Atheism is not a default position

[Ouroboros]

Come on ... you know this doesn't even speak to your claim. Obviously the kid learned about God from someone. It just wasn't his mom.

That's not the only story. But that's beside the point. This is the researcher's claim. You have to be able to make a distinction here.

Barrett is making these claims, based on his research. That story is just one out of many, and he doesn't support his views only on these stories but through studies of other kinds.

The quote is from his book where he is using it as a part to support his claim.

 

[Ouroboros]

Personhood is achieved when the baby becomes physically autonomous.

At this point or before?

Specifically, babies seem sensitive to several important features of agents that make them ready to understand humans and animals as agents, but make them receptive to gods as well:
1. Agents can move themselves and other things.
2. Agents act to attain goals (instead of just moving arbitrarily).
3. Agents need not resemble humans.
4. Agents need not be visible.

Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (p. 26). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[leibowde84]

That's not the only story. But that's beside the point. This is the researcher's claim. You have to be able to make a distinction here.

Barrett is making these claims, based on his research. That story is just one out of many, and he doesn't support his views only on these stories but through studies of other kinds.

The quote is from his book where he is using it as a part to support his claim.

But his claim is that they are predisposed. Not that they magically understand the concept of God without being introduced to it.

 

[leibowde84]

At this point or before?


Barrett, Justin L. (2012-03-20). Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief (p. 26). Atria Books. Kindle Edition.

You proved my point. He says that they are "receptive to the idea of God". Where does he claim that they magically understand the concept on their own?

 

[Ouroboros]

But his claim is that they are predisposed. Not that they magically understand the concept of God without being introduced to it.

Yes, they're predisposed. They're default wiring in the brain is to take up belief. Before they have the ability to believe, they already have the wiring to believe. And why is that? Read the list and think about what they mean to human nature and the ability for a person to exist as a person in society.

You proved my point. He says that they are "receptive to the idea of God". Where does he claim that they magically understand the concept on their own?

Except that the influence is natural. It's not through indoctrination.

I'm not sure where you get this "magically" from? What do you mean with the reference to the "magically understand"? No, that's not what he's suggesting. The research points to that we've evolved to have these wiring in our brain naturally. We are born with the "God believing brain capacities". And it's actually more effort to un-believe these things than to believe. He has several stories in the book about kids just picking up the "God belief" even after not being influenced in that direction by the parents.

I'm getting really bored of this topic. If you really want to understand what these researchers have said, then pick up their books and read them instead.

Now, I'm really going to try to cut my "lying" and "strawman" contribution to this thread, before I'm called something else ugly.

 

[atanu]

0-0 Weak atheism (no belief God exists, no belief God doesn't exist)

Ha ha. Atheists claim reasonableness for themselves.

There is no belief associated with a 0-0 draw. There is no score from either side.

 

[ArtieE]

Ha ha. Atheists claim reasonableness for themselves.

There is no belief associated with a 0-0 draw. There is no score from either side.

Correct. That's what no belief that god exists and no belief that God doesn't exist means. No score for the theists and no score for the strong atheists. Weak atheists neither believe that God exists nor that God doesn't exist. They're on the fence, haven't decided.

 

[atanu]

People think that belief and knowing have no relationship. Babies, stones, and other atheists should learn about a category called "Gnostic atheism" and "agnostic atheism" first.

Oops, babies and Gnosticism?

 

[atanu]

Correct. That's what no belief that god exists and no belief that God doesn't exist means. No score for the theists and no score for the strong atheists. Weak atheists neither believe that God exists nor that God doesn't exist. They're on the fence, haven't decided.

A 'no belief' position is only possible for a stone.
For conscious humans a 'no belief in X' means 'belief not X', i.e. Belief in the counter positive.

As explained earlier, it is either a semantic game or foolishness to say "I have no belief that a beer bottle exists nor that a bottle does not exist." Probably one is trying to confuse one's friend who wants a beer.

One who is truly undecided and simple, unambiguous and truthful will simply say "I have neither belief nor disbelief regarding existence of God" or "I am still undecided".

One who is undecided will not say "I am an atheist and I lack belief in deity".

 

[ArtieE]

One who is simple, unambiguous and truthful will simply say "I have neither belief nor disbelief regarding existence of God".

No he wouldn't because to "not have belief" and "disbelief" is the same. If you say something I can say "I have no belief in what you say" or I can say I "disbelieve" you. It's the same thing.

One who is simple, unambiguous and truthful will simply say "I neither believe God exists nor do I believe that God doesn't exist. I haven't made up my mind."

 

[Willamena]

One who is ambivalent (neither atheist nor theist) is simply undecided. The agnostic is the one who asserts an answer cannot be made.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose the difference ultimately comes down to intentionality.

I do not hold the belief that god exists.
I do not hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

Both of these statements apply to me as they are conclusions drawn from experience and knowledge gained over time. They are intentionally held conclusions.

Some seem to think that there is no distinction between "lacking" these beliefs due to ignorance and "lacking" these beliefs due to knowledge. I hold the opposite view.

Atheism is a conclusion to me, based on much thought, information, and time to process these thoughts and information in a meaningful way. Equating this to someone completely ignorant of the concept of gods, or even belief, seems rather trite and banal to me.

I've never known anyone who labels themselves an "atheist" who didn't do so without being able to say "I am an atheist because..." I don't understand the need to reduce an examined and informed conclusion to the state of complete ignorance. It serves no useful or meaningful purpose as far as I can tell.

 

[atanu]

No he wouldn't because to "not have belief" and "disbelief" is the same. If you say something I can say "I have no belief in what you say" or I can say I "disbelieve" you. It's the same thing.

You are either untruthful or challenged. I have explained it before. I perceive you as dishonest.

The two sentences that I am joining are "I have neither belief" and "Nor disbelief". It is negation of both a belief and a disbelief.

And It is not "I have no belief and disbelief", as you are making it out and which means negation of 'belief' only.

 

[ArtieE]

You are either untruthful or challenged. I have explained it before. I perceive you as dishonest.

The two sentences that I am joining are "I have neither belief" and "Nor disbelief". It is negation of both a belief and a disbelief.

And It is not "I have no belief and disbelief", as you are making it out and which means negation of 'belief' only.

Doesn't make sense. Try using different words.

 

[ArtieE]

One who is ambivalent (neither atheist nor theist)

Neither strong atheist nor theist.

is simply undecided. The agnostic is the one who asserts an answer cannot be made.

Or just doesn't know the answer.

 

[atanu]

I do not hold the belief that god exists.
I do not hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

Both of these statements apply to me as they are conclusions drawn from experience and knowledge gained over time. They are intentionally held conclusions.

Some seem to think that there is no distinction between "lacking" these beliefs due to ignorance and "lacking" these beliefs due to knowledge. I hold the opposite view.

Atheism is a conclusion to me, ......

To me that is Gnostic atheism. It is a clear cut unambiguous position. You can be asked to prove your conclusion.

Another person can be an Agnostic atheist holding that he does not know. He is also unambiguous.

But some Implicit atheists say that they lack belief in deities. And include babies in atheistic category. Nothing wrong in that, provided one realises that this is a philosophical position and not an objective truth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To me that is Gnostic atheism. It is a clear cut unambiguous position. You can be asked to prove your conclusion.

Another person can be an Agnostic atheist holding that he does not know. He is also unambiguous.

I think you misread. I do not know either way whether god exists, so do not believe either way.

 

[atanu]

Doesn't make sense. Try using different words.

"I neither believe nor do I disbelieve".

 

[atanu]

I think you misread. I do not know either way whether god exists, so do not believe either way.

Okay. Then probably you are agnostic atheist. You have clear linkage between states of knowledge and belief or non belief.

Or may be I am wrong again?

 

[ArtieE]

"I neither believe nor do I disbelieve".

Explain this using different words. I have no idea what it means.