Atheist by birth?

[laffy_taffy]

There are always exceptions to the rule, and a predisposition is only that-- it doesn't mandate.

No. You actually have to be taught about god and religion. You don't come out of the womb believing these things!

You cite yourself as an exception to the claim that theism could be the default position. So, would one example of someone who always felt as if a god existed destroy the possibility that atheism is the default position?

To believe in something you have to have confidence/conviction in the existence or truth of something. As we discussed throughout this whole thread, babies are without beliefs. One of the many beliefs that they are without is the belief that gods exist. This is the definition of an atheist. Someone who has no belief in (the existence of ) gods.

The whole thing is silly. There is really no "default position". I believe that humans are predisposed to develop a belief in gods, but this doesn't mean we are all born theists. That's just a silly statement, much like the assertion that babies are atheists.

Of course it is silly to believe that babies are born theist. Being "predisposed to develop" something doesn't mean that they currently have a particular belief, nor that they ever will.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe labels mean something. So, if you do believe that a god exists, I don't think you should go around describing yourself as an atheist just because you want to.

Yeah, that would be pretty stupid. Why would anyone want to anyway?

But, I do not think we should be ascribing labels to children who have not voiced their opinion, and have no need of labels anyway.

I don't think most people (atheists included) go around labeling babies these things in the "real world." I think it is really only discussed in forums such as these. If someone is without something (i.e. a belief), then that is describing a state of being. You are not presuming what the person believes about anything, or what they may eventually believe. You are just describing their state of being without something (a belief) at the present time.

 

[Falvlun]

No. You actually have to be taught about god and religion. You don't come out of the womb believing these things!

I am not speaking about infants. Since they have no beliefs whatsoever, obviously, they do not believe that god exists.

I am talking about small children, when they first start becoming aware of their surroundings and start trying to find explanations for things. And yes, I think humans do have a predisposition to believing in an agency behind the things that happen in nature and things that are outside of their control in their own lives.

To believe in something you have to have confidence/conviction in the existence or truth of something. As we discussed throughout this whole thread, babies are without beliefs. One of the many beliefs that they are without is the belief that gods exist. This is the definition of an atheist. Someone who has no belief in (the existence of ) gods.

And I am saying that it is a misapplication of the meaning of atheism to apply it to a baby.

Of course it is silly to believe that babies are born theist. Being "predisposed to develop" something doesn't mean that they currently have a particular belief, nor that they ever will.

And it is silly to call them an atheist as well, since we don't know what they will end up believing/not believing when they are capable of doing so.

I only brought up the "predispostion" argument because people were saying that atheism was the default stance for humans. That is incorrect, or at the very least, unsubstantiated. It may the default setting for infants since they have no beliefs whatsoever, but that doesn't mean it is a default for toddlers, or children, or adults.

I don't think most people (atheists included) go around labeling babies these things in the "real world." I think it is really only discussed in forums such as these.

Then it shouldn't be used in here either. I'm a huge proponent of only making arguments that make sense and are useful in the real world.

If someone is without something (i.e. a belief), then that is describing a state of being. You are not presuming what the person believes about anything, or what they may eventually believe. You are just describing their state of being without something (a belief) at the present time.

The -ism denotes that it is about belief. We don't use the word "atheism" to talk about a state of being. We use it to talk about what a person believes (or doesn't believe) about the existence of god.

Leave the babies out of it. The labels are not mean for people who are incapable of forming a belief, much like rocks and other inanimate objects. It does not promote any sort of goodwill about atheism, nor does it aid in the understanding of atheism itself.

 

[Valjean]

If people have a predisposition to develop a belief in Gods, Falvlun, why is it so much of the Earth's human population never does?
Vedantists, Taoists, Buddhists, Confucians -- these are essentially non-theistic faiths. Why has this natural tendancy to theism not altered them?

 

[outhouse]

If people have a predisposition to develop a belief in Gods, Falvlun, why is it so much of the Earth's human population never does?
Vedantists, Taoists, Buddhists, Confucians -- these are essentially non-theistic faiths. Why has this natural tendancy to theism not altered them?

ah but they do have beliefs?


the majority of the worlds population is religious. There is no debate and it is statistically proven

 

[Falvlun]

If people have a predisposition to develop a belief in Gods, Falvlun, why is it so much of the Earth's human population never does?
Vedantists, Taoists, Buddhists, Confucians -- these are essentially non-theistic faiths. Why has this natural tendancy to theism not altered them?

It is not a tendency towards theism per se. More of a tendency to ascribe agency to natural events. So, this could be seen in their belief in ancestor worship, where their departed relatives have the ability to change things in the natural world.

Just out of curiosity, how did early Asian cultures explain rain, earthquakes, and the like? If I'm not mistaken, beliefs in various nature spirits were prevalent.

The culture in which the child is raised undoubtedly has a strong influence upon the beliefs that the child will likely form. But what, if anything, does the child believe before culture and parents have a chance to work on him?

I would assume most 5 year olds, both Eastern and Western, are afraid of "monsters" in their closets or under their beds. What causes them to consistently believe that some entity is causing those noises or weird shadows, rather than some natural explanation? It's that sort of innate predisposition to ascribing agency that I am talking about. You are right, though: that agency doesn't always have to be described as a god.

 

[Valjean]

ah but they do have beliefs?


the majority of the worlds population is religious. There is no debate and it is statistically proven

Agreed, but religiosity isn't inexorably tied to theism.

 

[laffy_taffy]

ah but they do have beliefs?

just not in the existence of gods....

the majority of the worlds population is religious. There is no debate and it is statistically proven

And? If the majority is religious including the millions of those who are religious but do not believe in any god, then it doesn't say much about the importance of god. Just shows that humans like to have the structure, support, social network, moral guidance, etc, that religions provide, no matter what god, IF ANY, that they might believe in.

Also, looking at statistics we see that the majority of the world's population does not believe that Jesus is god. Does this prove anything?

.

 

[Acim]

I really don't understand why an atheist has to have a god concept in mind to reject it whether it is Yahweh, flying spaghetti monster, the universe or your left pinky toe.

You say atheists don't have to reject all concepts yet you are saying one concept has to be brought up and rejected to count as atheism. Somethings not right there.

What I feel is being said is that if I say evidence for God is the universe, and that we can call gravity gravity, or we can call gravity God, and that in everything we may name one way, we can also name it the other way (God).

The resistance to calling it God is because of the rejection of God.

Now that is point 1 of I don't know how many points in all, but is a plateau to pause at, reflect, and hold various debates.

Me, I don't think God is in the physical, even while I believe I am that which appears physical and in physical world. I instead believe God is the non-physical concepts we are sure exist, a la, Reason, Justice, Love, Method, Math, Life, etc. Rejection of any / all these concepts as God, is rejection of God. If one is past the basics of point one, then I think one might come upon realization that amounts to second point that says, resistance of calling non-physical items God is because of the rejection of God, as concept (or Thought).

This is where I like to 'hang out' in debates. And in response to the quote above that I'm responding to, it becomes clear, I think, that there are pre-conceived notions that atheists have with regard to concept of God, and are prepared to reject, when other concepts are being equated with God. And while there are some hairs to be split in this version of debating God, the point I wish to emphasize, for sake of what this thread is about (I think), is that we have all learned what amounts to preconceived notions about what God must be, and what God cannot be, or is 'completely different' from. Such that it is not that an atheist has to have a god concept in mind to reject it, but that this is observably the case, in most of these debates. You don't 'have to have the concept,' but you simply do, and show up this way, much of the time.

Theists don't have to have the concept either, but are granted the leeway to have it, since that is what theism is, (belief in existence). I believe (strongly, and rationally) that in order for atheist to maintain atheism, that it has to be rejection of concept as God, otherwise, atheist may cease to exist. If only for a few moments, and if only as part of discussion. At end of discussion, after thread debate is left, I think it quite plausible that self identified atheist returns to conviction that amounts to, "I know better than what that thread was saying, as I am still convinced that god doesn't exist and regardless of arguments in that thread, I reject that god, even still." If that were exact wording, I'd want a merit badge for nailing it exactly, but hopefully one can read between the lines of 'exact language' and understand the point.

Ultimately you are rejecting your preconceived notion of what God must be.

Guess what? Some theists are asked to go through this exercise, often, as there are many ways to put this. The one I'm using is: to really connect with God, one must set aside preconceived notion(s), if only for a few moments. Theist can come back after that, to ideas that God is male, with white beard, sitting on clouds, and yadda yadda yadda, but that preconceived notion will make it really hard to connect in experience. In what is truly an objective way.

Other variations on this are:
- kill the buddha
- God is not stranger than we think, God is stranger than we can think
- Judge not lest ye be judged
- there will never be an universal theology, but universal experience is not only necessary but inevitable

According to us, babies don't have preconceived notions of God / deities, and thus are implicit atheists (within context of this thread, for sure). You who are reading this do have preconceived notions of God / deities even if you want to attempt to convince 'others' that this is not so. Letting go of those preconceived notions will actually, believe it or not, get you closer to God. Rejecting them is actually, in a way, having them persist. But since that is perhaps deeper than you are willing to accept (right now), we'll just stay to the idea of rejecting them doesn't make you all that different than some of the theists in the room who also may have preconceived notions that are 'getting in the way.'

 

[Acim]

To believe in something you have to have confidence/conviction in the existence or truth of something.

This is simply not accurate for the term that is belief. This is actually closer to faith, and what I think most would say is 'strong faith.'

Belief can be as simple as, I believe it will rain tomorrow. But don't quote me on that.

 

[laffy_taffy]

To believe in something you have to have confidence/conviction in the existence or truth of something.

This is simply not accurate for the term that is belief. This is actually closer to faith, and what I think most would say is 'strong faith.'

Belief can be as simple as, I believe it will rain tomorrow. But don't quote me on that.

We're talking about believing in the existence of something (god), not just using the word as #5 below "Oh, I suppose god exists...."

be·lieve

   [bih-leev]
verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.

5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

Believe | Define Believe at Dictionary.com

 

[Acim]

And while you may be gravitating toward certain definitions, I am saying they are akin to faith.

But theism as 'belief in God' could be as simple as, "I accept God exists." And that can translate into, "For sake of this discussion, I accept that god(s) exist."

Belief has I would say a very wide spectrum. Could be something one mostly doubts, but allows basic idea for. Like, I doubt oil will be around in another 200 years, but I believe it could be still with us. And belief on other side of the spectrum could be something one has high conviction in, and very little doubt, almost masquerading as knowledge. Such as, I believe I am existing in a physical world.

 

[Acim]

be·lieve

   [bih-leev]
verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.

5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

Believe | Define Believe at Dictionary.com

Along with this, I'm compelled to add from same website, definition for belief.
be·lief   [bih-leef]
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Belief | Define Belief at Dictionary.com

My highlighted items are to demonstrate the spectrum of the word we are working with. I realize many here might want to write belief in this context off to #4 and be done with it, but I think #1 is #1 for a reason. Beliefs are opinions at a base level, and convictions at a stronger (or strongest) level. Though arguably trust and faith would be as strong.

As one who uses the word often, I think it covers everything that is unknown, unknowable and known and knowable.

 

[laffy_taffy]

And while you may be gravitating toward certain definitions, I am saying they are akin to faith.

But theism as 'belief in God' could be as simple as, "I accept God exists." And that can translate into, "For sake of this discussion, I accept that god(s) exist."

Belief has I would say a very wide spectrum. Could be something one mostly doubts, but allows basic idea for. Like, I doubt oil will be around in another 200 years, but I believe (think) it could be still with us. And belief on other side of the spectrum could be something one has high conviction in, and very little doubt, almost masquerading as knowledge. Such as, I believe I am existing in a physical world.

To hold a belief, one must have some confidence or at least some reason that they crossed the threshold from having no belief to belief. It's not quite the same usage as when you use it as another word for "think" such as: " I believe (think) I'll have another drink."

 

[idav]

What I feel is being said is that if I say evidence for God is the universe, and that we can call gravity gravity, or we can call gravity God, and that in everything we may name one way, we can also name it the other way (God).

The resistance to calling it God is because of the rejection of God.

Now that is point 1 of I don't know how many points in all, but is a plateau to pause at, reflect, and hold various debates.

Me, I don't think God is in the physical, even while I believe I am that which appears physical and in physical world. I instead believe God is the non-physical concepts we are sure exist, a la, Reason, Justice, Love, Method, Math, Life, etc. Rejection of any / all these concepts as God, is rejection of God. If one is past the basics of point one, then I think one might come upon realization that amounts to second point that says, resistance of calling non-physical items God is because of the rejection of God, as concept (or Thought).

This is where I like to 'hang out' in debates. And in response to the quote above that I'm responding to, it becomes clear, I think, that there are pre-conceived notions that atheists have with regard to concept of God, and are prepared to reject, when other concepts are being equated with God. And while there are some hairs to be split in this version of debating God, the point I wish to emphasize, for sake of what this thread is about (I think), is that we have all learned what amounts to preconceived notions about what God must be, and what God cannot be, or is 'completely different' from. Such that it is not that an atheist has to have a god concept in mind to reject it, but that this is observably the case, in most of these debates. You don't 'have to have the concept,' but you simply do, and show up this way, much of the time.

Theists don't have to have the concept either, but are granted the leeway to have it, since that is what theism is, (belief in existence). I believe (strongly, and rationally) that in order for atheist to maintain atheism, that it has to be rejection of concept as God, otherwise, atheist may cease to exist. If only for a few moments, and if only as part of discussion. At end of discussion, after thread debate is left, I think it quite plausible that self identified atheist returns to conviction that amounts to, "I know better than what that thread was saying, as I am still convinced that god doesn't exist and regardless of arguments in that thread, I reject that god, even still." If that were exact wording, I'd want a merit badge for nailing it exactly, but hopefully one can read between the lines of 'exact language' and understand the point.

Ultimately you are rejecting your preconceived notion of what God must be.

Guess what? Some theists are asked to go through this exercise, often, as there are many ways to put this. The one I'm using is: to really connect with God, one must set aside preconceived notion(s), if only for a few moments. Theist can come back after that, to ideas that God is male, with white beard, sitting on clouds, and yadda yadda yadda, but that preconceived notion will make it really hard to connect in experience. In what is truly an objective way.

Other variations on this are:
- kill the buddha
- God is not stranger than we think, God is stranger than we can think
- Judge not lest ye be judged
- there will never be an universal theology, but universal experience is not only necessary but inevitable

According to us, babies don't have preconceived notions of God / deities, and thus are implicit atheists (within context of this thread, for sure). You who are reading this do have preconceived notions of God / deities even if you want to attempt to convince 'others' that this is not so. Letting go of those preconceived notions will actually, believe it or not, get you closer to God. Rejecting them is actually, in a way, having them persist. But since that is perhaps deeper than you are willing to accept (right now), we'll just stay to the idea of rejecting them doesn't make you all that different than some of the theists in the room who also may have preconceived notions that are 'getting in the way.'

You have some pretty good points in there but there are some things that are bugging me. When you say atheists are rejecting the preconcieved notion of god I think that is false. Debate doesn't work that way really. You can say an atheist has already made up there mind and will not change it but this is false. For any belief of god anyone has, I would believe it existed if sufficent evidence were given to turn my reasonable doubt. That is how it works for the gods I don't believe in so it would work for an atheist as well since they only believe in one less god than I do. Same reason atheists would reject my god is reasonable doubt and it isn't that they wouldn't listen to me if I claimed to have evidence that was undeniable. Reasonable doubt in itself is very subjective and it is hard to convince someone of solid proof when someone else calls it circumstantial.

One thing that rings true with what you said is that theists don't have to have a concept either. What is interesting about that is that the ambiguity of some concepts of god are so subtle that someone could trip over it without knowing it. At that point there really isn't a preconcieved notion of god as god becomes pretty much undefinable. I would say that this is a big problem for many atheists that someone can't even accurately define god so god isn't even a concept that can be rejected as the notion goes beyond language.

As for the thread, ignorance is the truest form of unbelief for any concept. The thing is that this unbelief can truly be the same way atheists percieve the belief people have in deities. When someone brings up concepts that are foreign and unrecognizable and uprovable we simply will not believe that person without some sort of evidence to validate any of the claims. That is a big part of skepticism that people grow accustomed to using in the face of constant uncertainty and untruths. People can say anything they want to the point that we think we have heard it all but all we can do is listen and not pay any merit to what is being said or we can ask for evidence outside of personal experience. Unbelief is default for a true skeptic just as much as it is default for someone who never came across the idea to be skeptical of.

 

[Falvlun]

To hold a belief, one must have some confidence or at least some reason that they crossed the threshold from having no belief to belief. It's not quite the same usage as when you use it as another word for "think" such as: " I believe (think) I'll have another drink."

You are thinking too black and white (belief vs no belief). We inhabit a world of gray. I have many beliefs, but some are certainly stronger than others. That's why I see the whole thing on a spectrum of probability. 50% would be the perfect balance point of "no opinion" (which I believe is exceedingly rare); on the side towards zero, you have "don't believe", and on the side towards 100%, you have "believe".

For example: How likely do I think it is that alien life exists? Somewhat likely, say around 60%. How likely do I think it is that intelligent alien life exists? Moderately unlikely, say around 20%. How likely do I think it is that intelligent alien life will visit us? Extremely unlikely, say around 1%. I have one belief, and two "don't believes". But my two "don't believes" are at different strengths. I am more confident that intelligent aliens won't visit us than I am that intelligent aliens don't exist at all.

Opinions certainly count as beliefs, but they are "weaker", as in, they fall closer to the 50% mark, than either the 0 or 100%.

 

[laffy_taffy]

You are thinking too black and white (belief vs no belief). We inhabit a world of gray. I have many beliefs, but some are certainly stronger than others. That's why I see the whole thing on a spectrum of probability. 50% would be the perfect balance point of "no opinion" (which I believe is exceedingly rare); on the side towards zero, you have "don't believe", and on the side towards 100%, you have "believe".

For example: How likely do I think it is that alien life exists? Somewhat likely, say around 60%. How likely do I think it is that intelligent alien life exists? Moderately unlikely, say around 20%. How likely do I think it is that intelligent alien life will visit us? Extremely unlikely, say around 1%. I have one belief, and two "don't believes". But my two "don't believes" are at different strengths. I am more confident that intelligent aliens won't visit us than I am that intelligent aliens don't exist at all.

Opinions certainly count as beliefs, but they are "weaker", as in, they fall closer to the 50% mark, than either the 0 or 100%.

We are not talking generalities but rather about one specific belief: Do you hold the belief that god exists? Yes or No. It is pretty straight forward. You either believe (whatever the strength of that conviction might be), or you don't. Now, I can see there being variation as to the strength or conviction of a belief once you actually have a belief. But that is still a dichotomous position regarding belief/no belief. You either have it (whatever the conviction) or you do not. Answers such as "I don't know" or "I believe that gods are a possibility", are not an affirmative answer. Heck, as an atheist, I don't "know" if gods exist, and I believe that gods are a possibility as well. So? Do I currently believe that a god actually does in fact exist. No. Not yet.

 

[Acim]

To hold a belief, one must have some confidence or at least some reason that they crossed the threshold from having no belief to belief. It's not quite the same usage as when you use it as another word for "think" such as: " I believe (think) I'll have another drink."

I say it is. Dictionary agrees (previously noted as opinion).

You are just holding it to higher standard on the overall spectrum.

Look up "think" in any dictionary and you'll see 'believe' and/or 'belief' somewhere in there.
> I just found it in 2 dictionaries.

Or I believe I found it. Yeah, I think I did.

 

[Acim]

When you say atheists are rejecting the preconcieved notion of god I think that is false.

To me, it is not 'the' preconceived notion, but 'a' preconceived notion. Since we are splitting hairs, I do think this is important. There isn't just one notion in all the world of god's existence. Atheist types will be among first to point out that not all theists agree on God and God's existence. So, like theists, atheists have a preconceived notion.

Debate doesn't work that way really. You can say an atheist has already made up there mind and will not change it but this is false. For any belief of god anyone has, I would believe it existed if sufficent evidence were given to turn my reasonable doubt.

And I'm saying laced in your version 'sufficient evidence' is a preconceived notion. Look at it this way, your version of reasonable doubt and sufficient evidence could very well be met with denial / rejection by another. Even a theist type.

That is how it works for the gods I don't believe in so it would work for an atheist as well since they only believe in one less god than I do. Same reason atheists would reject my god is reasonable doubt and it isn't that they wouldn't listen to me if I claimed to have evidence that was undeniable. Reasonable doubt in itself is very subjective and it is hard to convince someone of solid proof when someone else calls it circumstantial.

Well I just made point you already made, but with slightly different language. If we are agreeing that reasonable doubt (here) is subjective, then we at least have partial agreement. I may be going further with idea that says 'sufficient evidence' is laced with preconceived evidence. Like say that evidence for one person is, "God would speak to me in a dream." Well, I think all of us who are not that person could poke holes in that and assert that is not sufficient. And while that poking holes is where we are kinda sorta stuck on, the point I'm getting across is once a person puts forth what 'sufficient evidence' looks like (to them), the makings of preconceived notion are rather visible.

One thing that rings true with what you said is that theists don't have to have a concept either. What is interesting about that is that the ambiguity of some concepts of god are so subtle that someone could trip over it without knowing it. At that point there really isn't a preconcieved notion of god as god becomes pretty much undefinable. I would say that this is a big problem for many atheists that someone can't even accurately define god so god isn't even a concept that can be rejected as the notion goes beyond language.

We'd have agreement on this is we went back and forth enough. I already agree in principle. Though, I think most concepts are this way. Like "Life" or "Love" or "Reason" or (even) "Science." If I go to persons I know are 'like minded' with my general brand of theism, we are not really going to disagree on basic definition of God. We might disagree on influence God exercises and interpretation of Divine guidance, but if we did a check-in, we'd likely have basic agreement on God. Take this group and mix it in with say (I dunno, rather go with bit absurd to avoid controversy) FSM believers and while influence may be in some ways agreed upon, I think the fundamental concept would appear different.

I am one who seeks that overlap in theistic understandings (even non theistic conceptions) and do my best to adapt accordingly. My version of adaptation can show up less than perfect I would say often.

 

[Acim]

Do you hold the belief that god exists? Yes or No. It is pretty straight forward. You either believe (whatever the strength of that conviction might be), or you don't. Now, I can see there being variation as to the strength or conviction of a belief once you actually have a belief. But that is still a dichotomous position regarding belief/no belief. You either have it (whatever the conviction) or you do not. Answers such as "I don't know" or "I believe that gods are a possibility", are not an affirmative answer. Heck, as an atheist, I don't "know" if gods exist, and I believe that gods are a possibility as well. So? Do I currently believe that a god actually does in fact exist. No. Not yet.

If left to black and white, either you do believe or you don't, then in this black and white mode is where I come in and say, don't believe, then don't discuss. If do discuss, you enter into gray territory, and I'll be glad to point that out each and every time you enter into discussion. Want to fall back after that discussion to 'default' position of 'do not believe' that's fine. But while in black and white mode, you can claim all you desire you lack belief, evidence is insufficient, yadda yadda yadda. Yet in same mindset, you show up 'way over your head' when making claims of, "I would think God would reveal himself with a chariot flying overhead and delivering presents on New Years Eve, if he truly existed."

 

[SPACKlick]

on a spectrum of probability. 50% would be the perfect balance point of "no opinion" (which I believe is exceedingly rare); on the side towards zero, you have "don't believe", and on the side towards 100%, you have "believe".

Umm, I'm not sure that's quite right. I think believe might be higher than "above fifty" because There are thniks you think are probably more likely than not that you wouldn't say you believed were true, just kind of had a hunch. And everything below believe is not believe btu an equal distance below 50 as believe is above 50 there is another line where you cross into "believe not"