldn't be surprised to hear they may have developed a belief in reincarnation all on their own, though, probably around 5 to 8 years old as they start to be aware of what death might possibly be and their intuition is to imagine birth and death being a cycle. I've known many a person raised LDS who was surprised to hear I had the same experience they had coming to the idea of reincarnation as making sense as a kid only to find out it was wrong according to the Church. I've known many kids who develop this belief. I don't think they're born with it, I just think it's the shortest distance for a young mind to arrive at when trying to cope with the idea of life ending and what that might mean. I wouldn't be surprised that mentally trying to make sense of these things corresponds with the development of a theory of other minds.

[_Kishkumen]

If you have incompatible definitions of atheism, it’s doubtful that saying his definition is wrong will change his mind. After all, the passive lack of belief in gods is a kind of niche definition pushed partly for ideological reasons. Don’t get me wrong: it is clever and appealing in certain ways. But the historical roots of the word as indicating unconventional or disloyal views are very culturally powerful and not incorrect.

[_Chap]

After all, the passive lack of belief in gods is a kind of niche definition pushed partly for ideological reasons

Not really. Words change their usage as the things they purport to describe change. Once it was very rare for children to be raised in a family context in which religious belief played no part. My wife was however raised that way, and so was one of my children, as are an increasing number of children in the culture where I am based. Theism of the Abrahamic kind is as alien and irrelevant to them as animism.

They are atheists in a different way from (say) the embattled atheists of 19th century England, who defined themselves by their rejection of belief. There just aren't any gods in their mental world at all, and never have been, though they are well aware through their education that some people think and have thought differently.

If they are not atheists, who is?

[_honorentheos]

If you have incompatible definitions of atheism, it’s doubtful that saying his definition is wrong will change his mind. After all, the passive lack of belief in gods is a kind of niche definition pushed partly for ideological reasons. Don’t get me wrong: it is clever and appealing in certain ways. But the historical roots of the word as indicating unconventional or disloyal views are very culturally powerful and not incorrect.

I don't see it as having different definitions of atheism. Rather, the definition subbie seems to prefer is one that places it on the spectrum of theistic beliefs. That's clearly a valid definition but making it the only definition one recognized prioritizes belief. I disagree it is useful to only use that definition when discussing the available views regarding theism even in places like the US where there is some sort of religious background largely dominant in the culture. I'd even argue that if one assumes the US is more pluralistic that saying a person lacks god belief can't definitively tell us that this person is actively expressing a view towards the Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other god.

Since I favor pluralism, I prefer a much more open definition that covers the available spectrum, and in the spectrum is the lack of belief through simple non-knowledge or interest in other people's god beliefs if one finds life liveable, and possibly richly so, ignorant of what subbie tells us is more than a learned belief in God that one must then reject.