Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[Hollie]

Really?

Didn't know that.

Can you name a few of those tribes?

Here's two. I'm trying to capture the links on my phone's browser but the formatting (text and url data ) is difficult.

Pirahã people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science - Google Books

Cincinnati quarterly journal of science - Volumes 1-2 - Page 283 -Google Books Result books.google.com/books?id... Samuel Almond Miller, L.M. Hosea - 1874 - Science

The Toupinambas of Brazil had no religion.

Those studies really don't relate to this issue. They deal with a more comparative idea of organized religion and beliefs which reflect our own views of religious thought. If you looked further into those studies you would find a variety of beliefs dealing with the supernatural which need to be taken on their own rather than as a comparison to western belief.

I understand your perspective but the inference from the alleged "study" that has been copied and pasted multiple times was assigning the Christian concept of "gods" to a culture with no such conception.

Similarly, I would propose that our definition of "supernatural" is a term and a conception that would have been unknown to tribes, isolated from such ideas. It's arrogance and cultural bias to impose the Christian conceptions of gods on a people who have no such conception (or use) for those gods.

Remember that Christian theism carries with it a lot of baggage such as conceptions of a unique triune god(s), a flawed humanity, a savior, heaven and hell, Satan, etc.

There is no reason to expect a culture isolated from such (anti-human) ideas would spontaneously generate such theism.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh oh, you're lying. There are references to multiple studies over many years; including one in China and another from Cambridge. There have also been references to Japanese studies; and the Oxford study included research from 40 different countries, with researchers of different belief systems.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

 

[PratchettFan]

True. However, what the atheist zealots claim is that it is our *natural* state to be atheist, and faith in a creator is a completely learned concept.

It isn't.

Faith in a creator is learned. What the study describes is the tendency of humans to invent answers, but I doubt any of the children involved were not exposed to the concept of a creator. The surmise that they would have arrived at that conclusion absent that exposure is just that... surmise. It is mere assumption with no suporting basis. Those children might just as easily comclude the universe was belched from a giant walrus.

 

[koshergrl]

Read the material. It addresses that, and you are incorrect.

 

[PratchettFan]

Here's two. I'm trying to capture the links on my phone's browser but the formatting (text and url data ) is difficult.

Pirahã people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science - Google Books

Cincinnati quarterly journal of science - Volumes 1-2 - Page 283 -Google Books Result books.google.com/books?id... Samuel Almond Miller, L.M. Hosea - 1874 - Science

The Toupinambas of Brazil had no religion.

Those studies really don't relate to this issue. They deal with a more comparative idea of organized religion and beliefs which reflect our own views of religious thought. If you looked further into those studies you would find a variety of beliefs dealing with the supernatural which need to be taken on their own rather than as a comparison to western belief.

I understand your perspective but the inference from the alleged "study" that has been copied and pasted multiple times was assigning the Christian concept of "gods" to a culture with no such conception.

Similarly, I would propose that our definition of "supernatural" is a term and a conception that would have been unknown to tribes, isolated from such ideas. It's arrogance and cultural bias to impose the Christian conceptions of gods on a people who have no such conception (or use) for those gods.

Remember that Christian theism carries with it a lot of baggage such as conceptions of a unique triune god(s), a flawed humanity, a savior, heaven and hell, Satan, etc.

There is no reason to expect a culture isolated from such (anti-human) ideas would spontaneously generate such theism.

Actually, there is every reason to expect just that - though I don't see why we should limit that to Christianity. Every human society in which we have historical information and more sophisiticate than small clans have had complicated religious instutitons as an integral part. No exceptions. Those much smaller clans may not have those institutions, but they do not lack belief. You may argue that belief in things such as tree spirits do not meet the definition of supernatural, but I would not agree. However, the topic of the thread is not religion but rather the tendency of human beings to create answers and I would argue that a tree spirit is precisely that. Unless you have evidence that such spirits are more than creations of the human imagination.

 

[PratchettFan]

Read the material. It addresses that, and you are incorrect.

I assume you are responding to me. If you don't quote the post, it is difficult to know for sure.

I did read it. It wasn't even the material, it was an article about the material. It does not address my point and I am not incorrect.

But do please prove me wrong. Point out where in the article it said the children had never been exposed to the concept of a creator and came up with the concept entirely on their own.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism is a learned concept that is unnatural to the human brain, is what it teaches us.

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is a learned concept that is unnatural to the human brain, is what it teaches us.

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

 

[koshergrl]

Atheism is a learned concept that is unnatural to the human brain, is what it teaches us.

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You're all over the place here.

This discussion isn't about dismissing other gods. Nobody has brought that up, in fact. The discussion we're having here pertains to the atheist assertion that faith in a creator is entirely a man-made construct. It isn't.

"To various degrees, our brains search for a larger meaning in the world around us, and belief in a higher, all-knowing power can fill this need. Specific religious practices and teachings, on the other hand, are a product of environment and upbringing.
Molecular biologist Gene Hamer, author of the "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes," isolated the specific gene that makes humans more likely to be spiritual."

Is there a neurological predisposition for religion? - Curiosity

And in fact, the studies show that children of EVERY age (including infant) find it easier to believe in the supernatural than they find it to believe in atheism. I already quoted and linked that information. More than once.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me take this out a bit further to see if I can explain my point of view.

To me, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the existence or non-existence of God/gods. That is a question which has no place in any scientific discussion because there is no basis for an investigation. Science does not address the question of God and cannot address it. Any discussion on that subject is purely a matter of belief. Any position on the subject, whether positive or negative, is belief.

To begin, define God. It can't be done. All anyone can do is make up a concept of God from their imagination. There is no evidence to support any version of God. At best, you could repeat a recitation of actions done by something called God and then you have to pick and choose between numerous texts, all claiming to accuracy and all in conflict. There is no starting point. No factual foundation. Only belief.

On the other hand, there is a considerable body of evidence on how humans think. So this particular thread is not about God or the validity of any particular belief regarding God. It is soley about how the human brain works. We are a species of believers. Pointing to a study which supports that conclusion is simpe enough, I doubt you will find many studies which would arrive at any other conclusion. But those studies only address our nature, they say absolutely nothing about the validity of any of those beliefs we might have. I can believe the Raiders should have won the super bowl, but that does not make it so. I can believe the universe was sneezed out by a giant space goat, or that a bearded guy made the earth in 7 days. But that only speaks to what I believe, not to what is.

 

[koshergrl]

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Children naturally gravitate towards faith in the supernatural. There is a God gene.

There is no Atheism gene. Atheism is not a *natural* belief; it is natural to look for a deity. Atheism, however, has to be indoctrinated and is unnatural to the human mind.

Which pretty much blows their claim that children on an island would never believe in God.

Hamer also theorizes that not only does the God gene move humans towards accepting the concept of a deity; he also argues that it increases our chance for success and survival.

 

[PratchettFan]

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You're all over the place here.

This discussion isn't about dismissing other gods. Nobody has brought that up, in fact. The discussion we're having here pertains to the atheist assertion that faith in a creator is entirely a man-made construct. It isn't.

"To various degrees, our brains search for a larger meaning in the world around us, and belief in a higher, all-knowing power can fill this need. Specific religious practices and teachings, on the other hand, are a product of environment and upbringing.
Molecular biologist Gene Hamer, author of the "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes," isolated the specific gene that makes humans more likely to be spiritual."

Is there a neurological predisposition for religion? - Curiosity

And in fact, the studies show that children of EVERY age (including infant) find it easier to believe in the supernatural than they find it to believe in atheism. I already quoted and linked that information. More than once.

You are using evidence which does not support your claim. You state that that faith in a creator is not a man-made construct, which can only mean that it comes from outside of ourselves. However, your supporting quote begins, "To various degrees, our brains search..." Our brains, not some outside force. If it is our brains doing this then it is, by definition, a man-made construct.

 

[Hollie]

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Atheism makes no claim to special, magical or supernatural intervention. We remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual "goodness" or "badness" of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.

From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Children naturally gravitate towards faith in the supernatural. There is a God gene.

There is no Atheism gene. Atheism is not a *natural* belief; it is natural to look for a deity. Atheism, however, has to be indoctrinated and is unnatural to the human mind.

Which pretty much blows their claim that children on an island would never believe in God.

Hamer also theorizes that not only does the God gene move humans towards accepting the concept of a deity; he also argues that it increases our chance for success and survival.

Children naturally gravitate toward easy answers. They will accept just about any answer you give them without question. If you raise a child as an atheist, it will be an atheist until it is old enough to begin to question. At which time it might reject atheism or continue on with it.

I believe the claim was that children raised on an island would develop their own belief in a creator, not the other way round. I have yet to see any evidence to support that claim. There have been quite a few studies done on feral children, can you point to any which developed a belief in a creator?

 

[newpolitics]

That children may be predisposed to believe in god does nothing to prove gods existence, were this even proven true. Therefore, the OP proves nothing except that children are predisposed to believe in god. Whoopee.

 

[newpolitics]

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Children naturally gravitate towards faith in the supernatural. There is a God gene.

There is no Atheism gene. Atheism is not a *natural* belief; it is natural to look for a deity. Atheism, however, has to be indoctrinated and is unnatural to the human mind.

Which pretty much blows their claim that children on an island would never believe in God.

Hamer also theorizes that not only does the God gene move humans towards accepting the concept of a deity; he also argues that it increases our chance for success and survival.

That a belief in god(s) facilitates social cohesion and hence survivability is evidence that god is likely man-made.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Atheism makes no claim to special, magical or supernatural intervention. We remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual "goodness" or "badness" of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.

From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.

I would offer that what you just wrote is 95% belief. Every statement which includes the word "infer" is 100% belief. What you are doing is attempting to demonstrate why your particular belief is superior to another belief. I see no reason to accept that your blind guess is better than any other blind guess.

Which only supports the conclusion of the article that it is a human tendency to create its own answers when no answer exists. Personally, I think it is more important to recognize when we are operating on belief than in worrying about what that belief might be.

 

[PratchettFan]

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Children naturally gravitate towards faith in the supernatural. There is a God gene.

There is no Atheism gene. Atheism is not a *natural* belief; it is natural to look for a deity. Atheism, however, has to be indoctrinated and is unnatural to the human mind.

Which pretty much blows their claim that children on an island would never believe in God.

Hamer also theorizes that not only does the God gene move humans towards accepting the concept of a deity; he also argues that it increases our chance for success and survival.

That a belief in god(s) facilitates social cohesion and hence survivability is evidence that god is likely man-made.

No. That is just evidence that belief in god(s) facilitiates social cohesion and survivability. It is not evidence about the nature of god.

 

[koshergrl]

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Children naturally gravitate towards faith in the supernatural. There is a God gene.

There is no Atheism gene. Atheism is not a *natural* belief; it is natural to look for a deity. Atheism, however, has to be indoctrinated and is unnatural to the human mind.

Which pretty much blows their claim that children on an island would never believe in God.

Hamer also theorizes that not only does the God gene move humans towards accepting the concept of a deity; he also argues that it increases our chance for success and survival.

That a belief in god(s) facilitates social cohesion and hence survivability is evidence that god is likely man-made.

Er, no, it isn't. I would love you to bore me with your reasoning on that, which flies in the face of what every single researcher has stated...wait, no I wouldn't.

 

[Hollie]

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

Atheism makes no claim to special, magical or supernatural intervention. We remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual "goodness" or "badness" of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.

From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.

I would offer that what you just wrote is 95% belief. Every statement which includes the word "infer" is 100% belief. What you are doing is attempting to demonstrate why your particular belief is superior to another belief. I see no reason to accept that your blind guess is better than any other blind guess.

Which only supports the conclusion of the article that it is a human tendency to create its own answers when no answer exists. Personally, I think it is more important to recognize when we are operating on belief than in worrying about what that belief might be.

I disagree of course with your assessment because Atheism is simply the rejection of models of gods as undemonstrated and unsupported.

Atheism proposes no answers to existence. I accept a natural cause for existence. That might generate the label of "naturalist" , irregardless of belief in any gods.