Happy Atheist Forum

As a hard core atheist, what do you believe?

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?

If we don’t believe in gods, saints, angels, virgins, what do we believe in?
Like Nacho Libre’s friend said: “I believe in science.”…I don’t know about you, but I lack enough scientific knowledge to prove that point.

Is an atheist someone who believes in evolutionary theories or just makes up their own principles?

Like religious people say “My faith is a little shaky right now.” Can someone please put me back on track and "show me the light?"

Hello magdalena! I don't think I've met you.

Quote from: "magdalena"As a hard core atheist, what do you believe?

Well I'm not a hard core atheist but I won't speak for the others.

Quote from: "magdalena"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?

That's about it as far as atheism goes though many of us are not 100% certain and many of us are not just atheists. Of the ideas that are important to me, atheism is one of the least important.  :)

Quote from: "magdalena"There is no god.  Is there another common belief atheist share?

nop. All atheist share is their non-belief in a god.

QuoteAs an atheist do I belong to a group and if I do, what is our purpose?

depends on the person. Right now, my personal purpose is to get out of this crappy job and find a new one!!

QuoteIf we don’t believe in gods, saints, angels, virgins, what do we believe in? [/quote
depends on the person. Personally I dont "believe" in anything. I live my life, try to be happy, and eat pizzas!

QuoteLike Nacho Libre’s friend said: “I believe in science.”…I don’t know about you, but I lack enough scientific knowledge to prove that point.

I dont "believe" in science.

Quote from: "magdalena"As a hard core atheist, what do you believe?

I'm not sure what a "hard core" atheist is....but I doubt I qualify.

QuoteThere is no god.  Is there another common belief atheist share?

I'd say they don't even share that view...they just don't believe in a god (there is a difference between disbelief and affirmative statments).

QuoteOr…
Is part of being an atheist having no common beliefs aside from the obvious one?

right...it's not a religion

QuoteAs an atheist do I belong to a group and if I do, what is our purpose?

only in so much as you are grouped with other atheists categorically.  
There is no 'atheist' purpose...it's not a religion.

QuoteIf we don’t believe in gods, saints, angels, virgins, what do we believe in?

Are you sure that you really are an atheist and aren't just messing around....virgins?  Of course virgins exist.

QuoteLike Nacho Libre’s friend said: “I believe in science.”…I don’t know about you, but I lack enough scientific knowledge to prove that point.

ok...

QuoteIs an atheist someone who believes in evolutionary theories or just makes up their own principles?

neither...again, it's not a religion.

QuoteLike religious people say “My faith is a little shaky right now.” Can someone please put me back on track and "show me the light?"

[/quote]
It's not a religion, you have to figure things out for yourself people telling you what to believe/think is worthless.

Maybe you have different reasons, but my reasons for becoming a member on atheist forums are:

1) I like to have discussions about any given topic with people who don't litter the discussion with god-garbage,
2) solidarity and activism; having a common cause, and
3) debating theists, while often infuriatingly frustrating, can also be fun if you don't take things too seriously.

There may be other reasons too, but that's all I've got for now.

I just know Christianity is complete horse shit.  

Quote from: "magdalena"As a hard core atheist, what do you believe?

"Hard core" implies gradations of something, which I don't think works in an atheist context.
"I don't believe in a god" is not that much different from "I really don't believe in a god at all." Both statements are straight up denying the existence of a god, regardless of personal semantic touches.

Quote from: "magdalena"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?

By definition, atheists share the lack of belief in a deity/god. Any additional beliefs are personal, not collective.

QuoteAs an atheist do I belong to a group and if I do, what is our purpose?

Atheism is not a religion. By joining this forum you now belong to an atheist discussion group, but unless you take the atheist activist or academic route atheism isn't designed to be an organisation of any kind in the traditional, "religious" sense.

QuoteIf we don’t believe in gods, saints, angels, virgins, what do we believe in?

I think Whitney's answer to this was appropriate enough.

QuoteLike Nacho Libre’s friend said: “I believe in science.”…I don’t know about you, but I lack enough scientific knowledge to prove that point.

Then start reading.If you don't just want to be someone who doesn't believe in a god and you also want to be able to know about where life came from etc, then just start reading. There are masses of scientific and biological resources out there written for everyday people.

QuoteIs an atheist someone who believes in evolutionary theories or just makes up their own principles?

I'm assuming this is a question about morality. Atheists are not immoral because of atheism (I say it like that because I don't want to generalise. Of course you get immoral atheists, just as you get immoral Christians, Catholics, or Muslims). As an atheist myself, I believe in evolutionary, Darwinian theories of morality. But even if I knew nothing about that at all I still know the difference between right and wrong. I know that it's bad to hurt someone, and I know that it's good to help someone. Morality is not rocket science, it's a basic human principle.
Your question is a bit ambiguous though. The other meaning I get from it is, "do atheists make up their own meanings for life etc?" Which is of course not true (again, except for personal differences. I'm also speaking from personal experience with other atheists). From what I've seen, and from how I see myself, atheists are by definition sceptical, critical people who analyse the world around them and draw conclusions from the facts presented to them, hence my agreement with (not "belief" in) evolutionary theory, natural selection, the age of the earth etc. The way I see religion is the other way around: religions look at what they want to believe and, starting with the conclusion,work backwards picking and choosing twisted, often fabricated facts to support their conclusion.

I would agree with most of the comments made above, except for one.
I think that Atheism is a religion.
Atheism is based on a belief system (belief in the non existence of God)
Atheism has a hierarchy of "Priests"(Darwin, Hawkins, Dennett etc)
Atheism has a band of loyal disciples(so welcome to the church of Atheism)
Atheism has a set of scriptures(see the fall of man to the god delusion)
Some Atheist even meet up and drink tea(wine or beer) and break biscuits (like the eucharist) and discuss scripture.
So do not feel left out. You are a vital member.

QuoteI dont "believe" in science.

I think you do.  You have to make certain assumptions before you can do any kind of scientific endeavor.  yes?

Quote from: "happynewyear"I would agree with most of the comments made above, except for one.
I think that Atheism is a religion.

Welcome to the forum...but I think you are misusing the word religion.

QuoteAtheism is based on a belief system (belief in the non existence of God)

Actually, no it's not having a belief in a god...an atheist may or may not think it is right to say that a god definitely can't exist.

QuoteAtheism has a hierarchy of "Priests"(Darwin, Hawkins, Dennett etc)

What?  I don't even know how to respond to that other than that no atheist has to accept evolution nor the philosophical musings of other atheists.

QuoteAtheism has a band of loyal disciples(so welcome to the church of Atheism)

What?  You need to explain this...how can you be a disciple of non-belief?

QuoteAtheism has a set of scriptures(see the fall of man to the god delusion)

You are joking...right?

QuoteSome Atheist even meet up and drink tea(wine or beer) and break biscuits (like the eucharist) and discuss scripture.

So, a woman's tea club is a religion?

Quote from: "cornopean"

QuoteI dont "believe" in science.

I think you do.  You have to make certain assumptions before you can do any kind of scientific endeavor.  yes?

Are you referring to a hypothesis?  Are ideas the same thing as beliefs now?  Is the whole Jesus/God thing merely an idea, on the same plane as a kid hypothesizing that vinegar mixed with baking soda will have an intense reaction for a middle school science fair?  Haha, I swear, the lengths people will go to try to compare religion to science always amaze me - even to the point of diminishing the presumed 'power' of religion just to be able to claim they are on an even playing field on all points.  

Quote from: "happynewyear"I would agree with most of the comments made above, except for one.
I think that Atheism is a religion.
Atheism is based on a belief system (belief in the non existence of God)
Atheism has a hierarchy of "Priests"(Darwin, Hawkins, Dennett etc)
Atheism has a band of loyal disciples(so welcome to the church of Atheism)
Atheism has a set of scriptures(see the fall of man to the god delusion)
Some Atheist even meet up and drink tea(wine or beer) and break biscuits (like the eucharist) and discuss scripture.
So do not feel left out. You are a vital member.

Heres the deffintion of religion

Quoteâ€, â€,/rɪˈlɪdÊ'É™n/  Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]  â€"noun
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

And heres atheisms deffinition.

Quotea·the·ismâ€, â€,/ˈeɪθiˌɪzÉ™m/  Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
â€"noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

They are not synonyms.

Atheism has no dogma, rules, sects, leaders, moral code, or ritual observences. Nor does it have to do with the nature, cause, or purpose of the universe the very tenant of being a religion. The only thing all atheists have in common is a disbelief in god(s). That is it. Most atheists disagree with each other on a wide range of subjects. There is a saying that organising atheists is like hearding cats. The saying exists because atheists have such a wide and varried set of beliefs, wants, needs, ideals, and interests that it's difficult to get them together for the one thing they do have in common.

The only belief is a lack there of, in a higher power.

There is no hieracrhy, no control one atheist has over another.

I'm a disciple of atheism in the same way I'm a disciple of being a 20 something white male, who has thinning hair, and is a veteran. In other words. I just am an atheist like any other discriptor there is of me.

So a bunch of random books with a subject in common are now scriptures? So I guess the Star Wars novels/scriptures I read in highschool made me a disciple of George Lucas?

Some motor enthusiasts meet up have beers and work on engines. Some physiscists get together with coffee and dicuss the processes by which the universe works. Some vetrans have associations where they get together have some beer and tell war stories. What does a group of like minded individuals getting together and talking (where they may or may not eat and drink food like all humans do) have to do with anything?

You seem to have trouble with deffintions because nothing you posted matched the examples you gave.


By the way welcome to the forum. Please feel free to introduce yourself to the community.

I'm an atheist who used to crush beer cans on my forehead in college... does that make me a hardcore atheist?

Atheism describes what one disbelieves or is unconvinced of. It's a strong commonality because we as atheists are in the minority and sometimes we're pushed around by the majority. There's an even stronger commonality because we have a leg-up in that our worldview is more objective and is more defensible from a logical standpoint.

Quote from: "happynewyear"I would agree with most of the comments made above, except for one.
I think that Atheism is a religion.
Atheism is based on a belief system (belief in the non existence of God)

Religion is the collective set of beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a specific ideology.  Atheism, at its most basic, merely describes a lack in the belief of theism; there is no separate belief that is inherent in the definition of atheism.  Atheism rejects the claim that gods exist without necessarily making any other claims about the universe.  Individual atheists may believe in whatever they want; I know some who subscribe to fate, karma, ghosts, and other supernatural phenomena.  It is true that most atheists are also skeptics and therefore tend to reject unevidenced claims of the supernatural in general, but there is no specific prohibition in atheism itself that prevents an individual atheist from having separate beliefs.  However, these beliefs are in no way tied to the characteristic of being an atheist.

Quote from: "happynewyear"Atheism has a hierarchy of "Priests"(Darwin, Hawkins, Dennett etc)
Atheism has a band of loyal disciples(so welcome to the church of Atheism)
Atheism has a set of scriptures(see the fall of man to the god delusion)

I think that you are imposing some dubious parallels here, and that you could make these comparisons to then describe anything as a religion.  Let's take the National Football League and apply this same method of comparison.  I could say that Howard Cosell, Joe Namath, and John Madden are all the "priests" of football.  Likewise, I could say that the thousands of fans who fill stadiums every Sunday and Monday are the "band of loyal disciples."  For the set of scriptures, I could refer to the official rulebook of football or the numerous playbooks possessed by each team.

Of course, I do not that think anyone would agree that football is truly a religion.  (Well, actually there are probably some diehard fans who would not necessarily object to the comparison.   )  My point is that if you stretch the concept of religion this thin, it becomes meaningless because everything could then be considered a religion.

Quote from: "happynewyear"Some Atheist even meet up and drink tea(wine or beer) and break biscuits (like the eucharist) and discuss scripture.
So do not feel left out. You are a vital member.

These scriptural meet-ups are really the result of most atheists having formerly been theists.  Also, with the prevalence of people in our society who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, many atheists enjoy the chance to actually discuss the text from an objective, literary point of view.  If most of the world subscribed to the idea that Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales was divinely inspired and contained inescapable moral truths, would you not like to sometimes discuss it with other people who realized that it was simply a work of fiction?  

As to atheists meeting to eat and drink qualifying atheism as a religion, then I suppose that the Applebee's on Friday night must be a hotspot of religious activity.

Quote from: "Shine"Of course, I do not that think anyone would agree that football is truly a religion.  (Well, actually there are probably some diehard fans who would not necessarily object to the comparison.  ;)

QuoteFor the set of scriptures, I could refer to the official rulebook of football or the numerous playbooks possessed by each team.

I think the players' stats are canonized as well.

For the record, though, I agree completely. Atheism is no more a religion than, say, not having a drug habit.

If horseback riding was a religion I would be a follower  :love:

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "happynewyear"I would agree with most of the comments made above, except for one.
I think that Atheism is a religion.

Welcome to the forum...but I think you are misusing the word religion.

Thank you for the welcome.
When I use the word religion I am using it in it's literal sense, as in "to connect" or "to join together".
This forum and Atheism in general, is a "joining together" of like-minded people.(coming from very diverse backgrounds)
I have found that, using the structure which defines a religion, useful when explaining Atheism to theist friends.
I know, that lots of Atheists reject the comparison with organised religion, but I do not have a problem with it.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "happynewyear"

QuoteAtheism is based on a belief system (belief in the non existence of God)

Actually, no it's not having a belief in a god...an atheist may or may not think it is right to say that a god definitely can't exist.

Would you agree, that in order to have no belief in a god,  you must first have a "concept" of what you are rejecting?

Quote from: "happynewyear"I have found that, using the structure which defines a religion, useful when explaining Atheism to theist friends.

How can you find it useful when theists tend to associate religion with having faith?


I still disagree and think it is a misuse of the word....your definition is not the "literal" meaning of religion and makes every sort of coming together of people for any purpose a religion effectively making religion synonymous with club.

Quote from: "happynewyear"Would you agree, that in order to have no belief in a god,  you must first have a "concept" of what you are rejecting?

Not necessarily...babies don't believe in god.

Quote from: "elliebean"Ah, but as a Texan, you must know that Football is the established state religion.  lol

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "happynewyear"Would you agree, that in order to have no belief in a god,  you must first have a "concept" of what you are rejecting?

Not necessarily...babies don't believe in god.

You are making an assumption here. How do you know that babies don't believe in god?

Quote from: "happynewyear"Atheism has a hierarchy of "Priests"(Darwin, Hawkins, Dennett etc)

Quote from: "Whitney"What?  I don't even know how to respond to that other than that no atheist has to accept evolution nor the philosophical musings of other atheists.

I know theists, who believe, that their creation myth is but a story and that their "priests" talk the biggest load of nonsense.

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "happynewyear"

What?  I don't even know how to respond to that other than that no atheist has to accept evolution nor the philosophical musings of other atheists.

I know theists who believe that their creation myth is only a story and that their "priests" talk a lot of nonsense.

So? That just makes them religious heretics.

There are no heretics in atheism, becasue there is no dogma.

So, is a lack of belief in smurfs also a religion?

QuoteYou are making an assumption here. How do you know that babies don't believe in god?

I conducted a poll. The results showed that 95.6% of newborn babies have never even heard of god. The rest of them were deaf.

Quote from: "happynewyear"When I use the word religion I am using it in it's literal sense, as in "to connect" or "to join together".

I think that this is the core of the misconception.  You are using an nonstandard definition for religion which, quite honestly, is so ambiguous that it really renders the word itself meaningless.  If we define "religion" as a cause that connects or joins people together, we must then label Team Edward, American Idol, and all professional sport franchises as religions also.

Also, babies don't believe in god because they lack object permanence until around age two.  This is why the game peek-a-boo works: the baby does not believe that you exist if you momentarily cover your face with your hands.  How could we possibly expect a baby to believe in something that they have never even seen if they cease to believe in objects which leave their field of vision?

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "happynewyear"Would you agree, that in order to have no belief in a god,  you must first have a "concept" of what you are rejecting?

Not necessarily...babies don't believe in god.

You are making an assumption here. How do you know that babies don't believe in god?

You haven't been around many young children, have you?

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "happynewyear"Atheism has a hierarchy of "Priests"(Darwin, Hawkins, Dennett etc)

Quote from: "Whitney"What?  I don't even know how to respond to that other than that no atheist has to accept evolution nor the philosophical musings of other atheists.

I know theists, who believe, that their creation myth is but a story and that their "priests" talk the biggest load of nonsense.

so?...that has nothing to do with what I was commenting on.

Quote from: "happynewyear"You are making an assumption here. How do you know that babies don't believe in god?

Well what do you think? Do babies believe in God? Do babies even have the mental capacity to believe? Every baby I've ever seen was just a little eating, pissing and shitting quasi-ambulatory vegetable that vaguely resembled a human being.

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "happynewyear"Would you agree, that in order to have no belief in a god,  you must first have a "concept" of what you are rejecting?

Not necessarily...babies don't believe in god.

You are making an assumption here. How do you know that babies don't believe in god?

I'm sorry to say you have seriously hurt your future credability with this statement.

Babies are not sentient. Babies don't even have the basic understanding that they exist. At birth human children are nearly a complete blank slate and untill about 2 (give or take) don't have any understanding of self.

Unless you have some knowedge that every doctor, psycologist, scienist, or simply mothers do not?

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.

:hmm: "Religion]

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  

Quote from: "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  

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

Quote from: "magdalena"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.

Quote from: "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  

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.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"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)

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"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.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"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.

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "Shine"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Shine"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?

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

Quote from: "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!

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "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!

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.

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "Shine"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Shine"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.

Quote from: "happynewyear"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Shine"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.

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.  

Quote from: "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.  

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".)