Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

Lol, yes they are both not believing.

But one is non belief because of inability and one is non belief because of rejection.

If you did not eat because you had no food and someone else did not eat while they had no barrier to food, would these be the same because both did not eat?

Or would they be different because one chose not to eat?

Sorry I still see no difference... they both did not eat... if you ask a person "have you eaten" and he says "no" wouldn't he say no whatever the reason? If you have an absence of belief in the existence of gods don't you have an absence of belief in the existence of gods no matter what the reasons are? That you are too young to know what gods are? Or that you have decided to not believe in their existence consciously?

 

[Curious George]

Of course they are different, but the fact still remains that both people did not eat. Their motivations don't change that fact.

You are focusing on the similar, he asked for the difference.

Making an argument that a person has not changed when they clearly have is an equivocation.

That was my point.

If they are different then movement from one to the other entails change. To imply otherwise is an equivocation.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Of course they are different, but the fact still remains that both people did not eat. Their motivations don't change that fact.


So, admittedly, you don't follow your own rules when it comes to god.


I have no idea. As far as anyone knows, something has always existed.
And, unlike the pious, I am not ashamed to admit that nor do I need to invent fantasy novels in order to cover up that admission.

You don't need invent any fantasy novel about something. This something you admit that always existed is what I call God. But it's ok, that's my ideas, nobody needs to share it. For me God is the not created being, always exists, nothing is above It (he/she, this is irrelevant, God is not human, the creator can't be the creature).

 

[Curious George]

Sorry I still see no difference... they both did not eat... if you ask a person "have you eaten" and he says "no" wouldn't he say no whatever the reason? If you have an absence of belief in the existence of gods don't you have an absence of belief in the existence of gods no matter what the reasons are? That you are too young to know what gods are? Or that you have decided to not believe in their existence consciously?

Really, you by your own admission fail to see the difference between a "weak implicit atheist" and a "weak explicit atheist," even after all your posting?

 

[ArtieE]

A God name is irrelevant for me. People from all times knows intuitively about theirs Creator. As a finite individual I don't have how to say more that God is its own cause. Anyway, what's the cause of you, me and humanity, for example? Nothing?

It's its own cause.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

It's its own cause.

I'm probably wrong at this point. That's what I said about my finite like individuality, there's no how to know it at this time. But, again, give me other cause for the universe, other than a creator, not created. Ok, maybe I have the point. God is the being not created by any other being. Always existed, I can't go further.

 

[ArtieE]

Really, you by your own admission fail to see the difference between a "weak implicit atheist" and a "weak explicit atheist," even after all your posting?

I don't see your point. Of course there's a "difference between a "weak implicit atheist" and a "weak explicit atheist," but they both have the same absence of belief in gods...

 

[ArtieE]

A God name is irrelevant for me. People from all times knows intuitively about theirs Creator.

Do you mean that Christians know intuitively about their creator the Christian God, Muslims know intuitively about their creator Allah and Hindus know intuitively about their creator Brahma?

 

[Curious George]

I don't see your point. Of course there's a "difference between a "weak implicit atheist" and a "weak explicit atheist," but they both have the same absence of belief in gods...

No, one is an absence one is rejection

 

[ArtieE]

No, one is an absence one is rejection

And after you have rejected don't you have an absence?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Do you mean that Christians know intuitively about their creator the Christian God, Muslims know intuitively about their creator Allah and Hindus know intuitively about their creator Brahma?

I mean that humans in all eras have an intuitive inner felling about existence of its Gods. It doesn't matter the name they gave to It or time in the human history, it's local and time independent. This is a sociological issue.

 

[ArtieE]

I mean that humans in all eras have an intuitive inner felling about existence of its Gods. It doesn't matter the name they gave to It or time in the human history, it's local and time independent. This is a sociological issue.

Maybe you are talking about neurotheology and the evolution of religions. You might be interested in
Neurotheology: Are We Hardwired for God? | Psychiatric Times
and
Evolution of Religion

I advice you to read more on these subjects so you better understand why you believe what you do.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe you are talking about neurotheology and the evolution of religions. You might be interested in
Neurotheology: Are We Hardwired for God? | Psychiatric Times

That's very interesting, because it suggests that we're born with the capacity and need to believe in God. Hamer's study suggests that there's some genes responsible for giving us this ability. So the question is then, how does this go together with the idea that we're born atheists if we're born with the ability to believe? Or, it opens the question, are babies really born without a belief? How do we know? How can we test this?

 

[ArtieE]

That's very interesting, because it suggests that we're born with the capacity and need to believe in God.

You mean that we are born with the capacity to believe in the existence of gods and ghosts and all kinds of supernatural things.

Hamer's study suggests that there's some genes responsible for giving us this ability. So the question is then, how does this go together with the idea that we're born atheists if we're born with the ability to believe? Or, it opens the question, are babies really born without a belief? How do we know? How can we test this?

Well, which gods did you believe in at birth?
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you mean that Christians know intuitively about their creator the Christian God, Muslims know intuitively about their creator Allah and Hindus know intuitively about their creator Brahma?

That's not necessary .. I think he means that humans are aware from a very early age that our world including ourselves was created by 'the Holy One'

..it is only human beings (our society or parents), that make us believe a particular religion. When we become adults, we are free to believe what we like .. including a belief that there is no 'Holy One'

 

[Ouroboros]

You mean that we are born with the capacity to believe in the existence of gods and ghosts and all kinds of supernatural things.

That's what the research suggests that you linked to.

Well, which gods did you believe in at birth?

I don't know. But that's the thing, I don't know. You don't know. We don't know. So to say that kids are born without a belief in God is an assumption. Unless you have something to prove it with of course.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

Why did you link to yet another article that suggests that we're born with belief?

From that page:

Predisposed to believe
There’s no one cognitive tendency that undergirds all our religious beliefs, says Barrett. “It’s really your basic, garden-variety cognitions that provide the impetus for religious beliefs,” he says.

A common thread to those cognitions is that they lead us to see the world as a place with an intentional design, created by someone or something. Young children, for example, tend to believe that even trivial aspects of the natural world were created with purpose, according to a series of studies by Boston University psychologist Deborah Keleman, PhD.

So children are predisposed and test to believe that the natural world were created with purpose.

Uh. That's very much non-atheistic view there.

I didn't bother to read much more from your linked article. Except there's one more excerpt from another expert

Neuroscience research supports the idea that the brain is primed to believe, says Jordan Grafman, PhD, director of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. This tendency, he says, is spread throughout the brain, and probably arose from neural circuits developed for other uses.

So, this article suggests that we are born with the ability and naturally develop belief in a God.

How is this "default atheism" or "implicit atheism"? The articles you've linked so far suggests otherwise.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

That's not necessary .. I think he means that humans are aware from a very early age that our world including ourselves was created by 'the Holy One'

..it is only human beings (our society or parents), that make us believe a particular religion. When we become adults, we are free to believe what we like .. including a belief that there is no 'Holy One'

It's obvious, you decide in what you believe. Free Will.

 

[ArtieE]

Why did you link to yet another article that suggests that we're born with belief?

Because I'm trying to get you to understand that we aren't born with belief but with a predisposition to believe in the existence of whichever god or religion we grow up in.

From that page:

So children are predisposed and test to believe that the natural world were created with purpose.

Uh. That's very much non-atheistic view there.

On the contrary. It doesn't mean that the natural world were actually created with purpose. It means that we evolved to believe so because that gave us a survival advantage.

So, this article suggests that we are born with the ability and naturally develop belief in a God.

The article doesn't suggest that this god actually exists. It explains that belief in the supernatural and gods and religions gave us a survival advantage so that's why are brains are wired for such beliefs.

How is this "default atheism" or "implicit atheism"? The articles you've linked so far suggests otherwise.

We aren't born with belief in gods. We are wired with a predisposition to believe in the gods and religions of the culture we are born into because such belief gave us a survival advantage.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Heisenberg uncertainty pRinciple does not invalidate cause andc effect law.

I never said it did. Actually, I believe I said something about scientists and proto-scientists (early modern natural philosophers) never possessing such a simplistic understanding of causality and that even Aristotle's causal model was more nuanced. Nonlocality isn't related to the uncertainty principle- quite the opposite actually. The first real hint that at the most fundamental level reality is nonlocal came from an attempt by Einstein and co-authors to demonstrate that quantum mechanics itself provided a mechanism to determine the state of a system without measuring it. The hope was that this entailed that QM was incomplete or not a physical theory. Then came Bell, then Aspect et al.'s first empirical realization in 1982. Since then there have been hundreds of different experiments demonstrating the nonlocal nature of reality in various ways and at distances of many kilometers/miles.

 

[Ouroboros]

Because I'm trying to get you to understand that we aren't born with belief but with a predisposition to believe in the existence of whichever god or religion we grow up in.

Did you read this part: "A common thread to those cognitions is that they lead us to see the world as a place with an intentional design, created by someone or something. "

That's from the article.

On the contrary. It doesn't mean that the natural world were actually created with purpose.

That's what the article says kids naturally believe. You might disagree with the research that suggests it, but that's not my problem. It's your belief to have.

It means that we evolved to believe so because that gave us a survival advantage.

And? So the kids evolve from young age from a non-belief to a belief though mutations in thousands of years? I'm not sure what your argument is here. If humans evolved to naturally have belief when they're born, that means when they're born they have naturally a belief, because of how we evolved.

The article doesn't suggest that this god actually exists.

??? Did I say that? (looking around, trying to find if I even suggested that... can't find it)

The question isn't about if God exist, but if children are born with or without a belief in God. And the articles you linked show research that suggests that children are naturally born with a belief because that's how the human species evolved to have.

It explains that belief in the supernatural and gods and religions gave us a survival advantage so that's why are brains are wired for such beliefs.We aren't born with belief in gods.

Uh. So we evolved to be born with belief in gods, and therefore we're not born with belief in gods... got it.

We are wired with a predisposition to believe in the gods and religions of the culture we are born into because such belief gave us a survival advantage.

So are children born with a belief in god/gods or not? If we evolved to be born with it, why are you arguing that kids are not born with it? The articles you linked suggest that we are.

The thing here is. You're arguing that kids are not born with it, and then link articles that say that kids are born with it. Very confusing.