outhouse
Atheistically
https://aging.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/744.pdf
Do Genetic Factors Influence Religious Life?
Notice that question mark?
-
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!
Is Athiesm a Religion?
- Thread starter pro4life
- Start date
https://aging.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/744.pdf
Do Genetic Factors Influence Religious Life?
Notice that question mark?
One cannot believe in an idea until they exposed to it. That goes for the negation of belief, too.
You don't believe or disbelieve without something to believe or disbelieve in: a proposition.
outhouse
Atheistically
Factually wrong
Implicit atheism "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"
outhouse
Atheistically
I know the studies. Influence is a key word here, as well as the question mark.
https://aging.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/744.pdf
Do Genetic Factors Influence Religious Life?
Not believing in god is not the same as being ignorant of god.
Atheism is not ignorance.
I don't think so. Atheism is a passive stance, at least in its original form.
You don't make a point of stating a disbelief until you realize that you have it. That is not the same as actually lacking the disbelief itself.
It isn't always, but many other times it is indeed.
Again, it is not exactly the same thing as ignorance of any deity-concept. But there is at the very least a considerable overlap.
Implicit atheism occurs in non-literal situations. You're promoting it to being explicit.
outhouse
Atheistically
"Humans are programmed to believe in God because it gives them a better chance of survival, researchers claim.
A study into the way children's brains develop suggests that during the process of evolution those with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs - possibly by working in groups to ensure the future of their community."
...
'Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,' he said.
'As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.'
Why we are born to believe in God: It's wired into the brain, says psychologist | Daily Mail Online
outhouse
Atheistically
Nope, you do not get to change the definition because you do not like it.
That is the definition. Im sorry you do not like it..
Rolling the "passive" or "implicit" definition of atheism (which is debatable as a valid definition in the first place) together with "active" definitions makes the term atheism even more spectacularly useless than it already is. Not a fan.
About a belief that has to be conceived or taught to exist in the first place.
Even taking for granted that most people are born predisposed to eventually become theists, I still find it proper to call them effectively atheists until they develop enough of an abstract thinking capability to affirm (or deny) some conception of deity.
Atheism as I understand it is a default - and yes, one shared with inanimate objects, embryos and very early infants - even if perhaps one doomed to be reduced to a minority position once certain biological tendencies assert themselves during mental and social development.
Precisely. So until you are exposed to theism you are per definition not theist. Atheist.
outhouse
Atheistically
Thanks ArtieE
Bruce Hood really does hold a fringe position here, and it is not really reflective of mainstream science.
I guess that is ultimately an arbitrary choice, but I'm not sure reducing theism (or even "non-atheism") to a default is either natural or very respectful to theism either.
I'm just asking, what is the proposition about which atheism is a passive stance. If I take you literally, it's nonsensical that it be, "There is a belief about which I have yet to conceive or be taught exists." That is tantamount to nothing, and just as belief is belief about something, a stance is a stance about something, and a view is a view about something.
Fair enough; and my understanding differs. For atheism to be the equivalent of ignorance is to broaden the definition of atheism to encompass more than needed.
outhouse
Atheistically
For me it is simple and requires one to be honest with themselves.
Are babies born theist, with belief in the definition that each person personally holds to be true?
People all factually define gods differently, no child is born guessing what his or her parent believes in.
"Something exists that it is worth calling / thinking of as a deity of some kind."
"Nothing" does indeed include atheism. I am just failing to see any problem here. Maybe that is part of why I specifically am an atheist?
Atheism - my own variety anyway - is a lack before, over and above being a stance or a view. It is, exactly, a lack of belief in any deity concepts.
It is odd to think that some people would expect me to be aware of a god concept before being "allowed" to disbelieve it. Would people also assume me to be a fan of soccer from birth?
By your understanding of the concept, which is apparently quite alien to me, and which I see no useful purpose in attempting to adhere to. It genuinely puzzles me.