Atheist by birth?

[work in progress]

How exactly do you get from animacy and theleology to not "non-theist"? I never said we had no such tendencies, quite the opposite. Whether or not they sometimes result in a belief in a god is not the question here, of course they do.

Because those subjective predispositions have formed the basis for all of the more sophisticated supernatural beliefs. The phrase "everyone is born an atheist' is usually used to promote an antiquated view that everything we believe has to be taught to us as we grow up, and we start as a blank slate. The blank slate (Tabula Rasa) view of behavioural psychologists, starting with B.F. Skinner, has been pretty much discredited and considered obsolete. But atheists who are using language that implies a blank slate beginning in life are starting right from the start with an unscientific way of explaining the origins of common beliefs. The implied premise of the OP that you can be born an atheist and never develop supernatural beliefs without first being taught them, is totally bogus!

There are many supernatural beliefs that used to be widely held that are now more or less extinct. I don't think we will ever be free of superstition in the same sense that we will never be completely free of disease. That doesn't mean that we can't "all but" eliminate it by increasing our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. I really don't know what this has to do with the OP or my response to it, but there you go, that's my opinion.

Some supernatural beliefs have become extinct - elves, fairies, goblins, succubi have pretty much disappeared as distinct beliefs, but they've only been replaced with more modern versions - like the UFO abduction stories that closely mirror the elf and succubi stories of old. They didn't go extinct as much as they were transformed by modern culture. This also touches on the OP pov because Dawkins and other new atheists have commonly advanced the claim that atheism is growing in Europe...Sweden being the prime example. But again, all they have for evidence is that organized religion and traditional religious beliefs are in decline. There still seems to be a healthy and profitable paranormal culture in Europe, with astrology, UFO's, ghosts, mediums, ESP etc. all filling the gap and giving a lot of nonchurchgoers their supernatural fix.

 

[Commoner]

Because those subjective predispositions have formed the basis for all of the more sophisticated supernatural beliefs. The phrase "everyone is born an atheist' is usually used to promote an antiquated view that everything we believe has to be taught to us as we grow up, and we start as a blank slate. The blank slate (Tabula Rasa) view of behavioural psychologists, starting with B.F. Skinner, has been pretty much discredited and considered obsolete. But atheists who are using language that implies a blank slate beginning in life are starting right from the start with an unscientific way of explaining the origins of common beliefs. The implied premise of the OP that you can be born an atheist and never develop supernatural beliefs without first being taught them, is totally bogus!

Nobody is claiming that. You can keep pounding this strawman until you're blue in the face and it wont get you anywhere or you can address the actual arguments.

Some supernatural beliefs have become extinct - elves, fairies, goblins, succubi have pretty much disappeared as distinct beliefs, but they've only been replaced with more modern versions - like the UFO abduction stories that closely mirror the elf and succubi stories of old. They didn't go extinct as much as they were transformed by modern culture. This also touches on the OP pov because Dawkins and other new atheists have commonly advanced the claim that atheism is growing in Europe...Sweden being the prime example. But again, all they have for evidence is that organized religion and traditional religious beliefs are in decline. There still seems to be a healthy and profitable paranormal culture in Europe, with astrology, UFO's, ghosts, mediums, ESP etc. all filling the gap and giving a lot of nonchurchgoers their supernatural fix.

Is it not true that there is a clear correlation between your level of education and the number of superstitious/supernatural beliefs you hold as true and to what degree?

Now, your claim is that this effect is somehow lost when we look at societies as a whole instead of individuals. That we are now just as superstitious as were, let's say, the Mayans or the Romans. I think that's a position you won't be able to substantiate.

As per Europe, I live in Europe and I really don't know what you're talking about and I don't know of any statistics that would confirm what you're saying, quite the opposite. But it's completely irrelevant to the point that with progress, with more knowledge and better education, societies get, on average, less "superstitious". You cannot properly address that by the type of argument you're making, even if you're right on every count.

 

[work in progress]

Nobody is claiming that. You can keep pounding this strawman until you're blue in the face and it wont get you anywhere or you can address the actual arguments.

Wrong! Otherwise there is no point to the OP "Atheist by birth" unless the advocates of this position are trying to make a case that ALL of our beliefs are learned. So stop hiding behind the more complex manifestations of supernaturalism and make the case!

Is it not true that there is a clear correlation between your level of education and the number of superstitious/supernatural beliefs you hold as true and to what degree?

I don't remember saying that, but there is a correlation between education and belief in the supernatural, otherwise there would not be the opposite correlation - between education level and lack of religious beliefs and beliefs in supernatural phenomena. I can tell you from the pov of someone who has no higher education, that the main reason why I go online and get in discussions on these subjects, is because someone who works a blue collar job and interacts with mostly less educated people, I don't find hardly anyone interested in science, religion and philosophy. When I was part of a group trying to start up a local secular humanist group a few years ago, I was about the only one who didn't have a post-secondary education.

Now, your claim is that this effect is somehow lost when we look at societies as a whole instead of individuals. That we are now just as superstitious as were, let's say, the Mayans or the Romans. I think that's a position you won't be able to substantiate.

No, the point is that the breakdown between rationalists and mainly intuitive thinkers will only change slowly over time, and is not something that can be educated out of a population, like many atheists and skeptics believe.

When it comes to the individual, we always have the underlying intuitive system that makes snap judgments, often that we are not consciously aware of. The variable is how much or how well the individual develops that higher reasoning system that causes them to pause and reflect, before making a decision, or believing something new.

As per Europe, I live in Europe and I really don't know what you're talking about and I don't know of any statistics that would confirm what you're saying, quite the opposite. But it's completely irrelevant to the point that with progress, with more knowledge and better education, societies get, on average, less "superstitious". You cannot properly address that by the type of argument you're making, even if you're right on every count.

If we lived in the Star Trek Universe, maybe a few centuries from now we would have a society that was mostly rational and discounted supernatural beliefs; but in the short term, a decline in religious adherence in Europe likely has more to do with organized religion having less of a role to play in societies where government provides a more complete role in providing necessary services. I'd like to see some numbers on how many Swedes believe in ESP, UFO's, new age and pagan religions, before I accept a statement that Dawkins made a few times back when he was promoting The God Delusion - that Swedes were 80 or 85% atheists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wrong! Otherwise there is no point to the OP "Atheist by birth" unless the advocates of this position are trying to make a case that ALL of our beliefs are learned.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Saying "we are born without belief X" does not equate to or even imply "we are born without any kind of beliefs". You are committing a strawman fallacy.

 

[Magic Man]

Directly quoting, you: I cannot say with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist.

Appears to me you just said it.

I'm not sure how it appears that. I didn't say it. I said I cannot say it.

I would say we can say things with 100% certainty.

Some things, maybe, but the point is that technically, in the case of God we can't say it with 100% certainty. We can say it with 99.99% certainty and assume there is no god just like we assume there is no such thing as an invisible pink unicorn that lives at the north pole. But technically there's the possibility that God and that unicorn exist.

I was more or less challenging simplicity of "I cannot say" when you do complete the saying of it. But I also think we can believe / know / think with 100% certainty and be mistaken. Haven't you ever had a bet with someone about something where you claimed 100% certainty (like say the song "Yesterday" is by the Rolling Stones), only to lose the bet and realize you were mistaken.

In essence, what some of you all call gnostic theists or gnostic atheists are claiming with 100% certainty that they know either way.

You're missing the point. The point is that I can say with 100% certainty that I believe something. It is 100% certain that I believe my house has power right now. It is not 100% certain that my house has power right now.

The point is the distinction between stating a fact itself, and stating a belief about something. If you ask me "Do you believe in God?", I can answer with 100% certainty one way or the other. If you ask me "Does God exist?", I can only respond with near certainty.

 

[work in progress]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Saying "we are born without belief X" does not equate to or even imply "we are born without any kind of beliefs". You are committing a strawman fallacy.

And if you're going to restrict the discussion to that narrow range, what is the point of 77 pages of comments? Except maybe that philosophers and philosophy students are in a giant circle jerk! The OP started out in the first post with a wrong assumption -- equating being born without empirical culturally accepted knowledge, as being the same thing as born without beliefs; and that is totally false. The reason I introduced the findings of developmental psychologists into the mix is because there is a strong case to be made that we ARE born with predispositions towards animacy and teleological understandings of the world, that makes the foundation for the mythology and folklore that come later.....and that means no one can say they are 'born an atheist' in the way we understand the term - as someone who doesn't believe in gods or supernatural explanations for the World.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And if you're going to restrict the discussion to that narrow range, what is the point of 77 pages of comments?

I'm not "restricting the range of the discussion". I'm acknowledging that you made a strawman argument.

Except maybe that philosophers and philosophy students are in a giant circle jerk! The OP started out in the first post with a wrong assumption -- equating being born without empirical culturally accepted knowledge, as being the same thing as born without beliefs; and that is totally false. The reason I introduced the findings of developmental psychologists into the mix is because there is a strong case to be made that we ARE born with predispositions towards animacy and teleological understandings of the world, that makes the foundation for the mythology and folklore that come later.....and that means no one can say they are 'born an atheist' in the way we understand the term - as someone who doesn't believe in gods or supernatural explanations for the World.

Actually, I see absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be the case. It doesn't matter if you have a "predisposition" towards something, you still do not yet have the available knowledge to claim to believe anything, in the same way that a person may have a predisposition towards eating a sandwich, but until that person possesses that sandwich they are without it and can somewhat accurately be referred to as asandwich.

 

[Acim]

I'm not sure how it appears that. I didn't say it. I said I cannot say it.

You did say what you (allegedly) cannot say.

To help you along here, if I say, "God exists," what degree of certainty does it appear like I'm saying that with? This is not intended as trick question. The small little 'tricky' part is you (or me) then claiming, I cannot say 'God exists' with any certainty (or with 100% or any percentage).

Some things, maybe, but the point is that technically, in the case of God we can't say it with 100% certainty. We can say it with 99.99% certainty and assume there is no god just like we assume there is no such thing as an invisible pink unicorn that lives at the north pole. But technically there's the possibility that God and that unicorn exist.

While the possibility exists, one can still say something and appear 100% certain. Furthermore, one can have either conviction (and sense of denial going on) or essentially be lying, while claiming 100% certainty. How would the listener know if basing it on just the assertion?

I can say with 100% certainty that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

You're missing the point. The point is that I can say with 100% certainty that I believe something. It is 100% certain that I believe my house has power right now. It is not 100% certain that my house has power right now.

To which I think you are missing the point. There is no way to discern between the two in way that deals only with appearances. Furthermore, the point is a lot of what we say / convey is based on beliefs. If being analytical of assertion you just made, I may wonder:
- about your version of degrees of certainty, why "It is certain" would be different than "It is 100% certain"
- what makes you believe it is your house
- what do you mean by power, what beliefs do you have about that, why
> Perhaps more. Beliefs govern most of our assertions. Even the ones in say 15 statement radius of this one. I am one who will often include "I think" or "I believe" in my assertions. Look at the one that starts off this quote, I said, "I think you are missing the point." Whereas you said, "You're missing the point." Claims like that strike me as, "this person knows not of what they speak," and is clear to me you believe that, but are attempting to assert it as some sort of 'fact' that has nothing to do with your belief / thoughts on the matter. As if your bias has nothing to do with the claim. IMO, bias has everything to do with most, if not all, claims we make. Claims equal to statements and assertions. 2 plus 2 equals 4 would be example of what I speak, but is where I would be more inclined to say exception to overwhelming majority of examples where rule is in effect.

The point is the distinction between stating a fact itself, and stating a belief about something. If you ask me "Do you believe in God?", I can answer with 100% certainty one way or the other. If you ask me "Does God exist?", I can only respond with near certainty.

And the latter will be based mainly on your beliefs or what you believe to be collective beliefs. There will be other considerations (ideas), but bias will play dominant role, and claim of 'fact' will be filtered through bias.

Given enough time and patience, I believe I could provide billions of examples of what I am purporting. An example that is pertinent to this thread, though is tad convoluted is the assertion, "Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s)." I am saying this is a belief foremost, and idea(s) of this as 'fact independent of bias' are, I believe, demonstrably false. I've argued this many times on this thread, and short version is, human babies with infant awareness do lack a belief(s), human adults do not. If going with 'facts' that would be close to factual, within my understanding. And yet, there are many who with own bias, filter the assertion as if 'lack of belief in God' is factual for their brand of atheism. Many on this thread. I patently disagree and will not shy away from this debate, because it is as false to me as one who wishes to argue, with high degree of certainty, that 2 plus 2 equals 5. Though admittedly, I don't think and hope all others do not think that definition of atheism is as pure of a proposition as a mathematical statement. But who knows, given the parameters at work? So the debate goes on.

 

[idav]

the assertion, "Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s)." I am saying this is a belief foremost

You say this with the bias of theism. Theists think god is real so of course from that perspective denying belief seems like a belief but it can't always be true. I can very easily see a very real perspective of non-belief. Just like the non-belief I have for anything I haven't encountered or imagined, atheists can very well put god or whatever you want to call it in a true non-belief category. Just mentioning god to a kid doesn't make him less atheist than before it being mentioned, that is illogical. Arguing that something doesn't exist doesn't bring a person closer to thinking it exists.

 

[Acim]

Arguing that something doesn't exist doesn't bring a person closer to thinking it exists.

Many times I wished this were true.

But you know what they say about wishful thinking...

 

[Commoner]

Wrong! Otherwise there is no point to the OP "Atheist by birth" unless the advocates of this position are trying to make a case that ALL of our beliefs are learned. So stop hiding behind the more complex manifestations of supernaturalism and make the case!

I'll spell this out for you again:

I do not hold the position that you are attacking!

I don't remember saying that, but there is a correlation between education and belief in the supernatural, otherwise there would not be the opposite correlation - between education level and lack of religious beliefs and beliefs in supernatural phenomena. I can tell you from the pov of someone who has no higher education, that the main reason why I go online and get in discussions on these subjects, is because someone who works a blue collar job and interacts with mostly less educated people, I don't find hardly anyone interested in science, religion and philosophy. When I was part of a group trying to start up a local secular humanist group a few years ago, I was about the only one who didn't have a post-secondary education.

Ok, so you agree that more education, on average, implies less superstition, supernatural beliefs, etc... I really don't see where there's a disagreement.

No, the point is that the breakdown between rationalists and mainly intuitive thinkers will only change slowly over time, and is not something that can be educated out of a population, like many atheists and skeptics believe.

Again, you're arguing with imaginary atheists, because I do not hold this position. Education is but one step in the right direction and I don't know of any prominent atheists who hold the position that all religiousity, superstition and supernatural beliefs are likely to disappear any time soon.

When it comes to the individual, we always have the underlying intuitive system that makes snap judgments, often that we are not consciously aware of. The variable is how much or how well the individual develops that higher reasoning system that causes them to pause and reflect, before making a decision, or believing something new.

I agree.

If we lived in the Star Trek Universe, maybe a few centuries from now we would have a society that was mostly rational and discounted supernatural beliefs; but in the short term, a decline in religious adherence in Europe likely has more to do with organized religion having less of a role to play in societies where government provides a more complete role in providing necessary services. I'd like to see some numbers on how many Swedes believe in ESP, UFO's, new age and pagan religions, before I accept a statement that Dawkins made a few times back when he was promoting The God Delusion - that Swedes were 80 or 85% atheists.

You'd like to see some numbers on it? But just a couple of posts ago you made definitive claims about this stuff...that religiousity in Europe had simply been replaced by other supernatural beliefs, for instance...were you just pulling those out of your ***?

 

[Willamena]

I'll spell this out for you again:

I do not hold the position that you are attacking!

I think he was talking about KovertKitty (the poster of the OP). You could still "make the case" if you understand that position, and if you care to.

 

[Magic Man]

You did say what you (allegedly) cannot say.

Are you referring the fact that I use the phrase "God doesn't exist" in a sentence after "I can't say with 100% certainty"? I'm confused. Obviously I can say those words, and now I don't know whether you're being serious. Saying I can't say God doesn't exist with 100% certainty" is not the same as saying "It is 100% certain that God doesn't exist".

To help you along here, if I say, "God exists," what degree of certainty does it appear like I'm saying that with? This is not intended as trick question. The small little 'tricky' part is you (or me) then claiming, I cannot say 'God exists' with any certainty (or with 100% or any percentage).

I'm not talking about whether you feel certain or not. I'm talking about the fact that in reality, there's technically the possibility that God does exist. There's the possibility that I'm dreaming right now. There's the possibility that my house is no longer there. The only thing I can say absolutely for sure is that I believe no god exists. I can't honestly say absolutely for sure that God doesn't exist.

While the possibility exists, one can still say something and appear 100% certain. Furthermore, one can have either conviction (and sense of denial going on) or essentially be lying, while claiming 100% certainty. How would the listener know if basing it on just the assertion?

I can say with 100% certainty that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

This is missing the point. I hope I made the point clearer above.

To which I think you are missing the point.

Incorrect. The point is that it is not a 100% sure thing that God doesn't exist. It is a 100% sure thing that I don't believe God exists. That's the point here.

 

[idav]

Many times I wished this were true.

But you know what they say about wishful thinking...

It is illogical though. It is like if you were to tell me there is a ghost in the closet. Someone saying it doesn't make me believe it anymore than before the subject was brought up.

*checks closet*

 

[Acim]

Obviously I can say those words, and now I don't know whether you're being serious. Saying I can't say God doesn't exist with 100% certainty" is not the same as saying "It is 100% certain that God doesn't exist".

If you are saying, "Obviously I can say those words" then you have essentially confirmed what I was saying. My emphasis was on the technicality of "saying" but also how that relates to the general idea of 'believing.' Here are your two statements from above:
- I can't say God doesn't exist with 100% certainty
- It is 100% certain that God doesn't exist

The second denies whatever the first one is attempting to claim, mainly that the second cannot be said. It has been said. The issue comes back to either statement, but particularly the second one, whether or not that is believed by you. Regardless of evidence, because belief is plausibly made with no regards to evidence. And beliefs are also made with regards to rigorous proof, though we tend to phrase those with something that has connotation of 'more certainty.' For example, I can say, I believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4. But since this implies that it is 'matter of belief,' people prefer wording along lines of, 'it is certain that 2 plus 2 equals 4.' To which I think belief still applies.

I'm not talking about whether you feel certain or not. I'm talking about the fact that in reality, there's technically the possibility that God does exist. There's the possibility that I'm dreaming right now. There's the possibility that my house is no longer there. The only thing I can say absolutely for sure is that I believe no god exists. I can't honestly say absolutely for sure that God doesn't exist.

And I'm saying the belief is implied in all assertions. I can say, "God absolutely exists." There's no 'belief' in that phrasing. And I just said it. Yet, I think many are going to look at THAT as 'only his belief, for he doesn't have evidence, I don't think, and until he does, that is not something I believe or would take for certain.'

You are speaking as if there is a reality independent of your mind, where possibilities of existence / non existence reside, and yet if this is your claim, it is still subject to underlying belief(s). I understand beliefs (like faith, trust, confidence, certainty) to be derived from source of Knowledge (mostly) and/or derived from distortion of knowledge that is essentially distortion of awareness. A self inflicted limitation of awareness. One that could claim such things (with sense of certainty) that are as absurd as, "I'm not 100% certain that I exist." or "I am 100% certain that the physical world exists independent of my mind."

We can claim certain fundamental ideas about existence don't have to do with feeling and you'll note that I didn't reference feeling in previous paragraph, but at fundamental level of "how do you know that you know" it almost always comes back to a sense of feeling. In verbal dialogue this admission is made, I find, much quicker than in written dialogue where persons want to parse words and come up with witty way in which it isn't just a feeling based thought.

I hope I made the point clearer above.

I do not observe that you have. I understand that you think there is claims you can be 100% certain about because it is your belief that is being referenced with certainty not the data which you are (attempting to) disassociating with your mind / bias. So, you are saying, one can virtually say, "it is 100% certain that I believe...whatever." Doesn't really matter what the item is being referenced after that, the idea is a person can be up to 100% certain whether they believe it or not. While if they remove the language referencing their belief, they (theoretically) cannot say with 100% certainty either way. That is how I understand your point, and I got that from first time you stated it, and I challenged you on "cannot say such and such." Cause clearly we can say whatever we wish to say. Tell me why I cannot say, "God exists with 100% certainty." And I'll tell you, I just said it. The point I'm making is it all comes back to and is filtered through beliefs, which are intertwined in the claims and sub claims. Such that part of the discussion will inevitably be, "depends on what you mean by existence" which is also saying, "what do you believe existence entails." And yet, before that point, the discussion is likely in direction of, "what proof do you have for 100% certainty of God's existence."

Incorrect. The point is that it is not a 100% sure thing that God doesn't exist. It is a 100% sure thing that I don't believe God exists. That's the point here.

So, I've already explained the point I'm making, which is one can say, "it is 100% certain that God doesn't exist." While you are disputing that, and also saying that what is 100% certain is that I believe or don't believe God exists. That's where we are in discussion so far. We haven't made much headway. And not sure if we will. But I'll also add in that I doubt you can be 100% sure of your claims of your believing / not believing. That is another argument, but it does stem form the one that you are essentially making. The way I'm hearing that argument is we can't be 100% sure of the reality that is independent of our thinking, while we can be 100% about our beliefs regarding that. And since we are part of that reality, I doubt that is even accurate, given logic you are saying. But I also question it, because well, I question the stuff that we might say with 100% certainty that is allegedly beyond belief. If it is math stuff, I'm less inclined to question it. But if it is akin to, "physical world exists because it is self evident," I'm questioning that and scrutinizing the heck out of how that conclusion is deemed rational. Thus when something short of that comes up, i.e. "it is certain that I believe monkeys fly over my house on Wednesdays," I am scrutinizing the heck out of how that is 100% certain. And while I chose ridiculous statement, to make the point easier, I'm doing it with things that are 'generally accepted.' But that is mainly because of how I choose to look at things and because of how much I think hypocrisy plays a role in manifesting our reality. Such that if one says, "It is 100% certain that I believe homosexuality is a sin." I'm looking at that as hypocrisy that is 'in play.' Meaning it may not even be realized yet how that is hypocritical, but statements made in that vein strike me as, hypocrisy is at work based on how strong the assertion is being made. Even while to that person, at that time, it is 100% certain they believe it.

Btw, I was thinking "hypocrisy" from the moment I read your words, "I cannot say..." and just chose to refrain from that tangent, until now.

 

[Acim]

It is illogical though. It is like if you were to tell me there is a ghost in the closet. Someone saying it doesn't make me believe it anymore than before the subject was brought up.

*checks closet*

Agree with what you're saying. Someone saying it does or doesn't is unlikely to make one believe. For sure them saying it does, while you sit quietly in doubt (or skepticism) isn't going to make you believe.

But your earlier statement was arguing that something doesn't exist, which I think does actually bring person closer to thinking it exists. Perhaps not visibly closer in that discussion, and perhaps I can't establish this true for anyone else. I'm just saying in my experience, if I am putting effort into thoughts that amount to, "I don't believe that is possible," then later, the 'way life works,' will have me thinking, it is possible, or that could exist.

And in my experience in last 5 years, it is usually closer to 'later that day' that I'm thinking it, or thinking about what I was denying / arguing against in earlier debate. But sometimes it can be months later that it shows up as something I now have allowed possibility that it could exist.

 

[Magic Man]

It has been said.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Obviously, I can say the following sentence "It is 100% certain that God does not exist". No one is denying it's possible to say those exact words. I don't know why you're arguing this ridiculous semantic side-point. The point is that it is not 100% certain that God does not exist. The only thing you can be 100% certain of is whether or not you believe God exists.

I didn't think this point was that complicated. You cannot say with 100% certainty that God exists. You can say with 100% certainty that you believe believe God exists.

The reason for that point in this context is that there's a difference between the questions "Does God exist?" and "Do you believe God exists?". You can answer "I don't know" to the first one, but not to the second. The second is strictly yes or no. You either believe or you don't. Either way it's 100% sure that you believe or not. It's not 100% sure that God exists or not.

 

[Acim]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Obviously, I can say the following sentence "It is 100% certain that God does not exist". No one is denying it's possible to say those exact words. I don't know why you're arguing this ridiculous semantic side-point.

Because you made the ridiculously semantic side assertion.

The point is that it is not 100% certain that God does not exist. The only thing you can be 100% certain of is whether or not you believe God exists.

For some who hold the belief in lack of God, it is for them 100% certain that God does not exist (for them).

I didn't think this point was that complicated. You cannot say with 100% certainty that God exists. You can say with 100% certainty that you believe believe God exists.

Your choice of words for "you cannot say" is what is complicating things, especially if you are still hanging onto that. I can say with 100% certainty that God exists. If you understand assertions to be something other than beliefs, then our debate goes on. If you instead understand that many assertions are beliefs minus the phrasing, "I believe," then we likely agree in principle even if our rhetoric never appears to match up.

The reason for that point in this context is that there's a difference between the questions "Does God exist?" and "Do you believe God exists?". You can answer "I don't know" to the first one, but not to the second. The second is strictly yes or no. You either believe or you don't. Either way it's 100% sure that you believe or not. It's not 100% sure that God exists or not.

Yeah, you're still missing my point.

Ask me if God exists - I'll say yes.
Ask me if I believe God exists - I'll say yes.
Ask me if I know God exists - I'll say yes.

Because I know God exists, the other two are rather easy to respond to.

 

[work in progress]

I'm not "restricting the range of the discussion". I'm acknowledging that you made a strawman argument.


Actually, I see absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be the case. It doesn't matter if you have a "predisposition" towards something, you still do not yet have the available knowledge to claim to believe anything, in the same way that a person may have a predisposition towards eating a sandwich, but until that person possesses that sandwich they are without it and can somewhat accurately be referred to as asandwich.

And by your analogy, will the majority of children who have a predisposition towards eating a sandwich be sandwich eaters when they get older, or asandwichists?

 

[work in progress]

Ok, so you agree that more education, on average, implies less superstition, supernatural beliefs, etc... I really don't see where there's a disagreement.

There is a correlation between higher education and greater reliance on reasoning and being more skeptical....of course there are exceptions. But, it's not exactly accurate to say they are "less superstitious," or that superstition vanishes when they develop abilities to reason. Those underlying predispositions never go away, so It's more of a case that they are more likely to discount the intuitive judgments that led to superstition or a supernatural conclusion.

You'd like to see some numbers on it? But just a couple of posts ago you made definitive claims about this stuff...that religiousity in Europe had simply been replaced by other supernatural beliefs, for instance...were you just pulling those out of your ***?

What do you consider definitive claims? The only polling data I came across on this subject was based on the percentages believing in five paranormal beliefs in the U.S., Canada and England. I don't know how England compares with continental Europe, especially Scandinavia, but of the five questions, they are more likely to believe in haunted houses and communicating with the dead, than either Americans or Canadians.

If their is a decline in traditional religious beliefs in Europe, that doesn't mean they become atheists, as claimed by Dawkins. If there is a high acceptance of paranormal beliefs and growing interests in paganism and other unconventional religions, that would mean exchanging one set of supernatural beliefs for a different one.