Why don't atheists change faiths very often?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hesitate to call a baby born in a certain country a member of that country. In a hypothetical situation, a baby born in America could be taken to England, raised British, be considered British, and remain oblivious to American heritage. A baby really can't even tell you their gender identity or sexual orientation, they don't know that something outside of their vision exist for awhile, they don't know of their own existence for awhile. How can it be said they are either when they don't even realize they exist?

If a baby doesn't have the capability to be a theist, then they're necessarily an atheist.

From the earliest age we can measure it, it seems that babies tend to attribute things to agency in a way that's akin to a rudimentary animism, but falls short of theism. I feel safe in assuming that in the time between birth and these measurements, babies don't develop full-blown theism and then regress into something less detailed and sophisticated by the time we can measure it.

 

[Muslim-UK]

My dogs are conscious when awake.

That is a rudimentary understanding of consciousness. Does your dog know it's awake when it's dreaming or is it able to distinguish between the two phenomena? This is just scratching the surface on the topic. The answer can never ever come from nature on this one simply because unlike things in Nature, you can not observe consciousnesses, certainly not on a subjective level. I wake up to a noise outside the house, I'm convinced it's a armed burglar, can my consciousness be examined to see why I'm perceiving that way? Can anything in that moment change my mind? My wife wakes and thinks it's just a fox rummaging through he garden. Try measuring and explaining that level of subjective thought. As you say, we have to watch this space and see what the future brings.

For now this is sufficient an argument to show consciousness is not a by product of naturalism. The animal kingdom is content with existing, mankind however seeks beyond that, we seek to answer why we are here and what our purpose in life is.

... but not only can they not push the naturalistic alternatives off of those lists, they can't rise above the bottom of the list due to their unparsimonious nature. They invoke the existence of the most complex thing imaginable - that is, the entity least likely to exist undesigned and uncreated - to explain the existence of things that look too complex to some people to exist undesigned and uncreated. That's a flawed argument.

What dictates something undesigned, uncreated and possessing all the wisdom known in the Universe must itself be created?

 

[Altfish]

What dictates something undesigned, uncreated and possessing all the wisdom known in the Universe must itself be created?

You are on a slippy slope that leads to the inevitable question, "What created the creator?"

 

[Looncall]

That is a rudimentary understanding of consciousness. Does your dog know it's awake when it's dreaming or is it able to distinguish between the two phenomena? This is just scratching the surface on the topic. The answer can never ever come from nature on this one simply because unlike things in Nature, you can not observe consciousnesses, certainly not on a subjective level. I wake up to a noise outside the house, I'm convinced it's a armed burglar, can my consciousness be examined to see why I'm perceiving that way? Can anything in that moment change my mind? My wife wakes and thinks it's just a fox rummaging through he garden. Try measuring and explaining that level of subjective thought. As you say, we have to watch this space and see what the future brings.

For now this is sufficient an argument to show consciousness is not a by product of naturalism. The animal kingdom is content with existing, mankind however seeks beyond that, we seek to answer why we are here and what our purpose in life is.




What dictates something undesigned, uncreated and possessing all the wisdom known in the Universe must itself be created?

Why do you suppose that consciousness cannot be explained? It is clearly a process that occurs in brains.

It is a regrettably common flaw of religious thinking to ignore processes and to think of everything in terms of persons and substances.

By the way, it is hilariously inane to quote scripture to unbelievers.

 

[Muslim-UK]

You are on a slippy slope that leads to the inevitable question, "What created the creator?"

I'm waiting for 'it aint necessarily' so to respond, as he may not have a answer to my question, thus no need for me to answer just yet.

What dictates something undesigned, uncreated and possessing all the wisdom known in the Universe must itself be created?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Why do you suppose that consciousness cannot be explained? It is clearly a process that occurs in brains.

Explain it using the Scientific method.

It is a regrettably common flaw of religious thinking to ignore processes and to think of everything in terms of persons and substances.

There are no processes that you can use to measure or explain the points I raised on consciousness.

By the way, it is hilariously inane to quote scripture to unbelievers.

The site is called 'Religious' forums and I'm a Muslim. What do you want me to quote as my evidences?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

babies don't develop full-blown theism and then regress into something less detailed and sophisticated by the time we can measure it.

As far as we can tell, who babies develop into depends on culture (to an extent, anyways, especially in regards to religion) They aren't entirely a blank slate, of course, but there is little room to doubt why Christians are found in the West, Buddhists in the East, why Hindus are in India, and why a place like Norway is considered way more Atheist than America. Of course none of these babies are born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Atheist, but rather they must be taught these things.

 

[LuisDantas]

Explain it using the Scientific method.

That is being done, to considerable success, for at least a few decades now.

Yet I suspect that what you truly mean to say is that it is not possible to offer satisfactory rational explanations to what you perceive as inherently miraculous.

That is a matter of aesthetical perception, though. There is no true logical challenge there. You might just as easily (and with as much justification) profer that there is no rational explanation for the way colors combine, or for the existence of music.

There are no processes that you can use to measure or explain the points I raised on consciousness.

The site is called 'Religious' forums and I'm a Muslim. What do you want me to quote as my evidences?

I just don't know why Muslims are supposed not to have other sources and other arguments beyond scripture.

I sort-of-suspect that many Muslims see that as a good habit, since so often we kuffar are asked to offer our own "scriptures" or have our claims treated as if they relied on authoritative texts and writers.

 

[Muslim-UK]

As far as we can tell, who babies develop into depends on culture (to an extent, anyways, especially in regards to religion) They aren't entirely a blank slate, of course, but there is little room to doubt why Christians are found in the West, Buddhists in the East, why Hindus are in India, and why a place like Norway is considered way more Atheist than America. Of course none of these babies are born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Atheist, but rather they must be taught these things.

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
Humans are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and life after death, according to a major three-year international study

Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study

Everyone is born believing in God, but it is the upbringing which shapes what religious/non religious path they will take, some follow their parents and peers.

And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." Qur'an 7:172

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as we can tell, who babies develop into depends on culture (to an extent, anyways, especially in regards to religion) They aren't entirely a blank slate, of course, but there is little room to doubt why Christians are found in the West, Buddhists in the East, why Hindus are in India, and why a place like Norway is considered way more Atheist than America. Of course none of these babies are born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Atheist, but rather they must be taught these things.

If they're not born with any particular belief, then they're born atheist. Atheism isn't "taught", because there's nothing to teach.

Skepticism can be taught and it tends to inoculate a person against theism, but I'm not saying that babies are born skeptics.

And we aren't born blank slates; we're born malleable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Everyone is born believing in God, but it is the upbringing which shapes what religious/non religious path they will take, some follow their parents and peers.

Nah. That is not at all true.

A neurological predisposition towards eventually developing some form of supernatural belief is apparently frequent.

Even if it were universal (and it probably isn't), that would still fall quite short of the Quranic claim.

And that is before considering that the actual supernatural beliefs end up all over the place, very often at odds with others that happen just as spontaneously.

 

[Looncall]

Explain it using the Scientific method.

There are no processes that you can use to measure or explain the points I raised on consciousness.

The site is called 'Religious' forums and I'm a Muslim. What do you want me to quote as my evidences?

The quran is authoritative only to muslims. When you quote it to non-muslims, if is as if you say nothing.

Evidence is only useful if it can be shared with anyone, not just those who share a particular superstition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If a baby doesn't have the capability to be a theist, then they're necessarily an atheist.

Are you familiar with the following term? I think that I might have first seen it one of your posts several months ago:

MECE principle - pronounced 'me see', is a grouping principle for separating a set of items into subsets that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

Theist and atheist form such a group. Everybody is at least one, and nobody is both at the same time in the same sense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is a rudimentary understanding of consciousness. Does your dog know it's awake when it's dreaming or is it able to distinguish between the two phenomena? This is just scratching the surface on the topic. The answer can never ever come from nature on this one simply because unlike things in Nature, you can not observe consciousnesses, certainly not on a subjective level. I wake up to a noise outside the house, I'm convinced it's a armed burglar, can my consciousness be examined to see why I'm perceiving that way? Can anything in that moment change my mind? My wife wakes and thinks it's just a fox rummaging through he garden. Try measuring and explaining that level of subjective thought. As you say, we have to watch this space and see what the future brings.

For now this is sufficient an argument to show consciousness is not a by product of naturalism. The animal kingdom is content with existing, mankind however seeks beyond that, we seek to answer why we are here and what our purpose in life is.

We seem to be talking about different things. I thought that when you wrote that consciousness, "sets us apart from the animal Kingdom" that you were implying that consciousness was not found outside of the human race. You now seem to be talking about judgment and other elements of the conscious experience, which though dependent on the phenomenon of consciousness, is distinct from consciousness per se.

Incidentally, I think that you meant apart from the rest of kingdom Animalia. We are very much a part of that kingdom.

I also notice that you tend to ignore the hard questions. How could a conscious agent possibly be the author or creator of consciousness. Can we just agree that that is self-contradictory and logically impossible? If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to make a comment to that effect this time.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you familiar with the following term? I think that I might have first seen it one of your posts several months ago:

MECE principle - pronounced 'me see', is a grouping principle for separating a set of items into subsets that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

Theist and atheist form such a group. Everybody is at least one, and nobody is both at the same time in the same sense.

Much as I would rather not encourage the perception that babies are somehow not atheists, I don't think the MECE principle quite applies to atheism and theism. The concept of theism is just too vague to warrant such a clear-cut distinction.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm waiting for 'it aint necessarily' so to respond, as he may not have a answer to my question, thus no need for me to answer just yet.

I didn't answer your question, "What dictates something undesigned, uncreated and possessing all the wisdom known in the Universe must itself be created?" because I never made the claim that you are challenging. I guess that I could have told you so before. My claim was that it is illogical to posit the existence of such a thing to account for something simpler such as a living cell.

If such a thing as a god can exist uncreated and undesigned, then perforce, so much more so can a living cell.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The site is called 'Religious' forums and I'm a Muslim. What do you want me to quote as my evidences?

Scripture is not evidence of anything except that the scripture was written, presumably believed, and therefore preserved. His point is likely obvious to you. You can offer scripture when somebody asks you why you believe what you do, but not when trying to convince the out-group to agree with you. We don't consider scripture authoritative or of divine provenance.

I generally don't read those passages, especially when they are more than a single statement. If I did, it would only be to see what Muslims are reading - not for history, science, a moral code, other life advice, or anything that I would call wisdom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you familiar with the following term? I think that I might have first seen it one of your posts several months ago:

MECE principle - pronounced 'me see', is a grouping principle for separating a set of items into subsets that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

Theist and atheist form such a group. Everybody is at least one, and nobody is both at the same time in the same sense.

Funny - I just posted about this, then went to read your post.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept and I agree that it applies here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The concept of theism is just too vague to warrant such a clear-cut distinction.

Why do you say that? It may very well be that "god" can't be objectively defined in a way that works for all gods (or even mainstream gods), but as long as each person recognizes things as gods or not, we can identify them as theists or atheists. The term "gods" in a general sense is messy, but at an individual level, the question of whether someone is or isn't a theist is just a straight binary.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do you say that? It may very well be that "god" can't be objectively defined in a way that works for all gods (or even mainstream gods), but as long as each person recognizes things as gods or not, we can identify them as theists or atheists. The term "gods" in a general sense is messy, but at an individual level, the question of whether someone is or isn't a theist is just a straight binary.

Maybe it is. I would not bet on it, though.

And I don't know if MECE applies when the decision of to which group the individuals belong is entirely arbitrary,either.