The Instigator
Mhykiel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sagey
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Babies are born Atheist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Sagey
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,203 times Debate No: 53329
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (180)
Votes (3)

 

Mhykiel

Con

My opponent can make arguments in the first round.
Sagey

Pro

Babies Are Born Atheist!

Why do we say that?

Are we saying that a new born baby with only very basic Cognitive Function has a disbelieve or lack of belief in God? Not entirely as this is equivalent to saying a pet rock is an Atheist.

Are we saying that a New Born Baby with little cognitive function thinks there is No God? Definitely Not!


What in fact we are saying is that all Humans start out their lives without any innate Belief in Deities (Gods), thus Godless, and as the baby develops into a young child, will likely remain Godless until introduced or indoctrinated into a belief in a Deity/God.
Thus we are by Definition, born Godless (Atheos), which equals "Atheist"

"Babies Are Born Atheists" is a Trollish Way Of Saying That God Is Not Innate, Belief Is Taught and Atheism Is The Default Position.
Having been a Troll for many years, I have used it often as it has more Impact than simply stating "Atheism Is The Default Position", or We All Started Out As Atheists.
Though this is the Absolute Truth of Life!

<atheist
G2;e=8;θ=8;=8;st/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"
    synonyms: non-believer, non-theist, disbeliever, unbeliever, heretic, sceptic,doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic, infidel, irreligious person,heathen, pagan, freethinker, libertine, nihilist; More
    >
From Google Online Dictionary:
The particulare meaning I am using is "Lacks Belief", which in a Child's case, if the child has not been introduced to God, it thus "Lacks Belief" which means Godless or Atheist.

http://www.integralworld.net...

My personal experience is that I and my siblings had absolutely no concept of spiritual entities nor Gods until I was 9 and we attended our first Sunday school, since my parents decided to attend church as it was a small town and the only social gathering in that town was Church.
Since not one of my siblings were indoctrinated and we did not even have a Bible in the house, none of my siblings were aware of any God being.
I have also researched this issue among work colleagues and the result is exactly the same, most of my colleagues and even clients had no concept of God prior to their indoctrination/introduction into religion.

This is precisely what the term "Babies Are Born Atheists" is meant to convey.
If nobody introduces a child to the concept of God or indoctrinates them, they remain Godless, and thus Atheists.
Atheist is a translation of the Greek "Atheos" for "Without God" or "Godless" Thus a person who has no belief in God is Godless (Atheos) and by definition an "Atheist".
http://www.atheistrev.com...


Neurology shows that children have a natural wonder for spiritual feelings and sensibilities, but this is not a knowledge of God, so essentially all humans are born without Knowledge of God and thus all Born Atheists.
Children have a natural predisposition to believe, but that is Not Belief.
To Believe that Children actually are born with any Beliefs is without any evidence base.
It is more logical and Rational to consider that Children are born without innate beliefs installed and there is definitely much evidence to support this.
There has never been a toddler whose first words included God or a version of any Deity.
Their only Deities are their Parents. Thus GOD is Good Old Dad. But their mother is usually much more important at that stage in life.

The following Source explains this Research Finding that Children have a natural predisposition to Believe, but do not have a Belief as Yet. Thus they may be easy to get to believe, Though they are still Godless, Lack Belief (Implicit, Weak, Passive Atheists), until introduced to belief in a God, and even then, they may reject God like I did at 9 and my brother at 8 and thus become Explicit Atheists or harbor a Disbelief.

Though a belief in the supernatural appears to be a natural human liability, it certainly is not an Asset.
Ecerpt:
"Project Director Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, said: "This project does not set out to prove God or Gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies."

From: http://archive.indianexpress.com...

So We are born with a natural ability to believe in the supernatural, but we are not actually born with any Belief In God.
We are definitely born open to belief, but essentially Godless or Atheist!

Thank You Kindly for this Impromptu Debate!

http://www.atheists.org...


Over to you M8!


Debate Round No. 1
Mhykiel

Con

Intro

I want to thank my opponent for debating this issue with me.

I urge that my opponents personal experience be deemed irrelevant and not part of the debate. There is no way I can question any of the statements in that paragraph. How do I prove he doesn't have a brother? Personal revelation is not evidence or good reasoning.

I agree with the definitions set forth by my opponent.

Case 1 for capability to believe


Another factor in this debate is if babies have the capability of believing. If they lack the capability to belief, they can not have belief and automatically would lack a belief and be atheist. This is akin to saying, "Rocks are atheist" it is meaningless and absurd but valid because rocks lack the capability to belief.

My opponent demonstrates through his own words he agrees that babies have a capability to belief.

'Children have a natural predisposition to believe, but that is Not Belief.'
'So We are born with a natural ability to believe in the supernatural...'
'We are definitely born open to belief...'

Case 2 for a fallacy (false dichotomy)

It appears that babies born godless and babies being born god believing are mutually exclusive. This is actually a false dichotomy.[1] I merely have to demonstrate a reasonable third option to show the fallacy exists.

P1: Some features are shared by all babies; inability to speak language, little to no bowel control
P2: Some features are shared by sub sets of babies; brown eyes, blue eyes, deformity
P3: Some babies exhibit individual personality traits; [2] heritable personality from genes
P4: Adults, cultures around the world and through out history have differing beliefs in god or gods
C1: Babies can be different. Beliefs in god or gods can be different. Therefore babies can have different beliefs in gods or gods or be godless.

Conclusion clearly assets third and more options are possible.

Case 3 for fallacy (argument from ignorance)

The absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. This is a a logical assertion. It is what makes the argument from ignorance a fallacy.[3] Or also written as "there is no evidence for p, therefore p; or there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p"

Example 1:
Dead is defined as lacking life.[4] Alive is defined as having life. [5]

I send you a cat in the mail. When it reaches your doorstep, with out performing any testing, can you assert whether the cat is alive or dead? No you can not.

Example 2:

If there is a stove burner you have to touch blind folded. Can you make a validly truthful assertion that it is off? Can you make a truthful assertion it is hot? Are you willing to touch the burner? No you can make no validly truthful assertion without evidence to the state of the burner. I certainly would not risk touching it blind folded, especially without any evidence to it's state of temperature or lack of temperature.

Example 3:

If behind a wall I have a glass. Can you make a validly truthful assertion that the glass is full of water, half full of water, or empty? No you can not. One has with out evidence is forced to admit "I don't know"

All the examples express a difference in two states. One of the states being relative to the other in that it is lacking the measurable attribute (example 1: life, example 2: temperature, example 3: water). My opponent concedes that babies have the capability to belief. So what is in question is the amount of belief in a deity. Without evidence from a reliable scientific test or a reasonable deduction, the resolution then follows to be fallacious by argument from ignorance.

My opponent commits this fallacy when they claim, 'To Believe that Children actually are born with any Beliefs is without any evidence base' and then assert with out reasonable induction or reason 'We are definitely born open to belief, but essentially Godless or Atheist!'. So your saying there is no evidence, therefore godless is true. Exactly "there is no evidence for p, therefore p; or there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p".

Conclusion

My opponent has not met the burden of proof that babies lack a belief in god. In fact, my opponent has committed a fallacy as I have demonstrated. Babies are born theist, atheist, monotheistic, polytheistic, Hellenistic are all fallacious. The only proper resolution in regards to belief is "babies are "I don't know what they are". Being intellectually honest means that is okay.




[1]http://mind.ucsd.edu...
[2]http://www.alltreatment.com...
[3]http://www.google.com...
[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Sagey

Pro

Thanks Con:
It appears that Con loves playing the game of Let"s make everything my opponent states appear Fallacious.
Which in itself is a Fallacious form of Argument, and Con sources little else other than sites on Fallacies.
Con"s Case 3: is an excellent example of this form of "Argument From Fallacy, Fallacy.
In that because an argument may appear fallacious or contain fallacies, but that does not necessarily make the argument false.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Arguments containing truth can also contain fallacies, but the argument itself can still be Valid.

Rebuttals:
1: Though I do agree with " Personal revelation is not evidence or good reasoning."
Children adopted as babies from extremely Islamic societies and raised by secular parents have never shown any leaning towards Islam or Allah.
Here is a Christian view of the Secular world I live in:
http://www.probe.org...
Why actual belief in God is not Innate (existing at birth):
http://online.wsj.com...
Here is a more technical document on the study mentioned above.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...
2: Con stated: (Case 1) "My opponent demonstrates through his own words he agrees that babies have a capability to belief."
Yes: Though Con gets it entirely Wrong: Capability to Believe is a blank whiteboard, waiting to be filled from the outside world.
Capability to believe is not an actual Belief.
The Belief whiteboard is indeed Empty at Birth, thus Atheist.
Animals that have cognition, but lack the necessary brain structures for belief, can also be defined as Atheists or Without God: Dogs, Frogs, etc..
http://abcnews.go.com...
It appears that Superheroes have replaced God in the secular world.
Less harmful than religion and they grow out of it, though not always.
http://deligentia.wordpress.com...

3: Referring to Con"s misconceived False Dichotomy notion: (Case 2)
Such dichotomy does not exist:
Belief in any particular God or God's has never been shown in any study to be Innate, only the predisposition or capability to believe is innate.
The premises for the Con's dichotomy suffer from Argument from Ignorance Fallacy, as it is without evidence.
Imagine the secular parents of children adopted as babies from their extremely Islamic countries, as in my own studies when the eight year old child asserts at the breakfast table one day that his parents are infidels because they do not worship Allah.
No such occurrences have ever been reported.
A Capability to Believe can also likened to an Empty Bowl having a Capability to hold liquid.
The liquid does not exist only the capability to hold liquid exists.
Parents and Culture will fill the child"s Beliefs (bowl) with whatever is available, in a secular society it is often filled with temporary fantasies (Sweet Syrup), which later in life will be cleaned out and replaced with nourishing knowledge (Soup) , in deeply religious societies it is often force fed (indoctrinated) with religion (Sewerage).

http://www.kidspot.com.au...
http://www.kidsmatter.edu.au...
The very first sign of a belief system in toddlers across Cultures, according to studies conducted by Jean Piaget over 50 years, is Across cultures "Animism" is the very first signs of a belief in any child. This is their first writing on their belief whiteboard, everything is like Me.
'Animism' is also a characteristic of the Pre-operational stage. This is when a person has the belief that everything that exists has some kind of consciousness. An example of this is that children often believe that a car won't start because it is tired or sick, or they punish a piece of furniture when they run into it, because it must have been naughty to hurt them. "
From: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au...
Conclusion: Animism is the only belief system young babies demonstrate, no children have ever demonstrated any knowledge of any Deity in the history of studies into childhood cognition.
Thus children are Atheists until taught, which is essentially what is meant by the term: "Babies Are Born Atheists."

http://www.unisa.edu.au...

Though "Babies Are Atheists" is not a good argument as stated in this video.

The use of Rocks to denigrate the Argument of "Babies Are Atheists" is, a reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Debate Round No. 2
180 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ LifeMeansGodIsGood: What Jesus said, did or whatever is non-sequitur.

Essentially, there is no Evidence Jesus said anything of the sort.
The Gospels which contain all of the sayings of Jesus were written over 35 years after his death, and there was nothing written about him before this, thus it is doubtful that anything the Gospels stated Jesus said were really true. Much of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels was likely fabricated to suit those they were trying to convince that Jesus was divine.

But Jesus was just another Jewish Rabbi, preaching Confucian/Buddhist philosophy.
This is probably why the Jews hated him and Stoned Jesus to death on a Stake/Stick (the true translation for what Jesus was carrying).
It is doubtful that he actually died on a Cross, because according to translation he was carrying a stick or stake, which is how Jews often stoned dissenters.

There is no evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, so there is no evidence Jesus was divine at all.
He was more likely the son of a Roman Soldier Rapist than from any virgin birth.
Hundreds of women claimed virgin births at that time, as they were raped by Roman Soldiers and if they were discovered to be pregnant from such rape, they were stoned to death for adultery.
So they often claimed a virgin birth to avoid being stoned to death.
Because the stoning of adulterous women by Islam, actually originated from Judaism in the Old Testament.

You need to get your history straight first M8!

You know nothing about anything.

You seriously need an education in something/anything.
My penis knows more about everything, even the Bible than you do!

LOL! :-D~
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Oops, did a repeat comment, so have to re-enter encouragement for believers comment number two..... the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Catholics believe the wrong things and in ignorance they will misconscrew (pervert the meaning of) these statements.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
another encouragement post for believers only.....all may read, but only believers will understand.......we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man"s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
For believers only, as most posts are written by unbelievers to embolden other unbelievers and dsicourage believers......these comments are for believers only......to encourage in the faith of Christ given from God.......we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man"s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
We have all broken God's law and none of us deserves to lve. Jesus said "if you follow me, I will make you fishers of men". God does not want you to be separated from Him in death forever. He took your death because He loves you and the price is more than you can pay due to the fact that you are a lawbreaker and you can never pay enough to change that. You are in the first death now, the second death is like the first death, except it is in the Lake of Fire instead of in the world. God does not want you to be lost in the second death. You leave Him no choice if you finalize your first death saying He does not have the right to punish you. You will bring the second death on yourself and blaming God won't help.
If you won't believe Jesus rose from the grave bodily after He as God the Man took your death so God's Justice against sinners was satisfied so you could be pardoned from the penalty of hell, then you won't rise from death and death will hold you forever in your sin the way you are now; minus any comforts of earth. Your time is running out. The pleasures of sin will end soon. Why not agree with God now before it's too late and concede to His right to banish sinners away from His heaven foever?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
That's the trouble with the Bible.
Bible writers wrote from the knowledge of things they either already knew or had witnessed.
People today grab this and treat it like it was great wisdom.
But it is stuff that people have known for possibly centuries prior to those writing the Bible passages.
There is not really anything that could not have been known about at the time of the writings.
If they wrote the Sky appears Blue,
Christians would herald it as a sign of irrefutable Biblical wisdom.
Because such Christians are as dumb as bed posts.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
People would have known that skin color and physical traits are passed on by heredity.
Thus it was common knowledge at the time of the writing of the Bible that children acquire ancestors conditions and traits.
Thus some bible writers may have considered black skin as a symbol of sin, thus knows that all the children also will be sinners.
People have eyes, even stupid bible scribes.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Occasionally, not all the time, so the Bible is naive and Stupid as per usual.
Because some traits may have been noticed as hereditary in the days of the Bible, like facial features, etc... So the Bible was written from the knowledge of the times.
It was never dictated from anybody who was really wise, otherwise it would have been more intelligent that it is.
Much of it is rather Naive, even for that period. Such as a Flat Earth, Dome studded with stars that fall to earth if they are shaken loose.
No valuable astrological knowledge of any validity at all exists in those stupid books.
If a person became Psychotic from acquired brain injury, such as injury, alcohol, mushrooms, none of these will be passed on to the next generation. That person may spend much of their life in jail, may have even committed many crimes and murdered many.
But, their children will not acquire any of it at all.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
I'm just adding a dash of reasoning to your, well, erroneous citation of the scripture. It is clear there are 3 things and only iniquity is passed on.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGood was Trolling, so I trolled back.
Simple isn't it!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 2 years ago
Mangani
MhykielSageyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Before the debate I understood atheism as a deliberate position. Pro convinced me that the simple lack of belief, or atheos, would qualify one as an atheist- even though I would normally disagree with that position. His sources supported his affirmations. The fact that I actually agreed with Con, yet was convinced, explains my CA, and AD votes. My RS vote almost always goes to the CA winner, and this case is no different. If sources are reliable they should support the validity and truthfulness of your argument, not just it's validity.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
MhykielSageyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had met the burden of proof and pointed out the logical fallacies of Con. His sources were also relevant and reliable.
Vote Placed by RossM 2 years ago
RossM
MhykielSageyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully proved his case and Con failed to refute his key points. Con only sought to show that Pro's points were fallacious, which did not win him points for sources or the most convincing case. Well done both parties though, as it was an extremely interesting debate!