Atheism is not a default position

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Don't forget pantheists (but when a pantheist says it, it's just "word games"). Even theists are atheists today using these broad definitions.

Very true. Perhaps ironically I initially listed pantheists after deists and before polytheists (I also originally included agnostics). The problem is just as you describe: word games. So I stuck to the two examples I know of that are most defined (or are most generally considered to be) in contradiction to theism; deism especially, as theism and deism both posit the existence of a singular deity that is based on the (Judeo)-Christian god, but deists are fundamentally defined by the ways in which their beliefs about god differ from theists.

 

[ArtieE]

Not of belief. Once confronted, you have a belief even if you do not accept the belief of that which you are confronted.

If I have rejected something I obviously have an absence of belief in it. What belief do you think I have?

 

[Curious George]

If I have rejected something I obviously have an absence of belief in it. What belief do you think I have?

It depends.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

I read it as being born with a set of genes that have constructed a brain that is predisposed to believe in certain things like we are born with a set of genes that have constructed a body that is predisposed to get cancer.

To understand what he's saying there, read further:


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".

Correct. We aren't born with "religious beliefs" we are born with a set of genes that have constructed our brain in such a way that we are very susceptible to certain beliefs. Read this very good article: Are We Born with Belief in God?

Now, I hope you understand the difference between "religion" and "theism" (i.e. belief in God).

Of course there's a difference between "religion" and "theism". Never said otherwise. Strawman.

There's a difference. A-religious isn't the same as A-theistic. (Look it up)

Never said otherwise. Strawman.

 

[ArtieE]

It depends.

If I have rejected theism (belief in the existence of god(s)) and have an absence of such a belief which belief do I automatically have because of that?

 

[Curious George]

If I have rejected theism (belief in the existence of god(s)) and have an absence of such a belief which belief do I automatically have because of that?

That the existence of God is equally probable as God not existing, or that God does not exist.

Edit* deleted unnecessary preposition "of"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If I have rejected something I obviously have an absence of belief in it.

If you reject the existence of unicorns, is it fair to say you believe unicorns don't exist?

 

[ArtieE]

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?

You do have a point. Do you think every child is born a Muslim? Every Child is Born Muslim

 

[ArtieE]

Artie is arguing that there is a neutral position - neither.

I am arguing that you can believe that god(s) exist, that you can believe that god(s) don't exist, or you can be neutral and not take sides.

 

[ArtieE]

Rejection is precisely saying, "No," about a belief (dismissal, refusal). What is absent about that? There is a belief that you're rejecting.

And obviously when you have dismissed or refused a belief you have an absence of it. "I refuse and dismiss the belief that god(s) exist so I have an absence of the belief that god(s) exist".

 

[ArtieE]

If you reject the existence of unicorns, is it fair to say you believe unicorns don't exist?

If I reject belief in the existence of God is it fair to say I believe God doesn't exist? What if I say I reject belief in the existence of God and reject the belief that God doesn't exist because I am of the opinion that there's no basis for either belief?

 

[ArtieE]

That the existence of God is equally probable as God not existing, or that God does not exist.

Edit* deleted unnecessary preposition "of"

The question was: "If I have rejected theism (belief in the existence of god(s)) and have an absence of such a belief which belief do I automatically have because of that?" I have already rejected theism so obviously I can't believe that the existence of God is equally probable as God not existing, and if I reject the belief that God does not exist too which belief do I have left?

 

[Thief]

Ignorant is not the same as not being able to believe. It's just on a par with having nothing to believe.

Nay....
If you lack the consideration....you cannot believe.

There are a lot of well trained and highly intelligent people, round about.
Some don't believe.
They made a choice.

There are a lot of uneducated and barely functional people, round about.
Some don't believe.
They made a choice.

and some.....are soooooo busy.....they don't have time to consider.
They don't believe.
but that is a choice.

There are some who are down and depressed.
They have no comfort....and nothing to believe in.
but that too is a choice.

If you have any ability....you can then consider.
and then choose.

Let's toss the baby in the air one more time......catch!

Unable to believe.....and they are ignorant.....
but if you fail to catch the baby and it dies.....
It goes back to God.....as a default position!

 

[marcosmasliaev]

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.

Good point, non local nature of reality seems to be related to distant action, fields action like magnetism, gravity, so on. Many other distant action field should be find, I suppose. In fact Einstein idea ways was in direction in his words that "God don't play dice with universe ". For me QM seems to be an approximation of a major aspect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

This has been explained before. The fact that humans (or, at least, most humans) tend towards a belief in a God as they get older doesn't change the fact that they are born without the belief. The belief in God is something those children develop over time after experience and consideration. None of them could have been "born" believing in God. That's the point.

What evidence and what research shows that kids are born without a belief?

The fact that we aren't born expressing any beliefs whatsoever. No child psychologist on the planet would claim that babies are born believing in God, and no studies ever conducted have lead to this conclusion.

 

[leibowde84]

You are still using the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. You are basing your belief in God as the creator on the absence of evidence to the contrary. In an argument, it is necessary to stand up your claim on its own. The lack of alternative explanations doesn't provide any support to the claim that God is the creator.

Btw, I do believe in God as the Intelligent Designer, at least to some extent. I am just playing devils advocat, because it is important to recognize logicl fallacies in reasoning.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

You are still using the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. You are basing your belief in God as the creator on the absence of evidence to the contrary. In an argument, it is necessary to stand up your claim on its own. The lack of alternative explanations doesn't provide any support to the claim that God is the creator.

Btw, I do believe in God as the Intelligent Designer, at least to some extent. I am just playing devils advocat, because it is important to recognize logicl fallacies in reasoning.

My reasoning is a deduction from a law, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[leibowde84]

Artie is arguing that there is a neutral position - neither.

"Neither" would still be atheist, as they still lack the belief.

 

[leibowde84]

My reasoning is a deduction from a law, nothing more, nothing less.

What do you mean by this? Can you explain what you mean?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

What do you mean by this? Can you explain what you mean?

Cause and effect. When you see a clock, a car, a house, you see a intelligent effect. Some humans manipulated some matter in a intelligent way and constructed those things I wrote. The objects: car, house, clock, etc, are effect from an intelligent agent: man, the cause who in fact is an co-creator. The primary creator, cause of all other things, including matter manipulated by human, human, animals, etc, it's an intelligent being. An intelligent effect must have an intelligent cause. That's all, very simple.