Remind me again why I came?

[happynewyear]

I didn't say that a baby believes in god. I asked the question "How do you know that a baby doesn't believe in god"?
From my own experience, I have no awareness of having a belief in god as a baby.
When I ask my children the same question I get the same response.
If someone would care to prove that a baby does believe/or does not believe in god, go right ahead  

[Tanker]

I didn't say that a baby believes in god. I asked the question "How do you know that a baby doesn't believe in god"?
From my own experience, I have no awareness of having a belief in god as a baby.
When I ask my children the same question I get the same response.
If someone would care to prove that a baby does believe/or does not believe in god, go right ahead  

Babies lack the ability to believe in god without that ability they don't.

The original questions were:
There is no god. Is there another common belief atheist share? Or…
Is part of being an atheist having no common beliefs aside from the obvious one?
As an atheist do I belong to a group and if I do, what is our purpose?

Is part of being an atheist having such divided points of view? Free thinking is fine with me. After all, there is no scriptures to follow, a leader to guide us, a building to meet so we can talk or learn about it. Perhaps atheism is just a way to simplify our already complicated lives.

In this forum, we’re free to follow our own ideas, make our own decisions, make comments that will make any religious person run to a temple and pray we all go to hell and burn at a much higher temperature than the normal sinner. This is a place were we’ll be herd and respected which is something religious people don’t do.

If someone thinks a baby believes in god, and another one thinks he/she has enough scientific proof to show this is not the case, let them, after all, all they are doing is thinking and sharing. There’s no need for sarcasm, any idea is worth listening to. If we disagree, we must listen carefully to know exactly what it is we don’t agree on, if we don’t, we’ll be doing the same thing THEY are doing, condemning others for their beliefs.

The is no "part of being an atheist" other then a lack of belief. The only thing many of us have in common is that lack of belief. Which is why there are so many varied views on so many topics. I know for my part it's not usually negative in any sense. To me it's just a discussion and free discourse. A wise man once said "the most boring conversations are the ones where everyone agrees".

I won't go so far as to say religious people don't do it. I think it just seems more rare from our perspective.

I don't think anyone is condeming as far as I can tell people are trying to correct. Wrong information is still wrong. If we didn't challenge wrong information Doctors would still be bleeding patients to remove the impure vapors. Or Astronomy world be nonexistant becasue the Earth is the center of the Universe and the Universe is unchanging. There is nothing wrong with ignorance. We are all ignorant of a great many things. However remaining ignorant despite being having enlightening evidence is wrong.

[Ihateyoumike]

I didn't say that a baby believes in god. I asked the question "How do you know that a baby doesn't believe in god"?
From my own experience, I have no awareness of having a belief in god as a baby.
When I ask my children the same question I get the same response.
If someone would care to prove that a baby does believe/or does not believe in god, go right ahead  

I can't prove that a dog, horse, monkey, bird, cat, or any other animal believes in god.

By your logic, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they do?

Are you saying a baby is smarter than a dolphin, or pig, or cuttlefish if not?

I hope not.

[happynewyear]

I can't prove that a dog, horse, monkey, bird, cat, or any other animal believes in god.

I don't remember asking you to prove that animals believe in god.
As far as I am aware this is a uniquely humin pastime.(but I could be wrong, maybe you know something that I don't)

By your logic, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they do?

"My logic", as you put it, does not make assumptions.
Which is exactly my point.

Are you saying a baby is smarter than a dolphin, or pig, or cuttlefish if not?

I hope not.

Who mentioned smartness?
What I am saying is that a baby, a dolphin, a pig, and a cuttlefish are all smarter than you are being now.

[Shine]

If someone would care to prove that a baby does believe/or does not believe in god, go right ahead  

I think the fact that infants lack object permanence precludes any possible belief in a god.  They cease to believe a person exists if that person leaves the infant's field of view.  Why would they believe in an entity that was never even visible in the first place?

[i_am_i]

Alright, alright! The point is that babies don't believe in God, they don't believe in anything because they lack the mental capacity. That's why they need to be taken care of all the time, to be fed and have their stinking diapers changed.

But they'll be developed enough in just a few years to believe any clap-trap that you make it a point to pump into their little minds. How do you think people grow up believing in God? They sure as hell don't do it all by themselves.

[happynewyear]

If someone would care to prove that a baby does believe/or does not believe in god, go right ahead  

I think the fact that infants lack object permanence precludes any possible belief in a god.  They cease to believe a person exists if that person leaves the infant's field of view.  Why would they believe in an entity that was never even visible in the first place?

You think but you cannot prove it. Can we therefore say that it cannot be proved one way or the other.
Is god even an object? If not what?
So object permanence may be not relevant.

They cease to believe a person exists if that person leaves the infant's field of view.

This is another assumption.
How can you know that they "believe" at all?

[elliebean]

You assume that's an assumption. Now prove that it is one.

[happynewyear]

You assume that's an assumption. Now prove that it is one.

"They cease to believe.............."
Is an assumption based on the assumption that "they believe" is true.
Logical my dear ellie!

[pinkocommie]

You assume that's an assumption. Now prove that it is one.

"They cease to believe.............."
Is an assumption based on the assumption that "they believe" is true.
Logical my dear ellie!

Blah!  Isn't this the EXACT same logic theists use when they talk about god's existence?  You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore being an atheist is based on the same level of assumption as believing in god.  

No.  

While yes, no one knows what a freaking baby (am I even arguing about this?  Cheese sauce...) believes or doesn't believe, given the evidence we know about how an infant mind works, it is an entirely logical assumption to say that babies do not believe in god.  It is, however, an entirely illogical assumption to say that babies believe in god (or anything else, for that matter) given that same evidence.  An assumption, yes - but not the same kind of assumption as someone claiming god belief for babies.  One has evidence which supports the assumption while the other has nothing (that I know of anyway) to support the assumption.

So while happynewyear is technically correct, it is incorrect to propose that both assumptions are similar in any way beyond being at the most basic level, assumptions.  And, until we can map a baby's brain and somehow quantify it's thoughts, it will always be an assumption.  However, there is nothing logical about arguing the god-baby assumption while the no-god baby assumption is absolutely rooted in logic.

[Shine]

If someone would care to prove that a baby does believe/or does not believe in god, go right ahead  

I think the fact that infants lack object permanence precludes any possible belief in a god.  They cease to believe a person exists if that person leaves the infant's field of view.  Why would they believe in an entity that was never even visible in the first place?

You think but you cannot prove it. Can we therefore say that it cannot be proved one way or the other.
Is god even an object? If not what?
So object permanence may be not relevant.

They cease to believe a person exists if that person leaves the infant's field of view.

This is another assumption.
How can you know that they "believe" at all?

Actually, I am not assuming anything; I am merely regurgitating the second chapter of my Intro to Psychology class' textbook from last spring.  (I guess that I am assuming that my class provided reliable information, if anything.)  Object permanence is a phenomenon described by Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development.  The theory places a child's cognitive development into four stages: Sensorimotor period (birth-2 years), Preoperational Period (2-6 years), Concrete operational stage (7-11 years), and Formal operational stage (11 years-adulthood).  Object permanence, one of the key developments in the Sensorimotor period along with hand-eye coordination and goal orientation, is the ability to conceive of an object's existence even when the object is beyond the range of the senses.  Or, as my textbook states more clearly, object permanence is "the recognition that objects removed from sight still exist, as demonstrated in young children by continued pursuit."  (Rathus, Spencer A. Psychology: Concepts and Connections. 8th ed. New York: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. 91-92.)

However, I do have to correct one thing that I mentioned earlier: I stated that object permanence was not developed until two years of age.  Although this is the original timeline established by Piaget, further research has shown that infants as young as six months old can show early signs of object permanence as they attempt to visually follow items removed from view.  Still, children before the age of two may continue to make the error of searching for removed objects where the object was last found rather than where the child saw the object to be hidden (the "A-not-B error").  Here is a clip describing object permanence:
[youtube:d33vbu0v]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8y-JVhjS0[/youtube:d33vbu0v]
(I think that it is an excerpt from the documentary series The Baby Human, but it is not cited on the YouTube page.)

Unfortunately, my psych textbook does not have an online edition that can be accessed without a key.  Instead, here are a few Wiki links that corroborate what I have said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

Of course, as I mentioned there is research pointing to children as young as six months (and sometimes younger) showing basic signs of object permanence.  However, if your criticism of the theory of cognitive development regarding object permanence is that it is too heavily based on assuming what the infant is thinking, I would think that these young-infant studies are even more heavily rooted in assumption.  At six months or younger, researchers can only rely upon the direction and duration of a child's gaze to infer whether or not the child is truly cognizant of a removed object.  Tracing eye movements seems to require a bit more assumption than studies of older children who can turn their heads and move their limbs to indicate intent.  (I am not trying to criticize early-infant research as I am in absolutely no position to do so; I am just trying to show how the "assumptive" criticism is even more relevant the earlier that the research is conducted in a child's life.)

Also, this entire concept is based upon whether or not babies persist in recognizing the existence of a material object removed from view.  Regardless of what exact age they develop object permanence, it is clear that it is something learned through experience.  What the belief in a god suggests is that babies would believe in something that was never even materially present to their senses.  How did the child ever learn of this invisible, silent entity to even form a concept of its existence?  It is dubious at best whether or not children conceive of hidden objects which they have already experienced; how is it then logical to postulate that they would conceive of objects which they have never even experienced?  The only way that children experience the concept of a god is when they begin to understand spoken language.  Prior to that, their entire reliance upon basic sensory input seems to preclude the possibility that babies could even learn of an invisible, silent entity in the first place.

[elliebean]

You assume that's an assumption. Now prove that it is one.

"They cease to believe.............."
Is an assumption based on the assumption that "they believe" is true.
Logical my dear ellie!

Or what you assume is an assumption that "they believe" is true.

[happynewyear]

Actually, I am not assuming anything; I am merely regurgitating the second chapter of my Intro to Psychology class' textbook from last spring.  (I guess that I am assuming that my class provided reliable information, if anything.)  Object permanence is a phenomenon described by Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development.  The theory places a child's cognitive development into four stages: Sensorimotor period (birth-2 years), Preoperational Period (2-6 years), Concrete operational stage (7-11 years), and Formal operational stage (11 years-adulthood).  Object permanence, one of the key developments in the Sensorimotor period along with hand-eye coordination and goal orientation, is the ability to conceive of an object's existence even when the object is beyond the range of the senses.  Or, as my textbook states more clearly, object permanence is "the recognition that objects removed from sight still exist, as demonstrated in young children by continued pursuit."  (Rathus, Spencer A. Psychology: Concepts and Connections. 8th ed. New York: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. 91-92.)

However, I do have to correct one thing that I mentioned earlier: I stated that object permanence was not developed until two years of age.  Although this is the original timeline established by Piaget, further research has shown that infants as young as six months old can show early signs of object permanence as they attempt to visually follow items removed from view.  Still, children before the age of two may continue to make the error of searching for removed objects where the object was last found rather than where the child saw the object to be hidden (the "A-not-B error").  Here is a clip describing object permanence:
[youtube:24dwibf7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8y-JVhjS0[/youtube:24dwibf7]
(I think that it is an excerpt from the documentary series The Baby Human, but it is not cited on the YouTube page.)

Unfortunately, my psych textbook does not have an online edition that can be accessed without a key.  Instead, here are a few Wiki links that corroborate what I have said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

Of course, as I mentioned there is research pointing to children as young as six months (and sometimes younger) showing basic signs of object permanence.  However, if your criticism of the theory of cognitive development regarding object permanence is that it is too heavily based on assuming what the infant is thinking, I would think that these young-infant studies are even more heavily rooted in assumption.  At six months or younger, researchers can only rely upon the direction and duration of a child's gaze to infer whether or not the child is truly cognizant of a removed object.  Tracing eye movements seems to require a bit more assumption than studies of older children who can turn their heads and move their limbs to indicate intent.  (I am not trying to criticize early-infant research as I am in absolutely no position to do so; I am just trying to show how the "assumptive" criticism is even more relevant the earlier that the research is conducted in a child's life.)

Also, this entire concept is based upon whether or not babies persist in recognizing the existence of a material object removed from view.  Regardless of what exact age they develop object permanence, it is clear that it is something learned through experience.  What the belief in a god suggests is that babies would believe in something that was never even materially present to their senses.  How did the child ever learn of this invisible, silent entity to even form a concept of its existence?  It is dubious at best whether or not children conceive of hidden objects which they have already experienced; how is it then logical to postulate that they would conceive of objects which they have never even experienced?  The only way that children experience the concept of a god is when they begin to understand spoken language.  Prior to that, their entire reliance upon basic sensory input seems to preclude the possibility that babies could even learn of an invisible, silent entity in the first place.

Thank you for this.
Some very interesting info to mull thru.

[Shine]

It's a fascinating concept.  Not having any children yet myself, I am fascinated with the process by which humans acquire a sense of identity and develop the capacity to critically understand their surroundings.  After revisiting Piaget's theory, I have to admit I was doing simple experiments on my dog to test his sense of object permanence.  The results show that he is far more likely to believe a hidden object exists as long as the hidden object is edible.  

[happynewyear]

It's a fascinating concept.  Not having any children yet myself, I am fascinated with the process by which humans acquire a sense of identity and develop the capacity to critically understand their surroundings.  After revisiting Piaget's theory, I have to admit I was doing simple experiments on my dog to test his sense of object permanence.  The results show that he is far more likely to believe a hidden object exists as long as the hidden object is edible.  

With, an olfactory cortex forty times bigger than that of a human and over a million more smell-sensory receptors, it's not surprising that food plays a big role in his life.
I have three cats living with me. When they corner a mouse and are removed from the scene they return to the exact, same spot, three to five hours later. (they hate me spoiling their "fun".)