• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism is not a default position

A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
It must be very confusing for a person who doesn't know what the word predisposed means.

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

We aren't born believers, we are born predisposed to believe. Get the difference?
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
muhammad_isa said:
No :) I think you are splitting hairs..
Click to expand...
LOL. If a person is predisposed to believe it doesn't mean that he is born a believer. If a person is predisposed to get cancer it doesn't mean he's born with cancer. I repeat the quote from the article.

"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."
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
marcosmasliaev said:
In fact you can assume that this reasoning is like mine. But, what would give us a response for the cause of universe? ( if my english fails it's because my native language is portuguese). This is the same question I'm doing, nobody gives me a convincing answer.
Click to expand...
That is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. God is an extremely vague concept, not well defined at all. He is "love, giver of life, justice, mercy, the creator, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc." Thus, God escapes the limits of rational scrutiny because it is so easy to mold an ill-defined concept to explain anything that comes up. The mere lack of an alternative explanation that satisfies you in no way supports the argument that God exists. There aren't only 2 options, and, depending on what your specific question is, scientists have hypotheses that are, arguably, more plausible than any supernatural personal entity. This is why people can't give you an answer. You are asking an unreasonable question and using the inability of others to answer erroneously as evidence for your argument.

Here is an explanation of the logical fallacy (Argument from Ignorance
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Ad Ignorantium

Description: The assumption of a conclusion (that God exists in this case) or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary (alternative explanations in this case). Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?

Dick: No comment.

Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) *******!

Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
ArtieE said:
It must be very confusing for a person who doesn't know what the word predisposed means.
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. (And by the way, thanks for being so respectful and only discussion the issue at hand instead of being rude. Much appreciated.(!))

It means that there's a predisposition for religion (like the religion with names, identifiers, traditions, etc), but the predisposition is: "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. "

The cognitions that are predisposed are the ones that make us see the world as a place with intentional design.

Then, on top of that, you learn religion.

You're born a-religions, but you're born with a belief in a place that was created with intention. That's how I read it.

To understand what he's saying there, read further:
People also have a bias for believing in the supernatural, says Barrett. In his work, he finds that children as young as age 3 naturally attribute supernatural abilities and immortality to “God,” even if they’ve never been taught about God, and they tell elaborate stories about their lives before they were born, what Barrett calls “pre-life.”
Click to expand...

What they're saying here is that the belief in supernatural and intent and creation of the world is naturally born within us, but the specific religions. Read again, "It’s really your basic, garden-variety cognitions that provide the impetus for religious beliefs," In other words, the "predisposition" that we're born with is a "basic, garden-variety cognition", and what kind of cognition is it? The one that provide impetus (which means "the force that makes something happen or happen more quickly"). And to what kind of things that it provide impetus to? To "religious beliefs".

Now, I hope you understand the difference between "religion" and "theism" (i.e. belief in God). There's a difference. A-religious isn't the same as A-theistic. (Look it up)
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Here's a quote from Barrett's book "Born Believers":
A former coworker of mine told me about her three daughters, the oldest only eight years old. “I’m a Christian but my husband is an atheist, so we agreed not to push our kids in either direction,” she explained. “But it doesn’t seem to matter. All three girls believe in God, and not just a bit. Sophie, my oldest, has rows with her dad and tells him he’s wrong about God not existing.”** An atheist mother from Oxford, England, was amazed to discover that her five-year-old son had a firm belief in God against her best efforts. Unbelieving parents in Indiana reluctantly let their kindergartner go to vacation Bible school, and she came home expressing a desperate desire to continue learning about God. A Danish colleague (to whom I return later) discovered his little girl had casually contracted a strong case of theism even in one of the most secular societies on earth. These and many other anecdotes are not my reasons for saying that children are born believers, but they suggest something beyond happenstance or indoctrination is going on here.
Click to expand...
Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (pp. 5-6). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

So... if the evidence shows that belief is the natural state, how can unbelief be the default state?

What evidence and what research shows that kids are born without a belief? Or is this idea just a belief in itself?
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
ImmortalFlame said:
Affirming the consequent isn't evidence.

Do you actually have any evidence? If you don't, then what exactly am I ignoring?
Click to expand...
The obvious possibility.....you are wrong.
There won't be any proof.
But there's tons of evidence over your head and beneath your feet.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
leibowde84 said:
He already provided the hypothetical causes. To claim that God must be the cause is to make an assumption based on faith. Nothing wrong with that, but it is an assumption.
Click to expand...
and without proof.....no one has anything else to offer....including you.
 
Last edited:
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Ouroboros said:
Here's a quote from Barrett's book "Born Believers":

Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (pp. 5-6). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

So... if the evidence shows that belief is the natural state, how can unbelief be the default state?

What evidence and what research shows that kids are born without a belief? Or is this idea just a belief in itself?
Click to expand...

Saw the documentary.
Babies have no ability to consider....and therefore no belief...of anything.

Let's toss the baby once more.
Babies are born ignorant.

It seems odd to me to refer to someone of ignorance as a support for a claim.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Thief said:
Saw the documentary.
Babies have no ability to consider....and therefore no belief...of anything.

Let's toss the baby once more.
Babies are born ignorant.

It seems odd to me to refer to someone of ignorance as a support for a claim.
Click to expand...
Ignorant is not the same as not being able to believe. It's just on a par with having nothing to believe.
 
M

marcosmasliaev

Member
leibowde84 said:
That is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. God is an extremely vague concept, not well defined at all. He is "love, giver of life, justice, mercy, the creator, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc." Thus, God escapes the limits of rational scrutiny because it is so easy to mold an ill-defined concept to explain anything that comes up. The mere lack of an alternative explanation that satisfies you in no way supports the argument that God exists. There aren't only 2 options, and, depending on what your specific question is, scientists have hypotheses that are, arguably, more plausible than any supernatural personal entity. This is why people can't give you an answer. You are asking an unreasonable question and using the inability of others to answer erroneously as evidence for your argument.

Dear leibowde84,

I don't define God by some vague sense, I say that it's the primary cause of everything that exists in the visible and invisible universe. When one says God is love, justice, mercy, omnipotent, etc, this person is taking attributes of the being as the being, it's confusion, and wrong. God is not supernatural, because nothing can be supernatural, everything, including God can only exists as natural occurrence. My question again is: what's is the cause of universe. Ok, if you don't have the answer, it's ok. My answer is that a non-created being made it. Anybody needs to agree with it.

Again, there's a law applied to our science that says: to every effect there's a cause. What's the cause for all there is? You don't need to agree with me, that's what I think is right, in an logical way. There's no fallacy in this. In your explanation you take premise that God doesn't exists, so you need to proof it by some arguments to go back to the premise. It's a logical loop, but not an argument.

In other issue it is stated (premise) that life can be created by any person who knows how to do it. This doesn't proves nothing, it's just a statement.

Here is an explanation of the logical fallacy (Argument from Ignorance
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Ad Ignorantium

Description: The assumption of a conclusion (that God exists in this case) or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary (alternative explanations in this case). Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?

Dick: No comment.

Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) *******!

Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.
Click to expand...
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
ArtieE said:
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?
Click to expand...
Look at it this way... suppose someone walked up to you and asked, "Do you believe in..." and halted their question, but still expected a reply.

Would you be able to say yes or no?

With no information, logically you should not be compelled to say yes or no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top