God creates only atheists.

[Jagella]

If the Christian god exists, then he has created us all (with some help from men and women having sex and women bearing children). Oddly, though, this god does not create us as Christians but as atheists. Creating us this way requires babies to be taught Christianity by their parents and elders which involves risk that babies may be taught the "wrong kind of Christianity," they won't be taught Christianity at all, they may be taught a "false" religion, or worst of all--they may taught that Christianity like all religions is a con game.

These facts beg the...

Question for Debate: Why does God create us as atheists?

I think it's safe to say that God could create us all as Christians, and it seems strange to me that he would not create us as Christians. Since we are born as atheists, it appears to cast doubt on the existence of any gods. Belief in gods then is not innate but was invented by people who wish to control other people.

For further reading see Ryan T. Cragun's What You Don't Know About Religion (but Should), Pages 27-31.

[Zzyzx]

.
Perhaps it should be said that newborns are Non-Theistic -- not theistic -- not believers in or worshipers of gods.

However, fervent believers may propose that intrauterine indoctrination causes babies to pop out worshiping / knowing about gods.

[Menotu]

Having no beliefs in god would seem to mean you had to at least consider it. Which to me, isn't something you can do when you're first born.

Having no opinion about an issue can result from at least two reasons:

1. The person is familiar with the issue but doesn't care enough about the issue to come to a conclusion about that issue. The person is apathetic about the issue.
2. The person is unaware of the issue and therefore cannot come to a conclusion about that issue. The person is ignorant about the issue.

Babies fall into situation 2. Their lack of beliefs in gods result from being unaware of the issue of the existence of gods. Contrary to what you say, there is no need to have ever considered if gods exist to have no beliefs in gods. If a person, like a baby, never heard of gods, then they will lack belief in gods. You will lack belief in anything you've never heard of.

I agree about the option #2
But to me, that doesn't say they're atheist, agnostic, believer, non-believer, purple pancake....they just exist without a belief in it/him/them.
Just how I see it.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by ]

William: It is my observation that those I encounter who claim to be atheists all have world views based upon the belief that gods do not exist.

Bust Nak: Count me out. I am an atheist whose worldview is not based upon the belief that gods do not exist. My belief that gods do not exist is the result of my worldview, not the other way round.

William: Which of the illusionists hands do we watch, if we are trying to catch them out?
More to the point, you 'liked' Jagella's post #48, suggesting to the reader that you agree with his belief that all babies are created atheists.
Yet plainly enough, your statement that you are an atheist as a result of your world views shows this reader that you do not believe you were born an atheist, but rather, became one through being shaped by your world views.

Bust Nak: More to the point, even if all who claimed to be atheists based their world views based upon the belief that gods do not exist, it does not make this a defining feature of atheists. What about these atheists who don't claim to be one?

William: One can refrain from claiming to be anything. One can also be very vocal about what it is that they believe they are. One cannot claim someone else is whatever one feels others are, without encroaching on the rights of those others to chose for themselves, or refrain from choosing as they please.
Likewise, one cannot justifiably point at a human baby and claim the baby is 'atheist' without fallacy first.

Bust Nak: What makes this a fallacy, other than your disagreement?

William: What makes the proclamation that "All Human Babies are born Atheists" a fallacy is the points of my disagreement so far. Some of those points have been addressed already in my prior posts, showing the belief...

• "All Human Babies Are Born Atheists"

...is indeed, fallacy.

Point overall being that if there are individual atheists who believe this and together are forming groups which are actively spreading misinformation - information which has not been validated through scientific research - then, while people can call themselves 'atheists' while doing so, they need not be babies about it by complaining when theists do the very same practice of the fallacy of misinforming.

My comment that the difference of babes from atheists as being that there requires a reason in order for someone to become an atheist, means that an atheist - 'for whatever reason' has made a choice based upon information.

Misinformation... is still information.


Bust Nak: That does not apply to those who didn't become atheists, babies were born as atheists.

William: Show the reader the science to back up this belief.

• Babies are not 'atheists' because babies have not yet gained the information required for them to choose to be atheists.

Bust Nak: Right, instead babies are atheists because babies have not yet gained the information required for them to choose to be theists.

William: As already stated, A dolphin may be like a whale, but it is still a dolphin.
It is misinformation to declare babies are atheists. Were you a baby when you first declared to the world that you were an atheist?

It may be that the strong desire to fudge the results are in response to those theists who declare that humans are born with the idea of a Creator implanted within them.

Still, fighting fire with fire/misinformation with misinformation is still a fallacy, regardless of who's misinformation one chooses to believe.

The best we can say - from an agnostic perceptive - is that we do not know but if there were a creator it does not automatically mean that we are to assume either is true, when other possibilities are present.
My understanding is that we were born with the potential to see evidence of a Creators work within the Creation, which is why humans are looking in that direction. That same state of being means we are also born with the potential to go the other way.
The evidence so far shows us that this is what appears to have been happening to date.


We were born with the potential to go either way or even to simply keep gathering evidence which might verify without a doubt, one way or the other.

If human beings truly were created to be atheists, there would simply be no such thing as ideas of Creators and Creations. That alone is enough to sink the argument that "We are all born atheists."

[Sink it like a gangsters legs embedded in concrete. "Just add a hole of water".]

The confusion therefore is to be sourced in the description of an atheist.
As long as 'atheist' means "one who lacks belief in gods" and not "one who lacks any knowledge of gods" then one cannot logically make the claim without the obvious fallacy. Babies lack the knowledge of gods, whereas atheists do not, and never can.

• Jesus did say 'unless you are born again' but he wasn't suggesting that we all become what the you believe the Creator created us to be...beings who do not believe in the existence of a Creator.

Bust Nak: Or maybe Jesus was suggesting that we need to be born again to change from what the Creator created us as... beings who do not believe in the existence of a Creator?

William: Given Jesus said much on the subject, his concern was that we are under the influence of those who came before us and who heavily influence us as to telling us 'who we are.'

As I point out, The Creator did not necessarily create us either way. The Creator gave us the capacity to be filled with whatever information we choose to believe or not.
Jesus was not suggesting we curl up into a default setting of lacking belief in The Creator, but rather in reprogramming our corrupted selves by dumping those programs and starting from scratch...only - as an adult..with the capacity of a mature mind.

In other words, to see if knowledge of the Creator can be obtained through that process.

Curling up into fetal position on the assumption The Creator created us to be atheists and to develop world views as our only option based upon that notion...is misinformation and not overly the way an wise woke adult would go about it.

[Bust Nak]

Which of the illusionists hands do we watch, if we are trying to catch them out?

No idea what you are talking about here.

More to the point, you 'liked' Jagella's post #48, suggesting to the reader that you agree with his belief that all babies are created atheists.

I do agree with Jagella on that.

Yet plainly enough, your statement that you are an atheist as a result of your world views shows this reader that you do not believe you were born an atheist, but rather, became one through being shaped by your world views.

It seems you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. I was born an atheist, stayed an atheist and never became one. What I said about my beliefs being the result of my worldview, is the reason for staying as an atheist. Granted, that makes me somewhat unusual, and perhaps harder to understand.

One can refrain from claiming to be anything. One can also be very vocal about what it is that they believe they are. One cannot claim someone else is whatever one feels others are, without encroaching on the rights of those others to chose for themselves, or refrain from choosing as they please.

How does me calling someone an atheist, encroaching on their rights to chose a label for themselves, or refrain them from choosing as they please?

What makes the proclamation that "All Human Babies are born Atheists" a fallacy is the points of my disagreement so far. Some of those points have been addressed already in my prior posts, showing the belief...

• "All Human Babies Are Born Atheists"

...is indeed, fallacy.

What is going on here? Why would you think mere disagreement is enough to show that it is a fallacy?

Point overall being that if there are individual atheists who believe this and together are forming groups which are actively spreading misinformation - information which has not been validated through scientific research

What misinformation? My point overall is that you are resorting to circular reasoning, along the lines of why are babies not atheists? Because atheism require active reasoning; why does atheism require active reasoning? Because if that's not the case, then babies would be atheists. Why would babies being atheists be a problem? Because babies not atheists. Why are babies not atheists? Because atheism require active reasoning...

My comment that the difference of babes from atheists as being that there requires a reason in order for someone to become an atheist, means that an atheist - 'for whatever reason' has made a choice based upon information.

But you are still ignoring that no reason is required for one to be an atheist, since atheism is the default state.

Show the reader the science to back up this belief.

• Babies are not 'atheists' because babies have not yet gained the information required for them to choose to be atheists.

Shouldn't you be the one backing that up? That was your claim, not mine. I pass, this is a linguistic issue, not a scientific one. So how about I show you a definition of atheist, one that fits babies instead? Here is one: atheist noun - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

As already stated, A dolphin may be like a whale, but it is still a dolphin. It is misinformation to declare babies are atheists. Were you a baby when you first declared to the world that you were an atheist?

It's clearly not misinformation given that I was an atheist when I was a baby.

It may be that the strong desire to fudge the results are in response to those theists who declare that humans are born with the idea of a Creator implanted within them.

Well I don't much care about what theists believe.

The best we can say - from an agnostic perceptive - is that we do not know but if there were a creator it does not automatically mean that we are to assume either is true, when other possibilities are present.

Which makes one an atheist.

If human beings truly were created to be atheists, there would simply be no such thing as ideas of Creators and Creations.

Why? Plenty of atheists have became theists who believe in ideas such as creators and creations.

The confusion therefore is to be sourced in the description of an atheist.
As long as 'atheist' means "one who lacks belief in gods" and not "one who lacks any knowledge of gods" then one cannot logically make the claim without the obvious fallacy. Babies lack the knowledge of gods, whereas atheists do not, and never can.

What are you saying here? If "atheist" means "one who lacks belief in gods" then why wouldn't babies qualify as atheists? Would which in turn mean atheists can lack knowledge of gods? Sounds to me like you are undermining your own thesis.

Given Jesus said much on the subject, his concern was that we are under the influence of those who came before us and who heavily influence us as to telling us 'who we are.'

As I point out, The Creator did not necessarily create us either way.

Sure, which means the default applies - we are born atheists.

Jesus was not suggesting we curl up into a default setting of lacking belief in The Creator, but rather in reprogramming our corrupted selves by dumping those programs and starting from scratch...only - as an adult..with the capacity of a mature mind.

That's fine, but how does that change the fact that the default setting is atheism?

Curling up into fetal position on the assumption The Creator created us to be atheists and to develop world views as our only option based upon that notion...is misinformation and not overly the way an wise woke adult would go about it.

Why are you equating what the default state is, with motivation of staying at the default state? Whatever the default state is have no bearing on whether one ought to stay that way.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by ]

William:One can refrain from claiming to be anything. One can also be very vocal about what it is that they believe they are. One cannot claim someone else is whatever one feels others are, without encroaching on the rights of those others to chose for themselves, or refrain from choosing as they please.

Bust Nak: How does me calling someone an atheist, encroaching on their rights to chose a label for themselves, or refrain them from choosing as they please?

William: If you tell a baby it is an atheist, it won't understand what you are saying. If you continue to tell the baby the same thing as it develops, the chances are high that it will eventually agree with you.
In the same way that atheist argue theists are wrong to claim people are born sinners, and teach their children to believe that is the case, it encroaches upon the child's right to choose for themselves and self identify as they might otherwise choose.


Bust Nak: What is going on here? Why would you think mere disagreement is enough to show that it is a fallacy?

William: I have shown clearly that it is indeed a fallacy. What is going on here is that your beliefs on the matter appear to be non-negotiable.

Bust Nak: What misinformation?

William: I clearly stated what the misinformation is. My argument is not circular, but rather, takes into consideration the default setting of ignorance in relation to the fact that atheists do not lack belief in everything but only in a specific idea, one in which they have to grow and develop from being babies before they can know of that idea.
That is a huge difference between atheists and babies, which you are struggling to acknowledge as true, preferring to hold onto your belief in the fallacy that 'everyone is born an atheist.' rather than let it go as the misinformation it truly is.

This belief you have is reflected throughout your reply, as can be shown in the following line;

Bust Nak: But you are still ignoring that no reason is required for one to be an atheist, since atheism is the default state.

William: Your belief that "atheism is the default state" is fallacy.
The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a reason why atheists choose to become atheists. Because theists and their ideas of Creator and Creation manifest, and the information from that is not believed.
That is where the lack of belief in gods derives. Remember, babies lack belief in everything. Atheists only lack belief in one thing. It is that one thing which they lack belief in, which makes them atheists.
They do not lack belief because they are ignorant of ideas of god, but rather because they have been exposed to information about ideas of god which they chose not to believe.

• Show the reader the science to back up this belief. Babies are not 'atheists' because babies have not yet gained the information required for them to choose to be atheists.

Bust Nak: Shouldn't you be the one backing that up?

William: I did not create this thread and its claim that 'god creates only atheists nor have I used the thread to promote the claim.

I am simply asking you and any others who are peddling this misinformation to
show us the science which will help to convince us otherwise.
For now, I can only treat the claim as unsupported opinion, and as such, continue to lack belief in its authenticity.

I am tending to lean towards thinking the thread subject itself is a statement of opinion rather than something which those making the claim actually wish to debate.
Perhaps the thread really belongs in the general chat sub-forum...

• Curling up into fetal position on the assumption The Creator created us to be atheists and to develop world views as our only option based upon that notion...is misinformation and not overly the way an wise woke adult would go about it.

Bust Nak: Why are you equating what the default state is, with motivation of staying at the default state? Whatever the default state is have no bearing on whether one ought to stay that way.

William: It appears that your question above is evidence that you skipped over my stating that it is evident a Creator created us with the default setting of neither theist or atheist but rather with the ability to chose either and even neither.
Certainly, if you want to believe you were born an atheist, that is your right and privilege, but it does not mean everyone else need believe it is the truth of the matter.

"If God Creates Only Atheists then where is the evidence to back up the claim?"

That is the question which requires answering. The evidence so far shows us this is not the actual case. Babies are born empty vessels able to be filled with all manner of beliefs about themselves as they develop and they develop into atheism or theism or neither.

Depending upon individual circumstance and ability to rise above/resist the attractiveness to simply accept what others tell us we are, by being "born again" we can also an option we can use in order to come out from under that suppression device and learn for our self who we each really are.

I fail to see how anyone who believes they were 'born an atheist' can develop the ability to then discover this ability within themselves, especially given there is no science to back up their belief.

[Bust Nak]

If you tell a baby it is an atheist, it won't understand what you are saying. If you continue to tell the baby the same thing as it develops, the chances are high that it will eventually agree with you.

Note the word "agree," that's them exercising their right.

In the same way that atheist argue theists are wrong to claim people are born sinners, and teach their children to believe that is the case, it encroaches upon the child's right to choose for themselves and self identify as they might otherwise choose.

The analogy fails because these theistic terms have implications, with "sinner" in particular you are telling your child they are not worthy of love. Where as labelling a child an atheist is no different from saying this child is French.

I have shown clearly that it is indeed a fallacy.

By pointing out that you disagree with it, how would that count as "shown clearly?"

I clearly stated what the misinformation is. My argument is not circular, but rather, takes into consideration the default setting of ignorance in relation to the fact that atheists do not lack belief in everything but only in a specific idea, one in which they have to grow and develop from being babies before they can know of that idea.

Again, that ignores the fact that some atheists do lack belief in everything, without having grown and developed from being babies. There is no difference between an atheist who is a baby and babies, which you are struggling to acknowledge as true, preferring to hold onto your belief in the fallacy that "atheism requires analysis and active rejection of the God hypothesis" rather than let it go as the misinformation it truly is.

This belief you have is reflected throughout your reply, as can be shown in the following line "atheists do not lack belief in everything but only in a specific idea, one in which they have to grow and develop from being babies before they can know of that idea."

Why do you believe that, other than to prop up another idea that God did not create atheists?

Your belief that "atheism is the default state" is fallacy.
The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a reason why atheists choose to become atheists.

That fact does not change the fact that "atheism is the default state," you have presented a non sequitur fallacy.

That is where the lack of belief in gods derives.

That's only one way of getting to a lack of belief in gods, the other is being born with a lack of belief in everything.

Atheists only lack belief in one thing. It is that one thing which they lack belief in, which makes them atheists.

Think about what you are saying here. I lack the believe in ghosts, I also lack belief in gods. That's at least two things I lack belief in. Does that disqualify me from being an atheist?

They do not lack belief because they are ignorant of ideas of god...

Again, false by counter-example, some atheists lack belief because they are ignorant of ideas of god.

I did not create this thread and its claim that 'god creates only atheists nor have I used the thread to promote the claim.

But you did make the claim "babies are not atheists because babies have not yet gained the information required for them to choose to be atheists." I am simply asking you and any others who are peddling this misinformation to
show us the science which will help to convince us otherwise. Am I to conclude that this claim of yours is unsupported opinion, not subject to debate?

It appears that your question above is evidence that you skipped over my stating that it is evident a Creator created us with the default setting of neither theist or atheist but rather with the ability to chose either and even neither.

But you presented this idea of motivation as support for the claim that God created us as neither theist or atheist, going back to use that claim to support this idea re: motivation is another circular argument. If God created us as atheist by default, then this talk of curling up without motivation to become theist would be irrelevant.

Certainly, if you want to believe you were born an atheist, that is your right and privilege, but it does not mean everyone else need believe it is the truth of the matter.

Granted. You should believe it though, because that's how it is usually defined.

"If God Creates Only Atheists then where is the evidence to back up the claim?"

Ignoring the God creating part for now, see the definition of atheist I supplied earlier. The evidence so far shows us this is in fact the case. Babies are born empty vessels able to be filled with all manner of beliefs about themselves as they develop, and until they do, they default to atheism. All that's left to be established is the God creating part.

I fail to see how anyone who believes they were 'born an atheist' can develop the ability to then discover this ability within themselves, especially given there is no science to back up their belief.

By developing an analytical brain? It's not hard, it comes naturally with growing beyond the baby stage.

[William]

[Replying to post 56]

William: If you tell a baby it is an atheist, it won't understand what you are saying. If you continue to tell the baby the same thing as it develops, the chances are high that it will eventually agree with you.

Bust Nak: Note the word "agree," that's them exercising their right.

William: Perhaps I should remember that the next time an atheist complains how theists born into religion are influenced to remain theists.

Bust Nak: The analogy fails because these theistic terms have implications, with "sinner" in particular you are telling your child they are not worthy of love. Where as labelling a child an atheist is no different from saying this child is French.

William: Rubbish.
People can judge on people just as much as they judge on anything else.
Also to note, the idea that one cannot love someone because they are believed to be a sinner, is not what Jesus taught. The whole act of forgiveness is about that.

My analogy is a good enough mirror. When an atheist infers there must be something wrong with a theists brain, it amounts to the same thing as a theist saying an atheist is a sinner. The implication is that there is some kind of fault being judge by the accuser at the accused.

Point being, labeling others is a pointless preoccupation.
Labeling all babies as atheists, is a fallacy.

• I clearly stated what the misinformation is. My argument is not circular, but rather, takes into consideration the default setting of ignorance in relation to the fact that atheists do not lack belief in everything but only in a specific idea, one in which they have to grow and develop from being babies before they can know of that idea.

Bust Nak: Again, that ignores the fact that some atheists do lack belief in everything...

William: That is not the point at all bust nak.
An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. That is all an atheist is.
A Human Baby on the other hand, lacks belief in everything.

• Atheists only lack belief in one thing. It is that one thing which they lack belief in, which makes them atheists.

Bust Nak: Think about what you are saying here. I lack the believe in ghosts, I also lack belief in gods. That's at least two things I lack belief in. Does that disqualify me from being an atheist?

William: That you lack belief in gods makes you an atheist.
That is all that makes you an atheist.
That you lack belief in ghosts is besides the point.
If you believed in gods but not ghosts, you would not be an atheist.

The fundamental mistake atheists of your persuasion are making is that they do not account for the lack of knowledge a baby has, which is why a baby does not believe in anything.

Those atheists you claim exist who lack belief in everything are fantasies you have created to try and float your sinking argument.
This is because, they have knowledge and use that knowledge. Anyone who has and uses knowledge, must believe at least in that knowledge.
If you were such an atheist you would be unable to truthfully claim that all babies are atheists.

Like I said, I am happy to view any scientific research you have to back up your claims. Add to that, the research which proves that "some atheists do lack belief in everything".
That will go a long way to helping re-float the shipwreck of your current augment to date.

Bust Nak: Again, false by counter-example, some atheists lack belief because they are ignorant of ideas of god.

William: Then by rights they should be sub-labelled, probably under the "Weak Atheist" sub-heading. They are "like atheists" and like all atheists, not like other atheists.
They are like atheists in that they lack knowledge about ideas of gods, but they lack knowledge rather than belief. Given the knowledge, there is an opportunity they might chose to become theists.

Being like something does not make you, that something.

A dolphin is like a whale, but is not a whale.

A shipwreck is like a ship, but is not a ship.

A fallacy is like a truth but is not a truth.

Bust Nak: But you did make the claim "babies are not atheists because babies have not yet gained the information required for them to choose to be atheists." I am simply asking you and any others who are peddling this misinformation to
show us the science which will help to convince us otherwise.

William: I am happy to freely admit I am basing my opinion on common sense rather than any actual science. There is no actual science to prove that all babies are born atheists.
But onus is still on the one who created this thread or anyone else supporting the claim "God creates only atheists" - in a debate setting - to back the claim with evidence.
My asking to be shown the science is acknowledgment that my idea of common sense may be that which is at fault. Any science which can back up your claims will assist me in re-configuring my current understanding.

If God Creates Only Atheists then where is the evidence to back up the claim?

Bust Nak: Am I to conclude that this claim of yours is unsupported opinion, not subject to debate?

William: As I wrote in my last post...my opinion, is that the thread subject itself is "not subject to debate" and should be placed in the General Chat Sub-Forum.

[Bust Nak]

Perhaps I should remember that the next time an atheist complains how theists born into religion are influenced to remain theists.

That won't help since the problem is what you are influencing them to be, rather than influencing people being a problem in itself.

Rubbish.
People can judge on people just as much as they judge on anything else.

So what? What does this have to do with what I said?

Also to note, the idea that one cannot love someone because they are believed to be a sinner, is not what Jesus taught. The whole act of forgiveness is about that.

I didn't say cannot be loved though, I said not worthy of love, that Jesus loves you at all, just says how great Jesus is. That is what Christianity teaches.

My analogy is a good enough mirror. When an atheist infers there must be something wrong with a theists brain, it amounts to the same thing as a theist saying an atheist is a sinner. The implication is that there is some kind of fault being judge by the accuser at the accused.

Point being, labeling others is a pointless preoccupation.

Classify entities into categories help us process information.

That is not the point at all bust nak.
An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. That is all an atheist is.
A Human Baby on the other hand, lacks belief in everything.

What do you mean "on the other hand?" An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, a baby is someone who lacks belief in gods, that is all an atheist is, which makes babies atheists.

That you lack belief in ghosts is besides the point.

Then why is the fact that babies lacks belief in everything not also besides the point?!

The fundamental mistake atheists of your persuasion are making is that they do not account for the lack of knowledge a baby has, which is why a baby does not believe in anything.

That's not a mistake: We do not account for the lack of knowledge a baby has because it is irrelevant. You said so above, an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. That is all an atheist is. There is no mention of knowledge at all.

The fundamental mistake people of your persuasion are making is that you are begging the question. Why do you think atheism require knowledge of the concept of gods, when you know full well lacking belief in gods is all there is to atheism?

Those atheists you claim exist who lack belief in everything are fantasies you have created to try and float your sinking argument.

Not so, babies are not fantasies I have created to try and float my argument. I've held many in my own hands, seen more with my own eyes. They really do exist.

This is because, they have knowledge and use that knowledge.

You have contradicted yourself, you just told me babies do not have knowledge.

Like I said, I am happy to view any scientific research you have to back up your claims. Add to that, the research which proves that "some atheists do lack belief in everything".
That will go a long way to helping re-float the shipwreck of your current augment to date.

Why would I need to do that when you've already accepted that babies do lack a belief in everything?

Then by rights they should be sub-labelled, probably under the "Weak Atheist" sub-heading.

Of course they should, but alas they lack the cognitive power to do so, I don't hold that against them.

They are "like atheists" and like all atheists, not like other atheists.
They are like atheists in that they lack knowledge about ideas of gods, but they lack knowledge rather than belief. Given the knowledge, there is an opportunity they might chose to become theists.

Being like something does not make you, that something.

That's moot because they are not merely like atheists, they are atheist.

A blue whale is like a whale, and is a whale.

A clipper is like a ship, and is a ship.

Babies are atheists is like a truth, and is a truth.

While we are here dolphins are tooth whales, which may or may not be considered whales depending on which biologist you ask.

I am happy to freely admit I am basing my opinion on common sense rather than any actual science. There is no actual science to prove that all babies are born atheists.

But I've got a dictionary to help prove it where science fails.

My asking to be shown the science is acknowledgment that my idea of common sense may be that which is at fault. Any science which can back up your claims will assist me in re-configuring my current understanding.

But a deductive proof wouldn't help?

If God Creates Only Atheists then where is the evidence to back up the claim?

Presumably it's non existent.

[wiploc]

[Replying to Jagella]

This would mean that atheism is unthinking stupidity. It means that Christianity requires rational thought, while atheism does not.

Theism includes pedophile priests, but that doesn't mean theism is pedophile priests. Atheism includes ignorant babies, but that doesn't mean atheism is ignorant babies.

[William]

William: Playing along with the belief some atheists have that all humans were created in the 'atheist' default setting...those atheists who believe so are asking - in relation to the dubious claim "God creates only atheists." "Why does God create us as atheists?" and in the case of the OP opinion;

• I think it's safe to say that God could create us all as Christians, and it seems strange to me that he would not create us as Christians. Since we are born as atheists, it appears to cast doubt on the existence of any gods. Belief in gods then is not innate but was invented by people who wish to control other people.

If we were created with no belief in gods, but also with the ability to form beliefs in gods as we examined the evidence of experience within this existence, because the evidence can and does point to the possibility that we exist within a creation and therefore a Creation, this implies a Creator.

The question as to why a Creator would have us experience forms which develop from a lack of belief or even knowledge of said Creator, into a myriad of beliefs as to 'why' a Creator would place us within this Creation...can be answered...

The idea that a Creator could have created everyone a "Christian" comes with its own problems. What does the statement below mean?

"God could create us all as Christians, and it seems strange to me that he would not create us as Christians"


One could argue that a Creator is creating Christians and other theists through the process of knowledge gained after the fact of being initially set as an lacking belief in a Creator.

The process in itself offers two opportunities.

1: The Creator gets to observe the effects of the process.
2: The process enables those experiencing it to develop into theists, if they so choose to see the evidence through the filters of the idea that a Creator exists and we are within a Creation.

To view the Universe through the atheist filter where 'lack in belief in Creator and Creation' - is to remain disengaged from the ability we obviously have to engage with the knowledge of idea that we can develop belief in Creator and Creation.

The answer to why the Creator created us as atheists can be found within the process.We were not just created atheists, but we were also Created with the ability not to remain atheists.

As to the complaint that inventions involving ideas of god are simply for the purpose of 'controlling people', that is quite natural as the default setting for a human being is also that they require controlling. Atheism as a default position therefore requires controlling and no thing hidden within the "lack of belief in gods" allows the atheist to learn self control, except in ideas of god.

Which is to suggest that "Lack of belief in a Creator cannot be shown to enable self control and social order."