I agree with you. I also think that Christians would say that every child is born a Christian, Jews would say every child is born Jewish, etc

@AnnaMD Exactly and every one of them would 100% incorrect since NO newborn child is even remotely aware of either God or religion until it has been told/indoctrinated.

@Triphid Children can't be religious because they cannot think independently for themselves at that age. I believe someone important said something like that, I just can't remember who.

@Triphid If they aren't even aware of the very notion of gods , then they cannot very well reject them now can they ? I think that saying that since babies don't yet know about God they are atheist would be like saying that since children are not yet aware of what government is they must all be anarchist .

@Marmion As a Registered and once practicing, now retired, Male Mid-wife with the delivery of 164 babies under my belt over numerous years I can say most adamantly that NO new-born baby is aware of anything except its immediate need for comfort, warmth, food and security.
I have NEVER once seen a new-born arrive into this world and immediately begin to pray for its safe arrival, etc, etc, have you ever seen such?

It's very easy to forget just how unstructured our consciousness is early in life. I have vague recollections going back to about age 12-15 months, when I hardly even knew what I was. I was mostly a little bundle of reflexes. I didn't even think about anything much beyond my parents and toys. God never entered my mind.

@Triphid By that criteria though , all animals are atheists .

@Marmion Yes, that is a very much more than likely possibility since any ideology involving a deity is merely just a human concept at its very best, I'm sure you'd agree on that fact.

Do you believe in reincarnation?

@MsDemeanour Not necessarily. I believe in possibilities, not certainties.

@K9Kohle789 so you believe in an afterlife?

@K9Kohle789 I think the light bulb episodes and your husband's passing are recent events you feel must be in some way connected, since they are roughly contemporaneous. To suggest that the one caused the other in some way is certainly not logically justified. It makes as much sense - none - to say that your husband's death caused some fault with the lighting as it does to say that the faulty lighting killed him.

@Kohle789 the dime thing. I never heard anyone else talk about it before but yes, without going into details, I have a little piggy bank that is half full of dimes I find in odd times and places but always when a lost dear one is on my mind.
There are too many strange things that happen over a long lifetime that chip away at the rigid beliefs we cling to.

@mooredolezal Yours is not a great example. A belief in gods goes back to the most primitive humans as a way to explain the world around them. Religion and the concept of god are not the same thing.

@GinaKay I was speaking of the world now. No one born today would ever know about God or religion unless they were told. That was my point. I just said an island because that was realistically a place where you would not hear about God or religion. I suppose if you grew up as a primitive today you might contemplate gods just as they did in ancient times.

@mooredolezal But you can't have it both ways. They are either in the modern world, or living a primitive life. Without influence of science and the outside world, which is what I understood your point to be, they could easily come up with the concept of "god" to explain things they did not understand. Just like early man did.

@GinaKay I agree with you. See my last sentence? What I am trying to get across is that modern man need not rely on Gods to explain the world around him because we have science. Consequently, if not taught about God in modern society I don't think the concept would ever come into being. Just like the appendix it is now a useless organ.

@mooredolezal Totally beside the point, but recent research suggests that the human appendix may actually have a function after all. Just a point of interest. I used to use that example a lot, as well, but now I have had to stop because I have come across this information, tentative as it is.

@elperroloco thank you. I stand corrected!?

“Atheism” simply means without theism (belief in god). Babies are born without a knowledge of, and therefore without a belief in god, this atheist.

@A2Jennifer My search of the definition of atheism or atheist all say something along the lines of

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

So I stick to my statement.

@Flowers28 a baby, or anyone who has not been told about gods, does not believe in the existence of gods. Just as a person who has not been told about unicorns or the tooth fairy does not have belief in those things.
There is a difference between having no belief and having disbelief. Those with disbelief can more accurately be described as “anti-theist.”

@A2Jennifer We'll just have to disagree on this.

@Flowers28 ok you are free to disregard definitions of words, but one is either a theist or not a theist (atheist).

@A2Jennifer lol

There doesn't have to be a "reason" for God. There is no "reason" for us, either.

@Lilith I agree there is no reason for us. But we are real. There has to be a reason for God or religion or neither would exist. I believe that reason to be fear of death in most instances or naturally occurring phenomenon for which uneducated people cannot determine or accept the cause. Do you think belief in Gods spontaneously arose?

@mooredolezal I think "GODS" are relative. I do not believe in A God. I believe that GODS are simply a superior species. I have several personal stories in mind.

@alliwant No.

Wrong on two fronts.

The atheist does not doubt. The atheists (does not accept) HUGE difference.

Denial vs doubt is not applicable to my (what I considered was obvious) The word denial implies something has been demonstrated and is not accepted. This is not applicable.

The original definition is "There is no god" this is a positive assertion that unnecessarily places a burden of proof on the person asserting there is not god. If you assign that (INCORRECT) definition of atheist, you place the burden of proof on the atheist to demonstrate there is not god. This is not necessary and a no-win position. The correct position is "does not accept the positive there is a god assertion." Now the burden is on the person asserting the positive "there is a god" assertion.

Rather then type a page to explain this, PLEASE watch this video. All his points are worth watching but If you in a hurry, advance to 11:25. He will do a very good job of describing the burden of proof.

Now onto you use of Antitheism "Antitheism, also known pejoratively as "militant atheism" (despite having nothing to do with militancyWikipedia's W.svg) is the belief that theism and religion are harmful to society and people, and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. Antitheism, which is often characterized as outspoken opposition to theism and religion, asserts that religious and especially theistic beliefs are harmful and should be discarded in favor of humanism, rationalism, science and other alternatives." quoted from rationalwiki.org

Time stamp 11:25

Actually we do know a great deal about the universe and how the world works. I find it beautiful and exhilarating.

@MsDemeanour Actually, we do not. We have extrapolated concepts from what we think are observable phenomena. Physics however, is a matter of star alignment perspective. Not the same here as there.

Hi.. tell me, do u think there's difference between this "instinct" animals are born with and our innate understanding of our ancestral cultures? Both were born out of the need for survival..

@Blackmind Do we have an Innate understanding of our ancestral culture? I have seen studies that indicate we may carry a reaction to ancestral trauma in our dna. But I am not aware of any awareness of ancestral culture at birth.

@ohnoudun I truly think so..It's like other living things who instinctively know what to do the moment they are born.. spiders, gazelles, sea turtles, etc. they are coded from their ancestral environment and environment dictates culture..

John Lennon sang twice "it's easy" all you need is love" and IMAGINE, it's easy if you try, no hell below us above us only sky

...or until you witness something you have absolutely no words to describe and not the intellectual capacity to understand.

@Lilith
I am a person that is obviously not as intelligent as my brilliant older sibling.

I learned at an early age to accept my inability to understand some things immediately. I became accepting, if not comfortable, in my ignorance. A long list of questions accumulated. I was constantly curious.

Later, in Junior High, I took a lesson in Fallacies and Logic. It really helped to cut away confusion. Thereafter, I was not only asking for advice, but prepared to listen sceptically.

I have found answers to most of my questions. I am unwilling to "make up" answers for the rest.

Most acquaintances think me wise or intelligent. It took a lot of work. I still think my brother is a genius.

You need a hug. Or at least the child who cried when learning that Santa was a myth, needs a hug.

@Lilith My mom hugged me at the time. Dad told her to tell me--in front of me--that they were presents for my cousins. Which made me howl louder because we already gave my cousins their presents, and because dad thought I was so stupid that he could tell mom to tell me they were someone else's presents when I could HEAR him telling her (because she was hugging me). I really did like Santa, lol.

@Byrdsfan Well, thank you!

Yes, but following the other 6 commandments doesn't have to be couched in a religious system. It is simply being fair and just to those around you. Actually you could eliminate #5 (keeping the Sabbath) as well. It just matter unless you're Jewish or Christian.

@Meleia thank you for your comment. I agree that the remaining six commandments are not exclusive of religion. More like "let's not throw the baby with the bath water "" BTW, the 5th commandment is Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother whereas the 4th refers to the Sabbath.
Cheers,
Fernando

No you are wrong...we all have labels we were named at birth and too many baby boys were sexually mutilated painfully ....muslim teen girls by the millions are sexually mutilated worse than baby boys.. .believe in is a non-sequitur.....we walk in doors not needing beliefs ABOUT doors because doors exist and alleged gawds are just gibberish non-words used to label people....Atheism liberates religion harms...rational people choose freedom delusional people remain loyal to their perpetrators forcing faith upon them as children

@GreenAtheist, thanks for the reply. That’s a lot unpack so I’ll try be brief.

“We all have labels we were named at birth...” - I’m not saying labels don’t exist or that other people don’t use labels for other people, I’m saying labels are not useful when we want truly understand who someone is in the way the OP was asking about.

“Atheism liberates religion harms” - I strongly disagree, belief or non belief in religion is itself morally neutral. An easy counterpoint is someone choosing not believe in god for reasons outside healthy skepticism like, say, intense nationalistic pride. He can still carry out any number of horrific attricities upon people with all the zealous ferver of a religious person. Instead of pleasing his chosen god he kills, maims, terrorizes people protect his fanciful ideas about his motherland that must be purified of all non-believers. For reference, see Russian history.

Conversely, a person who believes in some particular faith can still maintain a solid moral compass, choosing any passages that align with his already compassionate nature where he truly seeks to help others.

My main point is people, for the most part, fit their interpretation of religion around their existing world view. Already think minorities should be protected? No problem, there are passages for that. Think they should be ostrociaed? Easy, there are passages for that too.

I think you’re better off making the argument that religion constrains openmindedness about seeking truth. In terms of morality I think people following religion pull out their shopping carts and take what they like from passages and leave on the shelves what they don’t. That’s the easiest explanation of why so many religious people can’t agree on so many key topics.

“Rational people choose freedom...” you’re begging your own question here, where your supposition and your conclusion are the same. And again, using labels like this ‘rational people’ is a wildly gross oversimplification of whole groups of people. Use of labels weakens arguments. A person can be rational in some areas like their work but irrational in personal relationships. So is that person rational or irrational? It’s a bad question because labels are bad argumentative constructs.

Ergo, you ALLOWED your mind to develop despite the indoctrination/s you had been subjected to.
Kudos to you then my friend.

that didn't happen to me. i didn't question what little religion my family had; i just independently came to the realization there was no god. i didn't even connect it in my mind with religion. of course i was never a christian; maybe it works that way for christians.

g

if we are tabla raza with the exception of our "innate instincts", then we have no knowledge of god or gods, religion or theism. therefore , atheist..

Finally a real man like myself telling the truth about violent faiths. ..good job guy !

Well said.

No, what it assumes is that proof is definitively impossible when dealing with opinions, be they opinions of religious nature or political in nature or whatever. Opinions are, by definition---'I'll say it again---not provable. They can be rendered more valid by supporting facts and valid reasoning, but never proven true or false. Facts, on the other hand, can be proven true or false. That is just the way it is; that is not just my opinion. To believe otherwise is to be blind to the nature of reasoning.