Belief structure or Atheism

[Gunnarr]

When a child is born are they born with a belief structure in them or are the born Atheist.

I believe that a child has a belief structure in them, my reasoning is simple, where did it start otherwise. I believe it started because it is within us already, when man could speak and voice his thoughts religion was formed, not as we know it, but the spark and basis was there.

Interested in others differing opinion as well as those in agreement.

[McCulloch]

atheism does strongly imply empiricism of some sort.

Or is it that empiricism implies atheism?

I see little difference between atheism and religion.

I do. Atheism implies the lack of religion. Religions are largely based on facts not in evidence, faith. Atheism, particularly weak atheism, is not.

Yes, I've agreed that atheism isn't a belief system per se, but than neither is Christianity, because I can't know the entirety of what one thinks if that's all they tell me. Reread what I wrote to you above on that, I think I explained pretty well how I see it. I also rephrase my answer in responding to Goat.

Christianity is a belief system, or perhaps more correctly a set of belief systems. Hence, Christian seminaries teach systematic theology.

So in response to your opening question: I think babies are born with a belief in the spiritual, but not necessarily in God as many people think of it.

Human babies are born with the ability to attribute intent to agents other than themselves. This is a very useful skill that helps us thrive in human society. However, sometimes we falsely attribute intent to inanimate or even abstract entities. No deeper or profound explanation for the common beliefs in gods and spirits is required.

Are children born with the spark of a belief structure as in god or gods, or are they born as Atheists?

[font=Georgia]When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.[/font]

[Crazee]

atheism does strongly imply empiricism of some sort.

Or is it that empiricism implies atheism?

Haha, I'm glad you pointed that out. I guess each implies the other.

I see little difference between atheism and religion.

I do. Atheism implies the lack of religion. Religions are largely based on facts not in evidence, faith. Atheism, particularly weak atheism, is not.

The philosopher Sartre made one very strong point about this. He said that one always has to make a choice, even if you don't think you are making a choice, you are. To choose to not make a choice is still a choice.

Everyone has a religion/philosophy/belief structure that they may or may not be fully aware of, it's unavoidable. No single word can sum up one's entire belief structure, it is just too unique from all the rest that it isn't possible. For all intents and purposes, atheism implies a certain structure of beliefs just like catholicism, theism, or hinduism does. But, like other one-word generalizations, it doesn't give the full picture.

Yes, I've agreed that atheism isn't a belief system per se, but than neither is Christianity, because I can't know the entirety of what one thinks if that's all they tell me. Reread what I wrote to you above on that, I think I explained pretty well how I see it. I also rephrase my answer in responding to Goat.

Christianity is a belief system, or perhaps more correctly a set of belief systems. Hence, Christian seminaries teach systematic theology.

They all teach Christian systematic theology, but they don't all teach the same systematic theology. No two Christian schools will teach it the without some noticeable difference(s). Now, we could consider all public schools to be required to teach atheism by law, but, same as with the Christian school, they don't all teach it the same.

Are children born with the spark of a belief structure as in god or gods, or are they born as Atheists?

[font=Georgia]When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.[/font]

I think the assumption that adults are inherently smarter than kids is a flaw in our human reasoning. Supposed 'childish' things that we can lose touch with as adults are, in my opinion, so highly valuable, and so taken for granted, that we don't notice they are missing till they are already gone.

Kids have their own intelligence to them. The main one is the ability to laugh, to enjoy themselves without trying. The innocent smile of a child is priceless. Can we still laugh and play like they can?

Keep the childish things around, and life will be much more pleasant.

[100%atheist]

The philosopher Sartre made one very strong point about this. He said that one always has to make a choice, even if you don't think you are making a choice, you are. To choose to not make a choice is still a choice.

If this is a correct and complete thought of Sartre, then this Sarter wasn't a particularly smart man. When you have no knowledge of a choice, you can't even choose to not make a choice. This doen't apply to atheists who are aware of their atheism of course. I, for instance, did not believe the stories about gods, ghosts, etc. This does not mean that I do not believe in god! This means that I didn't happen yet to hear a single story that would be believable to me by my standards of what trustful information is.

[Crazee]

The philosopher Sartre made one very strong point about this. He said that one always has to make a choice, even if you don't think you are making a choice, you are. To choose to not make a choice is still a choice.

When you have no knowledge of a choice, you can't even choose to not make a choice.

To clarify, you are right that you can't technically have made a decision about something if the options haven't been presented to you. But if the options have been given, then a choice has been made. One of those choices is to try not to choose.

In the case of belief systems, we've all had to choose. I think belief systems are such an integral part of existence that to think one doesn't have one, is to be somewhat in denial. The whole point I'm trying to prove is that although the word 'religion' has connotations that a lot of people don't like (I, for one, would never call myself 'religious'), it is still the same as having a belief structure, philosophy, etc.[/i]

[EduChris]

...Christianity implies a belief system just as atheism does. In both situations, I won't know the details of the beliefs because there is still so much room for interpretation by the person I'm talking to as to what sort of Christian or Atheist they may be...

While there is a lot of room for interpretation in Christianity (or any other specific form of theism) the term "Christian" does imply something, and it is possible to identify major strands (Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical, etc.) within the global and historic tradition.

Atheism, by contrast, is fairly new on the scene therefore highly amorphous. Atheism has not had the opportunity to develop into coherent strands of interpretation. If you want to compare apples to apples, you will need to contrast atheism with general theism, rather than with some specifc sort of theism.

Both theism and non-theism derive from subjective factors, but only theism has an epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves; therefore, non-theism is more faith-based than general theism.

[Crazee]

While there is a lot of room for interpretation in Christianity (or any other specific form of theism) the term "Christian" does imply something, and it is possible to identify major strands (Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical, etc.) within the global and historic tradition.

Atheism, by contrast, is fairly new on the scene therefore highly amorphous. Atheism has not had the opportunity to develop into coherent strands of interpretation. If you want to compare apples to apples, you will need to contrast atheism with general theism, rather than with some specifc sort of theism.

I agree with you that it makes more sense here for me to be comparing atheism to theism rather than to christianity or another subgroup of theism.

But I also think it is inaccurate to say that atheism hasn't had time to develop into it's own unique groups. There may not be as many as there are theistic ones, but they exist nonetheless. So I could compare one of the more well defined groups—say atheistic existentialism—and show how it isn't very different from christianity based on what exactly a religion is.

From Dictionary.com

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I think this definition here illustrates exactly what is causing the problem. Fundamentally, any set of beliefs one has about cause, nature, and purpose of the universe is a religion. But the word itself has very strong connotations in most people's mind that imply, but don't necessitate, belief in some sort of god or gods.

To me, atheism, or atheistic existentialism, fulfills all of these requirements in that it is a part of a set of beliefs pertaining to cause, nature, and purpose to the All. My point that I'm also trying to make is that theism, or christianity, also is an individual aspect of someone's entire set of beliefs.

So to further this point, I think the idea of unique practices between groups is only semi-relevant because no two people have the exact same religion or system of beliefs. Therefore, everyone effectively is their own religion.

Though those who consider themselves atheists may not may not be as concerned to decide which specific type of atheism they are, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to find the more defined group that they agree with. If one looks hard enough, they will always find parts that they disagree with in the writings, which is again why we are all our own belief structure.

Both theism and non-theism derive from subjective factors, but only theism has an epistemically justified explanation for our universe and our selves; therefore, non-theism is more faith-based than general theism.

16) All of today's major world theisms posit VUR (Volitional Ultimate Reality) as the object of their worship; VUR is epistemically justified

17) Any criticism of today's major world theisms which does not grant the prior validity of VUR may be disregarded unless & until some valid reason is given for denying VUR

I would agree that the Universe has a lot of evidence in it that points to something so beyond what our current, rational mindset cannot comprehend. Some sort of all encompassing energy is at work in our day to day lives that we are not very aware of.

I don't think that the classical definitions of God put forth by most of the world's major theisms justify themselves to me well enough both rationally, and intuitively. It seems to me that this energy is much more within our reach than we have been lead to believe. Reality appears to be a riddle that is filled with paradoxes waiting to be solved so that we can unlock mysteries. "Once you give it all up, you can have it all.", "The only thing that never will never change is that everything changes.", many mathematical formulas also solved physical paradoxes we didn't understand before. I would also propose that some truths seem like paradoxes to us, in the same way that the Golden Rule would have seemed paradoxical to many early humans.